# Politics and News > SOCIETY & humanities >  Who is "The Government?"

## Devil505

I keep hearing angry citizens decrying this creature they refer to as "The Government" as if it's some evil being that descended on earth from the far reaches of the universe.

Aren't "We the people" the government?
Don't we hold elections at regular intervals to choose who we want to represent us?
Don't we all share some responsibility for the laws *WE* write via our elected reps in Congress?

Yes our system has problems but we have created those problems & it's up to us to find a peaceful way to resolve them.
(end of today's sermon)

What do you all think?

----------


## usfan

In america, it is supposed to be 'we the people'.  But we have devolved into a caricature of that promise, with a ruling elite, good old boy network of moneyed string pullers, & unelected power centers manipulating the citizens for their own gain.  Regular 'citizen representatives' as described by the founders, is squashed, as the money shufflers call the shots.  There are no 'mr smith goes to washington', altruistic servants of the public trust.. or so few they are overwhelmed by the corruption.

Unfortunately, the public 'servants' reflect the values & morals of the nation.. and as we have become greedy, corrupt, small, & petty, so have our representatives.  I do not see a 'peaceful way to resolve' these problems.  IMO, it will take a determined, committed minority to retake the reins of govt, & return it to the constitution & rule of law.. putting better safeguards in place, such as requiring a balanced budget, term limits, lobby & campaign reform.  Those who profit from the current system will NOT do these things, as it is against their interests to do so.  It will take a militant, defiant public will, driven by a reform driven minority to do it.  Slavery was not ended peacefully.  Women's suffrage, or prohibition was a battle..  civil rights were gained by militant, but passive aggression.  The reforms needed for america to survive will come not from the network of politicians willingly making changes in law, but they will come while they are in line at the guillotines.  That is when the politicians will condescend to make reforms.

----------

countryboy (05-31-2014),DeadEye (05-31-2014),Invayne (05-31-2014),Old Ridge Runner (05-31-2014),teeceetx (06-01-2014)

----------


## Devil505

*Regardless of their chances of passing, here's a few suggestions that I support:*
1. Strict term limits for all elective offices.
2. No private funding allowed in elections. (everything paid for out of general revenue & rich candidates not allowed to "Buy" elections with their own family wealth.
3. End legalized bribery (Campaign Contributions). i.e. if you give money to a pol you & he/she should be arrested!

----------


## catfish

.2 is a violation of the !st Amendment or so I'm told...that's one thing that has always puzzled me..How do you buy elections?...I mean if I don't like you as a candidate,I don't care if you spend a trillion dollars on your campaign I'm not voting for you.....I know that's probably an over simplified view but I don't get it.....I guess attack ads are counting on the fact that most people won't bother validating their claims and low info sheep dutifully vote for their team.

----------

DeadEye (05-31-2014),Invayne (05-31-2014),Old Ridge Runner (05-31-2014)

----------


## Devil505

> .2 is a violation of the !st Amendment or so I'm told...


I disagree. 
The first amendment..... 

*AMENDMENT I*
_Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances._

....only prohibits* Congress* from passing laws that abridge freedom of speech.
If a private party violates your privacy or inhibits your speech, your recourse is in the civil courts.

As an example: Clipper's owner Donald Sterling's only case is against his GF. The NBA came into possession of his words perfectly legally. (they read them in the newspaper)
As far as the argument that his GF violated Calif law by recording him, I invite you to read the first scenario here: http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads...man-s-Law-Quiz








> that's one thing that has always puzzled me..How do you buy elections?...I mean if I don't like you as a candidate,I don't care if you spend a trillion dollars on your campaign I'm not voting for you.....I know that's probably an over simplified view but I don't get it.....I guess attack ads are counting on the fact that most people won't bother validating their claims and low info sheep dutifully vote for their team.


Advertising is very effective at selling any product....even human pol products & why should the wealthy have an unfair advantage because they can afford it?

The way we are headed lately.... with five members of the SCOTUS selling out this country......why don't we just elect candidates based on who has more money than the next guy in offshore accounts & be done with it!?

----------


## Reverend

> I keep hearing angry citizens decrying this creature they refer to as "The Government" as if it's some evil being that descended on earth from the far reaches of the universe.
> 
> Aren't "We the people" the government?
> Don't we hold elections at regular intervals to choose who we want to represent us?
> Don't we all share some responsibility for the laws *WE* write via our elected reps in Congress?
> 
> Yes our system has problems but we have created those problems & it's up to us to find a peaceful way to resolve them.
> (end of today's sermon)
> 
> What do you all think?


I think if our elected representatives represented US instead of their party (Democrats are bad about this) a lot of problems would go away.

----------


## Hansel

> .2 is a violation of the !st Amendment or so I'm told...that's one thing that has always puzzled me..How do you buy elections?...I mean if I don't like you as a candidate,I don't care if you spend a trillion dollars on your campaign I'm not voting for you.....I know that's probably an over simplified view but I don't get it.....I guess attack ads are counting on the fact that most people won't bother validating their claims and low info sheep dutifully vote for their team.


People with a lot of money are able to crowd out or shout down a more worthy candidate of less means. It is a power struggle and money is power. 

One way to be heard in Congress is to join a special interest group of your liking. It is not fool proof but groups of citizens behind a pressure group have more say than isolated  and unorganized people because they can focus on specific issues that are of interest to them. 

Not that I am keen on either the American Legion or the AARP but these are two examples of pressure groups that supposedly speak for their members in Congress. Veteran's organizations have a unique privilege in that they can politic and still retain their tax exempt status.

I am a member of AARP as a condition of having the United Healthcare Insurance Medigap plan, and I receive a magazine and  a loose leaf bulletin from AARP on  a regular basis. Not meaning to gloat, but something in an AARP article stuck with me. As a group senior citizens have a lot of clout because they hold a terrific amount of wealth.  Money talks they say.

For those of you who may be wondering about United Healthcare Medigap insurance, we have had good luck with it and it pays off like a slot machine.
Beats the hell out of Obumacare IMO.

----------

DeadEye (05-31-2014),Old Ridge Runner (05-31-2014)

----------


## Hansel

> In america, it is supposed to be 'we the people'.  But we have devolved into a caricature of that promise, with a ruling elite, good old boy network of moneyed string pullers, & unelected power centers manipulating the citizens for their own gain.  Regular 'citizen representatives' as described by the founders, is squashed, as the money shufflers call the shots.  There are no 'mr smith goes to washington', altruistic servants of the public trust.. or so few they are overwhelmed by the corruption.
> 
> Unfortunately, the public 'servants' reflect the values & morals of the nation.. and as we have become greedy, corrupt, small, & petty, so have our representatives.  I do not see a 'peaceful way to resolve' these problems.  IMO, it will take a determined, committed minority to retake the reins of govt, & return it to the constitution & rule of law.. putting better safeguards in place, such as requiring a balanced budget, term limits, lobby & campaign reform.  Those who profit from the current system will NOT do these things, as it is against their interests to do so.  It will take a militant, defiant public will, driven by a reform driven minority to do it.  Slavery was not ended peacefully.  Women's suffrage, or prohibition was a battle..  civil rights were gained by militant, but passive aggression.  The reforms needed for america to survive will come not from the network of politicians willingly making changes in law, but they will come while they are in line at the guillotines.  That is when the politicians will condescend to make reforms.


Amen on your ideas for reining in those bozos and taking our country back.

Ross Perot (I think) spoke of an electronic town hall whereby people could participate in Congressional debate of an issue by voting on the issue.
Something like that might help to hold the idiots in line.  A lot of us are on the computer quite a bit anyway so that might be a doable idea.
Those who do not own a personal compute could use one at a library.  Seems like we would have to use a user ID and password to prevent cheating, so  maybe our SSN could be a part of there security measure.

One cannot make a person participate in the process if they don't want to but at least we could give them a chance to do it if they chose to.  Such a system might also be dovetailed into a computerized voting system in some manner, which could make  the ballot process more cost efficient.

----------


## catfish

> I disagree. 
> The first amendment..... 
> 
> *AMENDMENT I*
> _Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances._
> 
> ....only prohibits* Congress* from passing laws that abridge freedom of speech.
> If a private party violates your privacy or inhibits your speech, your recourse is in the civil courts.
> 
> ...


I did say "so I'm told"...you are probably right,and these 501c's are a joke anyway.They are just a way to back door what we were supposedly trying to control ...money corrupting the electoral process........hell, that boat left the dock a long time ago.

----------

Devil505 (05-31-2014)

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> I keep hearing angry citizens decrying this creature they refer to as "The Government" as if it's some evil being that descended on earth from the far reaches of the universe.
> 
> Aren't "We the people" the government?
> Don't we hold elections at regular intervals to choose who we want to represent us?
> Don't we all share some responsibility for the laws *WE* write via our elected reps in Congress?
> 
> Yes our system has problems but we have created those problems & it's up to us to find a peaceful way to resolve them.
> (end of today's sermon)
> 
> What do you all think?


If the government is *us* would *we* be turning *our* military against *ourselves*?

https://swordattheready.wordpress.co...inst-citizens/

----------

DeadEye (05-31-2014),Invayne (05-31-2014),Sheldonna (05-31-2014),teeceetx (06-01-2014)

----------


## Hansel

> I think if our elected representatives represented US instead of their party (Democrats are bad about this) a lot of problems would go away.


As I see it the power brokers control who is available for a general election by rigging the primaries so that their candidates win.  Then it is all over but the shouting as the general election simply gives us the choice of a lesser of two evils. So I hold my nose and vote. Maybe the people get to vote on the candidates that are on the slate but do they get to choose who is on the slate for the primaries?

Presidents sometimes seem to have an inordinate amount of power, depending on whether you are agin' him or for him. The last term and a half of Obama has been little more than a sham with the Pubs trying to block nearly everything he proposes. In most cases  I think they are justified in doing so, but is a simple nyet really good policy when it comes to serving the needs of the people? 

Obamacare slipped thru the cracks and ended up to be the boondoggle of the century so far.  What is being done to either party to amend it or to scrap it? If the Pubs can gain the control of the Congress this fall then we might see some movement on the issue but don't hold your breath on seeing any.

The rank partisanship in the Congress is paralyzing the democratic process and we need a better deal. I say to Congress, either lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way and leave us alone. Stop wasting our time and our money on political games.

----------


## Hansel

It I hard for me to get into mid term Congressional races and this year we have some pretty critical ones at stake. We have a self serving conceited sob of a center who is in the pockets of the oild and gas industry and the farm bloc, not to mention the defense industy, so I 
don't see the cantankerous old bastard to be replaced.

Kansas state level politics is picking up steam as we are seeing more challenges to the entrenched wingnut bigots from the moderates.
School funding is a major issue this year as is balancing the budget on the backs of the indigent, the elderly, and others who cannot fend for themselves. I like fiscal conservativeness but we do have some things that need to be addressed besides the bloated school system, and if these issues were put to the people via referendum at the polls I think the conservatives would take a real shellacking on some of the issues.

You cannot have  viable place to live by throwing these poor devils under the bus, and if the state wants to rescind the puny tax breaks to fund some of the issues they have my support. I look at it this way, being an older person who sees and hears of poverty and misery every day at coffee every day. I might be one of those poor souls someday.

It is not a matter of shunning dead heads but one of caring for worn out economic engines that have seen too 
many rounds and need to rest in indignity. If we are luck we all will reach that point someday.

----------


## Mordent

The government derives it's power from the consent of the governed. I withdraw my consent on so many issues that I barely recognize it's authority at all. It has become nothing more than an entrenched monopoly on the use of force, populated, for the most part, by lazy, entitled, nepotized bureaucrats, supported by legions of losers addicted to the wealth transfers that subsidize their sloth and failure. Other than that, it's okay. It certainly isn't "me", though. If it were, it wouldn't be in debt, among a plethora of other things.

----------

Invayne (05-31-2014),Old Ridge Runner (05-31-2014),OriginalCyn (06-04-2014)

----------


## usfan

> Amen on your ideas for reining in those bozos and taking our country back.
> Ross Perot (I think) spoke of an electronic town hall whereby people could participate in Congressional debate of an issue by voting on the issue.
> Something like that might help to hold the idiots in line.  A lot of us are on the computer quite a bit anyway so that might be a doable idea.
> Those who do not own a personal compute could use one at a library.  Seems like we would have to use a user ID and password to prevent cheating, so  maybe our SSN could be a part of there security measure.
> 
> One cannot make a person participate in the process if they don't want to but at least we could give them a chance to do it if they chose to.  Such a system might also be dovetailed into a computerized voting system in some manner, which could make  the ballot process more cost efficient.


I think those are good ideas.. anything to put the govt into the hands of the people.. THAT is the goal.  

I have for some time thought that these 2 issues would do more to correct america, & return it to the people than anything else:

1. Balanced Budget.
2. Citizen Representatives.

The reasons & arguments for these are pretty basic & to the point, & they support the CENTRAL GOAL of getting us to self rule, instead of this ruling elite monstrosity that has sprung up.

Especially the 'citizen representative' part.. this is the most important, because citizen representatives would have a balanced budget!

We went into some detail in this thread early this year..  The OP is a bit long, but it is clear & to the point about the necessity of revolving govt around the citizens, instead of the other way around.

http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads...Representative

----------


## Sheldonna

> I keep hearing angry citizens decrying this creature they refer to as "The Government" as if it's some evil being that descended on earth from the far reaches of the universe.
> 
> Aren't "We the people" the government?
> Don't we hold elections at regular intervals to choose who we want to represent us?
> Don't we all share some responsibility for the laws *WE* write via our elected reps in Congress?
> 
> Yes our system has problems but we have created those problems & it's up to us to find a peaceful way to resolve them.
> (end of today's sermon)
> 
> What do you all think?


When people refer to "the government" as the enemy, they really mean 'big government' which is usually being controlled by the leftist elitists who are _big on big government_.  These elitists do not represent average Americans.  In fact they represent a threat to our lifestyle and freedom.....since they only represent themselves and their own greed for our money and more power.

----------

DeadEye (05-31-2014),Mordent (05-31-2014),Old Ridge Runner (05-31-2014),usfan (05-31-2014)

----------


## Sheldonna

> *Regardless of their chances of passing, here's a few suggestions that I support:*
> 1. Strict term limits for all elective offices.
> 2. *No private funding allowed in elections*. (everything paid for out of general revenue & rich candidates not allowed to "Buy" elections with their own family wealth.
> 3. *End legalized bribery (Campaign Contributions*). i.e. if you give money to a pol you & he/she should be arrested!


I'm confused (and I realize that I haven't had my caffeine yet...but...).  If campaign contributions (from private citizen donors) was not allowed....and neither was using one's own money.....how the hell would anyone ever be able to afford to run for office?  You do realize how much money it costs to run for office these days, right?  So much that it keeps most folks from doing so.

----------


## Sheldonna

> The government derives it's power from the consent of the governed. I withdraw my consent on so many issues that I barely recognize it's authority at all. It has become nothing more than an entrenched monopoly on the use of force, populated, for the most part, by lazy, entitled, nepotized bureaucrats, supported by legions of losers addicted to the wealth transfers that subsidize their sloth and failure. Other than that, it's okay. It certainly isn't "me", though. If it were, *it wouldn't be in debt*, among a plethora of other things.


And it wouldn't be handing out freebies, that we can't afford to hand out, to illegals.

----------

DeadEye (05-31-2014),Mordent (05-31-2014),Old Ridge Runner (05-31-2014)

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> I keep hearing angry citizens decrying this creature they refer to as "The Government" as if it's some evil being that descended on earth from the far reaches of the universe.
> 
> Aren't "We the people" the government?


No. The government is an organization. "We the people" never made the government and "We the People" can't rightfully bind anyone who chooses not to consent or withdraws consent to its dictates.





> Don't we hold elections at regular intervals to choose who we want to represent us?


So you are led to believe.




> Don't we all share some responsibility for the laws *WE* write via our elected reps in Congress?


I do not accept responsibility for immoral laws and I do not vote for people who uphold or make them. 





> Yes our system has problems but we have created those problems & it's up to us to find a peaceful way to resolve them.
> (end of today's sermon)


I am all for peaceful resolutions. The government is anything but peaceful. It exists solely by aggression.

----------

DeadEye (05-31-2014),Invayne (05-31-2014),Longshot (06-02-2014),Mordent (05-31-2014)

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> *Regardless of their chances of passing, here's a few suggestions that I support:*
> 1. Strict term limits for all elective offices.
> 
> 2. No private funding allowed in elections. (everything paid for out of general revenue & rich candidates not allowed to "Buy" elections with their own family wealth.


Why should I have to pay for speech I don't like or to support candidates that I don't like or vehemently disagree with?




> 3. End legalized bribery (Campaign Contributions). i.e. if you give money to a pol you & he/she should be arrested!


You realize that this starts to put all the power into the hands of the party organizations and the unelectd operators of those parties? They have all the power to choose and vet potential candidates, and all the money will then flow to them so that your choices in an election will be more tightly controlled than they are now. 

Politicians will no longer be the power brokers; it will be their handlers. Ultimately, in a big government, there are favors to sell, and they are going to be sold by someone.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> If the government is *us* would *we* be turning *our* military against *ourselves*?
> 
> https://swordattheready.wordpress.co...inst-citizens/


I don't see why not. You are all too happy to turn police against your fellow citizens for vices that you disapprove of. Why not the military if the local bureaucrats in blue prove too weak to maintain the law and order that you want?

----------

Invayne (05-31-2014)

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> When people refer to "the government" as the enemy, they really mean 'big government' which is usually being controlled by the leftist elitists who are _big on big government_.  These elitists do not represent average Americans.  In fact they represent a threat to our lifestyle and freedom.....since they only represent themselves and their own greed for our money and more power.


I submit that it is all people who look for that sort of power who are a threat. "Left" and "right" is a useful ploy to turn citizens against each other so that those in power can gain more of it.

----------


## Sheldonna

> I don't see why not. You are all too happy to turn police against your fellow citizens for vices that you disapprove of. Why not the military if the local bureaucrats in blue prove too weak to maintain the law and order that you want?


What "vices" are you referring to here?

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> What "vices" are you referring to here?


Does it matter? Are there some vices that give you the right to initiate aggression against others in order to prevent them from engaging in them?

----------


## Dan40

> *Regardless of their chances of passing, here's a few suggestions that I support:*
> 1. Strict term limits for all elective offices.
> 2. No private funding allowed in elections. (everything paid for out of general revenue & rich candidates not allowed to "Buy" elections with their own family wealth.
> 3. End legalized bribery (Campaign Contributions). i.e. if you give money to a pol you & he/she should be arrested!


1. Correct.

2. WRONG!

3. WRONG!

2 and 3 are both restrictions of FREE SPEECH.

The left had no complaints when UNIONS were allowed to and DID and DO, contribute BILLIONS to political campaigns.  But now the industry is also allowed to speak and contribute, the left is apoplectic.

----------

Old Ridge Runner (05-31-2014),usfan (05-31-2014)

----------


## Devil505

> If the government is *us* would *we* be turning *our* military against *ourselves*?
> https://swordattheready.wordpress.co...inst-citizens/


If you consider homegrown terrorist groups "ourselves" then I guess you have a point.
The posse comitatus law prevents Presidents from using our armed forces as policemen in this country anyway, except in very limited cases. 

*Soldiers are trained to be warriors, not peace officers — which is as it should be. But putting full-time warriors into a civilian policing situation can result in serious collateral damage to American life and liberty.**It can also undermine military readiness, because when soldiers are forced into the role of police officers, their war-fighting skills degrade. That’s what the General Accounting Office concluded in a 2003 report looking at some of the homeland security missions the military was required to carry out after Sept. 11, 2001.*
http://www.cato.org/publications/com...osse-comitatus



Edit: I just read your link & keep in mind the only President who has actually used federal troops in such manner was President Eisenhower (Republican) in 1957 when he sent the 101 Airborne to Little Rock, Arkansas. http://www.nytimes.com/learning/gene.../big/0925.html

All these scary stories based on wild accusations of what Obama *might* do are BS.
(has anyone on this forum had his guns grabbed by Obama yet?)

----------


## Dan40

> I keep hearing angry citizens decrying this creature they refer to as "The Government" as if it's some evil being that descended on earth from the far reaches of the universe.
> 
> Aren't "We the people" the government?
> Don't we hold elections at regular intervals to choose who we want to represent us?
> Don't we all share some responsibility for the laws *WE* write via our elected reps in Congress?
> 
> Yes our system has problems but we have created those problems & it's up to us to find a peaceful way to resolve them.
> (end of today's sermon)
> 
> What do you all think?


Case in point, Cap & Trade legislation.

Elected representatives sponsored this idea in Congress in 2009.  Introduced into the House by Henry Waxman D CA, and in the Senate by John Kerry D MA.  The legislation,,,,,,,,FAILED.

Our "ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES" refused to pass this idea into law. [primarily because it had no effect on other nations, particularly India and China that EACH put out more emissions than we do]
Now the imitation president, odumbo is issuing royal decrees to the EPA to enforce this 'not a law' idea. [which will do NOTHING to curb worldwide emissions, but will put American industry at a competitive disadvantage]
And odumbo, the wholly incompetent asshole, has many times threatened similar actions over legislation NOT PASSED, by our "ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES."

So you tell us, Who is the government?

----------

Mordent (05-31-2014),Old Ridge Runner (05-31-2014)

----------


## JustPassinThru

All this decrying the ability to pay for a forum to post your views!

What is that, envy?  If you limit what a person can spend in putting his word out, are you NOT limiting his right of SPEECH?

If you limit his ability to aid (with money) the candidate of his choice, are you not prohibiting his right of participation?

Should government, and only government, in the person of the entrenched elite political class, be allowed to choose what message is heard, or what candidates can run...can join their club?

In answer to the original question:  Government, today, is a select class of political elites.  They have found ways to use taxpayer monies to cement incumbency - perpetuate their sinecures.

----------


## Sheldonna

> Does it matter? Are there some vices that give you the right to initiate aggression against others in order to prevent them from engaging in them?


Are you, perhaps, an advocate of the vice of heroin-shooting-up?  In a perfect world with perfect people (people who do not get hopped up on drugs and go out and KILL PEOPLE).....there would be no need for police or any ""aggression"" against drug dealers/users.  But then....in a perfect world, there wouldn't BE any drug dealers/users.

----------

Old Ridge Runner (05-31-2014)

----------


## catfish

> If you consider homegrown terrorist groups "ourselves" then I guess you have a point.
> The posse comitatus law prevents Presidents from using our armed forces as policemen in this country anyway, except in very limited cases. 
> 
> *Soldiers are trained to be warriors, not peace officers — which is as it should be. But putting full-time warriors into a civilian policing situation can result in serious collateral damage to American life and liberty.**It can also undermine military readiness, because when soldiers are forced into the role of police officers, their war-fighting skills degrade. That’s what the General Accounting Office concluded in a 2003 report looking at some of the homeland security missions the military was required to carry out after Sept. 11, 2001.*
> http://www.cato.org/publications/com...osse-comitatus
> 
> 
> 
> Edit: I just read your link & keep in mind the only President who has actually used federal troops in such manner was President Eisenhower (Republican) in 1957 when he sent the 101 Airborne to Little Rock, Arkansas. http://www.nytimes.com/learning/gene.../big/0925.html
> ...


Actually that is not the first time.Ever heard of the battle of Blair Mountain, Logan County ,WV?...Armed American civilian union organizers were bombed by USAF aircraft.Warren Harding gave the orders.Wiki it to read about it

----------


## Sheldonna

> I submit that it is all people who look for that sort of power who are a threat. "Left" and "right" is a useful ploy to turn citizens against each other so that those in power can gain more of it.


True.  And has already been stated previously....some on the right only pretend to be for less government, while working behind the scenes for the same BS the left wants....more, bigger government.  These are the aholes that we need to vote out right along with the big-government Democrats.

----------


## Invayne

> I keep hearing angry citizens decrying this creature they refer to as "The Government" as if it's some evil being that descended on earth from the far reaches of the universe.
> 
> Aren't "We the people" the government?
> Don't we hold elections at regular intervals to choose who we want to represent us?
> Don't we all share some responsibility for the laws *WE* write via our elected reps in Congress?
> 
> Yes our system has problems but we have created those problems & it's up to us to find a peaceful way to resolve them.
> (end of today's sermon)
> 
> What do you all think?


I had absolutely nothing to do with the mess YOU people made.

----------

BleedingHeadKen (05-31-2014),Mordent (05-31-2014),Old Ridge Runner (05-31-2014),Reverend (05-31-2014),Sheldonna (05-31-2014)

----------


## Invayne

> 2. No private funding allowed in elections. (everything paid for out of general revenue & rich candidates not allowed to "Buy" elections with their own family wealth.


Change that to "Paid for out of the general revenue of people registered to vote". Why should my tax dollars go to yet ANOTHER thing I don't participate in?

----------


## Invayne

> .2 is a violation of the !st Amendment or so I'm told...that's one thing that has always puzzled me..*How do you buy elections?...I mean if I don't like you as a candidate,I don't care if you spend a trillion dollars on your campaign I'm not voting for you.....*I know that's probably an over simplified view but I don't get it.....I guess attack ads are counting on the fact that most people won't bother validating their claims and low info sheep dutifully vote for their team.


Exactly. I never understood that either.

----------


## Invayne

> If the government is *us* would *we* be turning *our* military against *ourselves*?
> 
> https://swordattheready.wordpress.co...inst-citizens/


Be careful...you TOO can be accused of being a Conspiracy Theorist.  :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------


## Devil505

> When people refer to "the government" as the enemy, they really mean 'big government' which is usually being controlled by the leftist elitists who are _big on big government_.


Point out the last President from either party who shrank the size, power or reach of the federal government?
(small government is what the GOP Talks about when they are not in power & that's all it is...Talk)

----------


## Invayne

> I submit that it is all people who look for that sort of power who are a threat. "Left" and "right" is a useful ploy to turn citizens against each other so that those in power can gain more of it.

----------

BleedingHeadKen (05-31-2014),Mordent (05-31-2014),Old Ridge Runner (05-31-2014)

----------


## Devil505

> I'm confused (and I realize that I haven't had my caffeine yet...but...).  If campaign contributions (from private citizen donors) was not allowed....and neither was using one's own money.....how the hell would anyone ever be able to afford to run for office?  You do realize how much money it costs to run for office these days, right?  So much that it keeps most folks from doing so.


Way to much money is spent on elections!

Here's my plan:

Electioneering can only run for six months before an election. (no ads, etc prior to that)
All campaign advertising will be paid for from the general revenue (Taxes).......*Money is not speech!* (money corrupts the election process)
No one can use their own wealth to in essence buy elected office. (money is not a good basis to choose our reps)

----------


## Devil505

> Change that to "Paid for out of the general revenue of people registered to vote". Why should my tax dollars go to yet ANOTHER thing I don't participate in?


I have no problem with that.

----------


## Devil505

> Exactly. I never understood that either.


So why is it that all candidates spend millions on advertising? Are they just dumb?

No!....Advertising is the most powerful/effective way to sell your product & Presidential candidates are "Products" that have been "sold" like toothpaste since the 1950's when TV advertising took over the entire election process.

----------


## Sled Dog

Not "who", WHAT.

Learn some civics.

----------


## Sled Dog

> *Regardless of their chances of passing, here's a few suggestions that I support:*
> 1. Strict term limits for all elective offices.


You don't support that. We've seen years of your other posts. 




> 2. No private funding allowed in elections. (everything paid for out of general revenue & rich candidates not allowed to "Buy" elections with their own family wealth.


It's no surprise that Obama voters HATE the First Amendment.




> 3. End legalized bribery (Campaign Contributions). i.e. if you give money to a pol you & he/she should be arrested!


See remarks for note two, above.

We shall also note that your new-found objection to "bribery" didn't exist when only goonions had unfettered access to Congress and candidates.

----------

Old Ridge Runner (05-31-2014)

----------


## Sled Dog

> I disagree. 
> The first amendment..... 
> 
> *AMENDMENT I*
> _Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances._
> 
> ....only prohibits* Congress* from passing laws that abridge freedom of speech.




Which naturally prohibits CONGRESS from restricting the people's participation in political campaigns, and then there's the Fifth Amendment, which leaves in the people's hands their freedom to use their property (their money) in any way they please.

Funny, isn't it, how the Rodents are suddenly opposed to gift giving when the left-wing goonions no longer have the exclusive right to give the gifts?

----------

Old Ridge Runner (05-31-2014)

----------


## Devil505

> You don't support that. We've seen years of your other posts.


Post a single time from any year/any forum where I opposed term limits. 
Lying is not debating Snorkum. (why the mask......ashamed of Mayor Snorkum's long history on various forums?)







> Funny, isn't it, how the Rodents are suddenly opposed to gift giving when the left-wing goonions no longer have the exclusive right to give the gifts?


When exactly was it that only LWingers could bribe candidates with gifts of cash?

Would you support an amendment which said the candidate with the greatest family wealth will automatically win any election?

----------


## Sled Dog

> I'm confused (and I realize that I haven't had my caffeine yet...but...). If campaign contributions (from private citizen donors) was not allowed....and neither was using one's own money.....how the hell would anyone ever be able to afford to run for office? You do realize how much money it costs to run for office these days, right? So much that it keeps most folks from doing so.


The fascists desire the circumstance where any applicant to public office has to umm....APPLY FOR PERMISSION before campaigning.

What else could it be called when the government would control 100% of the funds for "elections"? They pick the candidates, their side wins.

There IS NO mechanism possible that could prevent the bureaucrats from gaming the rules to get their preferred candidates on the ballots.

Case in Point:

Conyers' judge shopping to get on the ballot after failing to obey the Michigen election laws regarding the collection of signatures for ballot access.

http://www.topix.com/us-house/john-d...-on-the-ballot

Michagan Secretary of State refuses to appeal court's decision forcing Conyers on the ballot in violation of Michagan election law.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Post a single time from any year/any forum where I opposed term limits.


Not wasting my time.

I already know what you are.

----------


## Sheldonna

> Way to much money is spent on elections!
> 
> Here's my plan:
> 
> Electioneering can only run for six months before an election. (no ads, etc prior to that)
> All campaign advertising will be paid for from the general revenue (Taxes).......*Money is not speech!* (money corrupts the election process)
> No one can use their own wealth to in essence buy elected office. (money is not a good basis to choose our reps)


But.....what difference does it make (Hillary/Yossarian?)...._where the money comes from_....*if it corrupts the election process*?  

Hell, government elitists already treat the US taxpayers' money as if it were an endless fount of *their money*.  Now you want them to be able to legally use our tax money to fund their elections?  

Not hell no...but FUK no!

----------


## Invayne

> Hell, government elitists already treat the US taxpayers' money as if it were an endless fount of *their money*.  Now you want them to be able to legally use our tax money to fund their elections?  
> 
> Not hell no...but FUK no!


Um...I think they already do that.

edit: Never mind...it's supposedly "voluntary".

http://www.fec.gov/press/bkgnd/fund.shtml

----------


## Sheldonna

> Point out the last President from either party who shrank the size, power or reach of the federal government?
> (small government is what the GOP Talks about when they are not in power & that's all it is...Talk)


Perhaps....but NO president has grown government as much as Barack Hussein Obama has.  And when the Reps try, due to our spiraling national debt, to cut back on government agencies and spending.....the DemocRATS always refuse.  So I know which party I'm voting AGAINST ....as usual.

----------


## Devil505

> Not wasting my time.
> 
> I already know what you are.


Slinging lies & then running has always been your pathetic style Snorkum.
This forum will catch on to you soon enough.

----------


## Sheldonna

> Um...I think they already do that.


And I think that I am already and still against it!  lol

----------


## Invayne

> And I think that I am already and still against it!  lol


See my edit....  :Smiley20:

----------


## Sheldonna

> I had absolutely nothing to do with the mess YOU people made.


Ain't it funny, Invayne?  How ....after having majority control of this nation's government for going on EIGHT YEARS now....

and considering what a collossal fubar/mess/disaster they have made of it....

alluva sudden it's "our" doing and "our" fault and "*we* built that".  

Bullshit.

----------

Mordent (05-31-2014),Old Ridge Runner (05-31-2014),OriginalCyn (06-05-2014)

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> I don't see why not. You are all too happy to turn police against your fellow citizens for vices that you disapprove of. Why not the military if the local bureaucrats in blue prove too weak to maintain the law and order that you want?


Try and get this through that cement block that you call a head.  The man broke a law, he was arrested for it and is in prison awaiting trial, that is the way it works, cops go after the bad guys, arrest them and toss them in jail until they go to trial.  That is all together different than calling out the Green Berets by a politician because the people disagree with him.

----------

usfan (05-31-2014)

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> What "vices" are you referring to here?


He's talking about the punk ass 19 year old who was arrested for baking hash oil into brownies and was caught with marijuana and over  a thousands dollars in cash in his apartment.  That is a little more that a vice if you ask me.

----------


## usfan

> Way to much money is spent on elections!
> Here's my plan:
> Electioneering can only run for six months before an election. (no ads, etc prior to that)
> All campaign advertising will be paid for from the general revenue (Taxes).......*Money is not speech!* (money corrupts the election process)
> No one can use their own wealth to in essence buy elected office. (money is not a good basis to choose our reps)


..not bad.. at least you are trying.  Good thread, too, to brainstorm solutions.   :Thumbsup20: 

I think a better deterrence to money in politics is term limits.  Every year a new crop of starry eyed public servants come in, not primed & corrupted by the system.  It is hard for the good old boy network to keep power, if they don't own all the reps.  And if we GREATLY limit lobbying, forbidding public servants to enter in, for conflict of interest reasons, we can let the rich people spend a bunch of money to get elected for one or two terms.  As the electorate becomes more involved in the process, realizing that WE the PEOPLE ARE in charge, & WE can make the nation work, imo, corruption will diminish, 'pay to play' networks will fade, & even pork barrel wheeling & dealing will decline.  Nothing but good could come from term limits.. & i would extend those to judges, too.

I am DEFINITELY not a fan of publicly funded elections.  It is bad enough these fools lie to us all the time, i'm not about to pay them to do it.  Let them lie to us on their own dime, or con someone else.

----------


## Sheldonna

> He's talking about the punk ass 19 year old who was arrested for baking hash oil into brownies and was caught with marijuana and over  a thousands dollars in cash in his apartment.  That is a little more that a vice if you ask me.


What was he doing with the brownies?  Selling them?

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> If you consider homegrown terrorist groups "ourselves" then I guess you have a point.
> The posse comitatus law prevents Presidents from using our armed forces as policemen in this country anyway, except in very limited cases. 
> 
> *Soldiers are trained to be warriors, not peace officers — which is as it should be. But putting full-time warriors into a civilian policing situation can result in serious collateral damage to American life and liberty.**It can also undermine military readiness, because when soldiers are forced into the role of police officers, their war-fighting skills degrade. That’s what the General Accounting Office concluded in a 2003 report looking at some of the homeland security missions the military was required to carry out after Sept. 11, 2001.*
> http://www.cato.org/publications/com...osse-comitatus
> 
> 
> 
> Edit: I just read your link & keep in mind the only President who has actually used federal troops in such manner was President Eisenhower (Republican) in 1957 when he sent the 101 Airborne to Little Rock, Arkansas. http://www.nytimes.com/learning/gene.../big/0925.html
> ...


I think that we were part of a discussion on, if Obama had the right to kill an American citizen because he was a jihadist and was living out side the US.  The discussion focused around if he still had his Constitutional rights.  I would say even if it were a home grown terrorist he still has his Constitutional rights until proven otherwise in a court of law. 

No, there was one before him.  I think it was back in the 30s when the soldiers who served in WWI wanted their war bonus that was promised to them by the government and set up a tent city on the mall, I think it was Herbert Hoover who used the military to remove the protesters.

----------


## Devil505

> I think that we were part of a discussion on, if Obama had the right to kill an American citizen because he was a jihadist and was living out side the US. The discussion focused around if he still had his Constitutional rights. I would say even if it were a home grown terrorist he still has his Constitutional rights until proven otherwise in a court of law.


Very tough call there.
I'd have to hear the legal arguments on both sides before I'd comment on it.










> No, there was one before him.  I think it was back in the 30s when the soldiers who served in WWI wanted their war bonus that was promised to them by the government and set up a tent city on the mall, I think it was Herbert Hoover who used the military to remove the protesters.


So the only two Presidents we had that actually used federal troops for police work were *both Republicans* & yet all I hear is how Obama is going to unleash them on us citizens!? lol

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> Be careful...you TOO can be accused of being a Conspiracy Theorist.


your right, *we* don't know what the NSA is reading do *we*?

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> What was he doing with the brownies?  Selling them?


You got it.

----------


## RMNIXON

> *3. End legalized bribery (Campaign Contributions). i.e. if you give money to a pol you & he/she should be arrested!*



But I take it you think it is OK for Pols to offer handouts out of the public treasury for Votes? That kind of bribery does not seem to be a serious issue with a certain party. It is only bad when Rich people think they are getting something in return.

----------

Mordent (05-31-2014)

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> So the only two Presidents we had that actually used federal troops for police work were *both Republicans* & yet all I hear is how Obama is going to unleash them on us citizens!? lol


The thing is it was wrong, and if it was wrong for Republicans to us troops against the American people on American soil, it is just as illegal for Obama to do it.

----------

Invayne (05-31-2014)

----------


## Sheldonna

> You got it.


He might have gotten away with it....if it was just pot brownies.  But nooooo!

----------

Old Ridge Runner (06-01-2014)

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Are you, perhaps, an advocate of the vice of heroin-shooting-up?  In a perfect world with perfect people (people who do not get hopped up on drugs and go out and KILL PEOPLE).....there would be no need for police or any ""aggression"" against drug dealers/users.  But then....in a perfect world, there wouldn't BE any drug dealers/users.


In a perfect world, everyone would have health care. Until then, we must have government make sure everyone gets high quality, low cost, accessible healthcare which may include nationalizing medicine.

In a perfect world, everyone would have a solid retirement. Until then, we must have government mandate social security insurance and pay for it through forced payroll taxes.

In a perfect world, other countries would be Democratic and not oppress their citizens. Until then, we, as Americans, have an obligation to invade and occupy those oppressive nations and force them to become more like us.

In a perfect world, no one would shoot each other. Until then, we must severely restrict the ownership of firearms, disarming all private owners.

In a perfect world, there would be no pollution. Until then, people must stop being allowed to consume more than they need.

In a perfect world, everyone could pay for a college education. Until then, it should be paid for by government.

Shall I go on? If it's valid to force your morals onto people who have not victimized (or intended to victimize) anyone, then it's perfectly valid to force your morals onto others for whatever reason you deem worthy. 

What I advocate is freedom; and that means not being restricted in rights, and not taking away responsibility.

----------

Invayne (05-31-2014),Longshot (06-07-2014)

----------


## Mordent

The world is perfect. It just doesn't conform to the emo-desires of the left.

----------

Old Ridge Runner (06-01-2014)

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Try and get this through that cement block that you call a head.


What's the matter, is your hypocrisy too much to reflect on?




> The man broke a law, he was arrested for it and is in prison awaiting trial, that is the way it works, cops go after the bad guys, arrest them and toss them in jail until they go to trial.  That is all together different than calling out the Green Berets by a politician because the people disagree with him.


Armed government bureaucrats go after anyone who violates a political dictate. What does it matter if they are wearing green or blue? I've been in plenty of countries where streets are patrolled by both civilian bureaucrats and armed soldiers. You, as the legislation-idolizing statist that you are, will learn to accept it and cheer it on when it suits your agenda. Your only complaint is that it's Obama's agenda at the moment.

----------


## Sheldonna

> *What I advocate is freedom; and that means not being restricted in rights*, and not taking away responsibility.


Yes....however, since this is NOT anywhere near a perfect world and never will be....and since some folks will never take responsibility for their own actions (drunk driving, drug-induced killing sprees, etc.)....

we, out of necessity, must have some form of restrictions placed on those individuals via the laws that _We, the People_ want passed.  Right?

----------

Old Ridge Runner (06-01-2014)

----------


## Devil505

> The thing is it was wrong, and if it was wrong for Republicans to us troops against the American people on American soil, it is just as illegal for Obama to do it.


It wasn't wrong when Ike did it to enforce the SCOTUS decision in Brown v Board of education & *Obama hasn't done it.*

----------


## Devil505

> But I take it you think it is OK for Pols to offer handouts out of the public treasury for Votes? That kind of bribery does not seem to be a serious issue with a certain party. It is only bad when Rich people think they are getting something in return.


Of course it's wrong but both sides do it anyway.

----------


## hoytmonger

> I keep hearing angry citizens decrying this creature they refer to as "The Government" as if it's some evil being that descended on earth from the far reaches of the universe.
> 
> Aren't "We the people" the government?
> Don't we hold elections at regular intervals to choose who we want to represent us?
> Don't we all share some responsibility for the laws *WE* write via our elected reps in Congress?
> 
> Yes our system has problems but we have created those problems & it's up to us to find a peaceful way to resolve them.
> (end of today's sermon)
> 
> What do you all think?


No, 'we' are not the government. The government in no way represents the majority of the people. If 'we' were the government then anything the government does is not only just, but voluntary.

Using the reasoning that 'we' are the government, then the millions of people murdered by the Nazis were not murdered, they committed suicide since 'they' were the government... which was democratically elected.

Government is an organization that attempts to maintain a monopoly on the use of force in a given geopolitical territory. It provides no benefit to human society.

----------

Invayne (05-31-2014)

----------


## Sled Dog

> Ain't it funny, Invayne? How ....after having majority control of this nation's government for going on EIGHT YEARS now....
> 
> and considering what a collossal fubar/mess/disaster they have made of it....
> 
> alluva sudden it's "our" doing and "our" fault and "*we* built that". 
> 
> Bullshit.


What?

The Rodents had majority control of the Senate in Liberal Bush II's first two year's in office, so he never had eight years of control.

King Obama lost his fillibuster proof Senate after one year, and lost control of the House after two years, and he's been polluting the White House for less than six years, so that thing never had eight full years of majority control, either.

So what are you talking about?

----------


## Sled Dog

> But.....what difference does it make (Hillary/Yossarian?)...._where the money comes from_....*if it corrupts the election process*? 
> 
> Hell, government elitists already treat the US taxpayers' money as if it were an endless fount of *their money*. Now you want them to be able to legally use our tax money to fund their elections? 
> 
> Not hell no...but FUK no!


The most important point of relevance regarding taxpayer funded elections is...

...it forces the citizen to finance political campaigns he does not support.  And as such it no less immoral than forcing taxpayers to finance the slaughter of babies, even if they are opposed to slaughtering babies.

----------

Invayne (06-01-2014)

----------


## Sled Dog

> I think that we were part of a discussion on, if Obama had the right to kill an American citizen because he was a jihadist and was living out side the US. The discussion focused around if he still had his Constitutional rights. I would say even if it were a home grown terrorist he still has his Constitutional rights until proven otherwise in a court of law. 
> 
> No, there was one before him. I think it was back in the 30s when the soldiers who served in WWI wanted their war bonus that was promised to them by the government and set up a tent city on the mall, I think it was Herbert Hoover who used the military to remove the protesters.


1) Presidents do not have "rights".  They have "powers".  The powers of the president are clearly defined in the Constitution and are constrained by law.  What legistlative act gave the President the authority to commit extra-legal executions, and what Amendment to the Constitution eliminated that portion of the Fourth Amendment to make such legislation Constitutional?

2) The Bonus Army http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army, in 1932.   I am not certain if Hoover violated the posse comitatus act because the events happened in the District of Columbia.   But it's a fine example of government duplicity....and the PERFECT example of why the Government should not be in charge of retirement plans of any sort.  Congress can't be trusted from one end of the week to the other, let alone for a lifetime.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Very tough call there.
> I'd have to hear the legal arguments on both sides before I'd comment on it.
> 
> So the only two Presidents we had that actually used federal troops for police work were *both Republicans* & yet all I hear is how Obama is going to unleash them on us citizens!? lol



The Rapist President used the United States Army to smash the walls of the homes of the Branch Davidians to inject illegal war gases into the lungs of small children, before setting the fires that barbecued them. The FBI fired the shots that kept the victims from fleeing the burning structure, killing some 83 presumed innocent citizens...all in the name of protecting the chilren from pedophelia by murdering them.


In case you're not informed, the Rapist President was a Rodent.

It must also be pointed out that the Rodent governor of Arkansas called out the state's national guard to prevent the Little Rock Nine from entering a public school, and it was the Republican Eisenhower that nationalized the Arkansas national guard to countermand that order.

Rodents...always racist, especially today.

----------

Invayne (06-01-2014)

----------


## Fisher

> What do you all think?


I think our government is a reflection of our society and we have the government we deserve, maybe we have better than we deserve.

----------

catfish (06-01-2014)

----------


## Devil505

> No, 'we' are not the government. The government in no way represents the majority of the people. If 'we' were the government then anything the government does is not only just, but voluntary.
> 
> Using the reasoning that 'we' are the government, then the millions of people murdered by the Nazis were not murdered, they committed suicide since 'they' were the government... which was democratically elected.
> 
> Government is an organization that attempts to maintain a monopoly on the use of force in a given geopolitical territory. It provides no benefit to human society.


You evidently don't believe that we are any better than Nazi Germany. I disagree. (they were fascists & we are a democracy)

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> *1) Presidents do not have "rights".  They have "powers".  The powers of the president are clearly defined in the Constitution and are constrained by law.  What legistlative act gave the President the authority to commit extra-legal executions, and what Amendment to the Constitution eliminated that portion of the Fourth Amendment to make such legislation Constitutional?*
> 
> 2) The Bonus Army http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army, in 1932.   I am not certain if Hoover violated the posse comitatus act because the events happened in the District of Columbia.   But it's a fine example of government duplicity....and the PERFECT example of why the Government should not be in charge of retirement plans of any sort.  Congress can't be trusted from one end of the week to the other, let alone for a lifetime.


  I should have made myself clearer.  I was not talking about the President having a Constitutional right to kill an American citizen, but the citizen, even thought he joined the Taliban still having his Fifth Amendment and other rights.

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> It wasn't wrong when Ike did it to enforce the SCOTUS decision in Brown v Board of education & *Obama hasn't done it.*


Yes it was, Eisenhower could have used Federal Marshalls, the FBI to enforce Brown vs the Board, and you forgot *yet* at the end of your sentence.

----------

Invayne (06-01-2014)

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> What's the matter, is your hypocrisy too much to reflect on?


No, I am getting tired of repeating myself and correcting your intentional errors.




> Armed government bureaucrats go after anyone who violates a political dictate. What does it matter if they are wearing green or blue? I've been in plenty of countries where streets are patrolled by both civilian bureaucrats and armed soldiers. You, as the legislation-idolizing statist that you are, will learn to accept it and cheer it on when it suits your agenda. Your only complaint is that it's Obama's agenda at the moment.


I do not care where you have been or what you have seen, what is done in other countries has  nothing to do what is happening here, but I do see where you are coming from.  You want total anarchy where everyone can do whatever they want to do without restriction or reprisal for the results of those actions.

----------


## Sheldonna

> No, 'we' are not the government. The government in no way represents the majority of the people. If 'we' were the government then anything the government does is not only just, but voluntary.
> 
> Using the reasoning that 'we' are the government, then the millions of people murdered by the Nazis were not murdered, they committed suicide since 'they' were the government... which was democratically elected.
> 
> *Government is an organization that attempts to maintain a monopoly on the use of force in a given geopolitical territory. It provides no benefit to human society*.


A certain amount of government is a necessary evil for a civil society.  But....being an 'evil' ....and having the potential to morph into a totalitarian entity....that is why I am for 'LESS' government.  And that is why I am against leftist Democrats, who are for ever-increasing and expanding government.

----------

Mordent (06-01-2014),Old Ridge Runner (06-01-2014),usfan (06-01-2014)

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> In a perfect world, everyone would have health care. Until then, we must have government make sure everyone gets high quality, low cost, accessible healthcare which may include nationalizing medicine.
> 
> In a perfect world, everyone would have a solid retirement. Until then, we must have government mandate social security insurance and pay for it through forced payroll taxes.
> 
> In a perfect world, other countries would be Democratic and not oppress their citizens. Until then, we, as Americans, have an obligation to invade and occupy those oppressive nations and force them to become more like us.
> 
> In a perfect world, no one would shoot each other. Until then, we must severely restrict the ownership of firearms, disarming all private owners.
> 
> In a perfect world, there would be no pollution. Until then, people must stop being allowed to consume more than they need.
> ...


And in your perfect world there would be total anarchy because there would be no laws.

----------

Sheldonna (06-01-2014)

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> He might have gotten away with it....if it was just pot brownies.  But nooooo!


That is the thing about Ken on this subject, he conveniently left things out of the discussion to bolster his argument.

----------

Sheldonna (06-01-2014)

----------


## Devil505

> Yes it was, Eisenhower could have used Federal Marshalls, the FBI to enforce Brown vs the Board, and you forgot *yet* at the end of your sentence.


At the time, Eisenhower didn't know what he'd face in Little Rock & a few marshals would certainly not intimidate the entire Arkansas National Guard that Faubus had called out.
Ike "Federalized" the AK Guard but you can't just say ""Zap....you're federalized" & expect them to suddenly follow I
Ike's orders & not their Governor.
Sending in the 101st Airborne was the show of force necessary to convince the AK Guard to not even try to mess with the feds!

As far as your "Yet" comment......all these bogieman scare tactics: Obama is gonna grab your guns......Obama is gonna grab your ammo.....Obama isn't even an American...Obama is gonna send troops to take over the country is just GOP hysteria aimed at riling up their base as far as I'm concerned.
It's silly & insulting to the voter's intelligence.

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> You evidently don't believe that we are any better than Nazi Germany. I disagree. (they were fascists & we are a democracy)


No, we are a Constitutional Republic, only the left doesn't know the difference.

----------


## Devil505

> No, we are a Constitutional Republic, only the left doesn't know the difference.


The point is we are not Nazis & we citizens do have a voice in our government.
The whole idea that our government is this uncontrollable evil beast is just paranoia as far as I'm concerned.

As I see it our real enemy is what Ike warned us about 50 years ago:

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> At the time, Eisenhower didn't know what he'd face in Little Rock & a few marshals would certainly not intimidate the entire Arkansas National Guard that Faubus had called out.
> Ike "Federalized" the AK Guard but you can't just say ""Zap....you're federalized" & expect them to suddenly follow I
> Ike's orders & not their Governor.
> Sending in the 101st Airborne was the show of force necessary to convince the AK Guard to not even try to mess with the feds!
> 
> As far as your "Yet" comment......all these bogieman scare tactics: Obama is gonna grab your guns......Obama is gonna grab your ammo.....Obama isn't even an American...Obama is gonna send troops to take over the country is just GOP hysteria aimed at riling up their base as far as I'm concerned.
> It's silly & insulting to the voter's intelligence.


Well you tell me how concerned I should be when the Feds knock on your door and tell you to turn in your weapons because since you have retired you no longer need them.

----------


## Devil505

> Well you tell me how concerned I should be when the Feds knock on your door and tell you to turn in your weapons because since you have retired you no longer need them.


lol.....just silly!

Open question to the forum: Has that happened to anyone here or anyone you know? (answer: No & it never will....it's a scare tactic by the NRA to sell more products & the GOP to gin up their base)
It's Ike's fears coming true!

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> The point is we are not Nazis & we citizens do have a voice in our government.
> The whole idea that our government is this uncontrollable evil beast is just paranoia as far as I'm concerned.
> 
> As I see it our real enemy is what Ike warned us about 50 years ago:


yep, we really had a voice in ACA, didn't we?  Even though it was extremely unpopular the left passed it anyway without even reading the bill. Now tell me how they will listen when they come to take something else that the elitists don't want us to have.

----------

Mordent (06-01-2014)

----------


## Hansel

> No, we are a Constitutional Republic, only the left doesn't know the difference.


Democracy refers to the legislative process of rule by majority vote and to the fact that citizens have a voice by voting. In this context it is not 
meant to say that the people vote on each and every  issue before the Congress.

It can be said that some of the European governments are also democratic and yet they have Parliaments rather then a Congress.

This from Google:  

de·moc·ra·cy
diˈmäkrəsē/
_noun_
noun: *democracy*

a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.

----------


## Dos Equis

> I keep hearing angry citizens decrying this creature they refer to as "The Government" as if it's some evil being that descended on earth from the far reaches of the universe.
> 
> Aren't "We the people" the government?
> Don't we hold elections at regular intervals to choose who we want to represent us?
> Don't we all share some responsibility for the laws *WE* write via our elected reps in Congress?
> 
> Yes our system has problems but we have created those problems & it's up to us to find a peaceful way to resolve them.
> (end of today's sermon)
> 
> What do you all think?


Government are those individuals that have power over us.  They can either have our support or otherwise.

Like those who revolted against the British crown in the 1700's, some think it needs to be more representative than it is.

Should they have sought a "peaceful" solution with the king rather then revolt like they did?

Currently, Congress only has 10% of the American people supporting it.  Do you think they are much different than king George?

----------

Mordent (06-01-2014)

----------


## hoytmonger

> You evidently don't believe that we are any better than Nazi Germany. I disagree. (they were fascists & we are a democracy)


They were elected... and yes, the current US is fascist. You may disagree but you'd be wrong.




> A certain amount of government is a necessary evil for a civil society.  But....being an 'evil' ....and having the potential to morph into a totalitarian entity....that is why I am for 'LESS' government.  And that is why I am against leftist Democrats, who are for ever-increasing and expanding government.


It's impossible to limit the size of the state. Government has no purpose in a civil society, it's completely unnecessary and detrimental. To state that 'evil' is necessary is counterintuitive.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> They were elected... and yes, the current US is fascist. You may disagree but you'd be wrong.


You obviously have no idea what a true fascist state looks like.  My recommendation for you is to travel the world a bit.  At least get out of your home town.

----------


## hoytmonger

> lol.....just silly!
> 
> Open question to the forum: Has that happened to anyone here or anyone you know? (answer: No & it never will....it's a scare tactic by the NRA to sell more products & the GOP to gin up their base)
> It's Ike's fears coming true!


It happened after hurricane Katrina.

US civilians have no voice in government, if they did gay marriage would not be legal and illegal immigrants would be deported. The Afghan 'war' would've ended a decade ago and there would be no bailouts for banks and auto manufacturers, nor a 'stimulus', nor legislation by administrative edict.

----------

Invayne (06-01-2014),Mordent (06-01-2014)

----------


## Devil505

> yep, we really had a voice in ACA, didn't we?  Even though it was extremely unpopular the left passed it anyway without even reading the bill. Now tell me how they will listen when they come to take something else that the elitists don't want us to have.


The ACA passed both house of Congress & was signed into law by our President.
Many of the people who were against it thought it didn't go far enough.
(The GOP now doesn't even mention the ACA)

----------


## hoytmonger

> You obviously have no idea what a true fascist state looks like.  My recommendation for you is to travel the world a bit.  At least get out of your home town.


You obviously don't know what fascism is. It doesn't require a military dictatorship, it's simply the private/public partnership between business and government.

Fascism is private ownership but state control of the means of production. The US government controls the means of production through regulation. If you doubt me then look around your house and try to find things that aren't regulated by the state.

----------

Mordent (06-01-2014)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> You obviously don't know what fascism is. It doesn't require a military dictatorship, it's simply the private/public partnership between business and government.


Incorrect, but if we're going to make up definitions to fit our world views, this conversation is going to get even sillier than it is.

----------


## Hansel

> Incorrect, but if we're going to make up definitions to fit our world views, this conversation is going to get even sillier than it is.


I am in your corner on this one. Fascism usually requires an authoritarian style of governance and like other totalitarian leftist regimes, requires  military to impose and enforce the policy. However,  I don't view fascism in the same light as socialism or communism. WW II fascism was noted for its militancy and its desire to grab new territory.  All three of the AXIS powers were into that sort of thing, and the land grabs came from wanting new sources of resources such as crude oil and fertile land.

I sometimes wonder if the neocons in our government aren't doing the same thing.  Since when have we invaded a ME country that did not have natural resources that were of value to us?  Now that we have supposedly become more independent from an energy  standpoint I think the hogs and war mongers, Wolfowitz and the other Zionists namely, need to come up with new excuses for their aggression in the sand piles and sewer pits of  the planet.

----------


## hoytmonger

> Incorrect, but if we're going to make up definitions to fit our world views, this conversation is going to get even sillier than it is.


You're the one making up definitions...




> Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.
> 
> Under fascism, the state, through official cartels, controlled all aspects of manufacturing, commerce, finance, and agriculture. Planning boards set product lines, production levels, prices, wages, working conditions, and the size of firms. Licensing was ubiquitous; no economic activity could be undertaken without government permission. Levels of consumption were dictated by the state, and “excess” incomes had to be surrendered as taxes or “loans.” The consequent burdening of manufacturers gave advantages to foreign firms wishing to export. But since government policy aimed at autarky, or national self-sufficiency, protectionismwas necessary: imports were barred or strictly controlled, leaving foreign conquest as the only avenue for access to resources unavailable domestically. Fascism was thus incompatible with peace and the international division of labor—hallmarks of liberalism.
> 
> Fascism embodied corporatism, in which political representation was based on trade and industry rather than on geography. In this, fascism revealed its roots in syndicalism, a form of socialism originating on the left. The government cartelized firms of the same industry, with representatives of labor and management serving on myriad local, regional, and national boards—subject always to the final authority of the dictator’s economic plan. Corporatism was intended to avert unsettling divisions within the nation, such as lockouts and union strikes. The price of such forced “harmony” was the loss of the ability to bargain and move about freely.
> 
> To maintain high employment and minimize popular discontent, fascist governments also undertook massive public-works projects financed by steep taxes, borrowing, and fiat money creation. While many of these projects were domestic—roads, buildings, stadiums—the largest project of all was militarism, with huge armies and arms production.
> 
> 
> The fascist leaders’ antagonism to communism has been misinterpreted as an affinity for capitalism. In fact, fascists’ anticommunism was motivated by a belief that in the collectivist milieu of early-twentieth-century Europe, communism was its closest rival for people’s allegiance. As with communism, under fascism, every citizen was regarded as an employee and tenant of the totalitarian, party-dominated state. Consequently, it was the state’s prerogative to use force, or the threat of it, to suppress even peaceful opposition.




http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html

----------


## Hansel

> They were elected... and yes, the current US is fascist. You may disagree but you'd be wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> It's impossible to limit the size of the state. Government has no purpose in a civil society, it's completely unnecessary and detrimental. To state that 'evil' is necessary is counterintuitive.


I think she meant that a certain amount of government is necessary in order to have a civil society. Or at least that is what she implied to me.  I agree totally.  

We may appear to be fascist because in WW II fascism the autocrats (despots) sought and needed the cooperation of industry to support their expansionist aims. At the risk of contradicting what I have said in another post, I think we are far from being to that point although our foreign policy suggests fascism at times. What more is to be gained from spilling our blood in sand piles or in swamps?

In fairness to our foreign policy, and to the dubious practice of proactive defense, it is better to fight terrorists over  there than over here. But notice how most of the arenas are in oil rich nations or in places that have exotic materials that we use to build our space age war  machines?  Afghanistan being one of them.  Aside from that, who gives a shit if they want to stone innocent new brides to death? Military action will not change centuries of such primitive barbarism.

I still say that if it were not for big oil and Israel's ass we would never have gone into Iraq the  second time. SH was not an international terrorist and AQ wasn't all that numerous in Iraq until we went there to provide a playing field for their war games.  There is nothing like scrimmaging against a real live enemy.   :Thinking:

----------

Devil505 (06-01-2014)

----------


## hoytmonger

> I think she meant that a certain amount of government is necessary in order to have a civil society. Or at least that is what she implied to me.
> I agree totally.  
> 
> We may appear to be fascist because in WW II fascism the autocrats (despots) sought and needed the cooperation of industry to support their expansionist aims. At the risk of contradicting what I have said in another post, I think we are far from being to that point although our foreign policy suggests fascism at times. What more is to be gained from spilling our blood in sand piles or in swamps?
> 
> In fairness to our foreign policy, and to the dubious practice of proactive defense, it is better to fight terrorists over  there than over here.


I disagree with the belief that government is necessary... it's been proven to be detrimental to civil society.

"it is better to fight terrorists over there than over here"  This statement is purely rhetoric. The state is determining who is and who is not a 'terrorist', which allows them to conduct their 'war on terror' indefinitely. They will soon be declaring anyone opposed to government as a terrorist so they can wage their war with the US civilian population. The fact is that there's more of a chance to be killed by police in the US than by a terrorist attack.

----------

Invayne (06-01-2014)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I disagree with the belief that government is necessary... it's been proven to be detrimental to civil society.


I disagree that anarchy is a Utopia.  History shows "the Law of the Jungle" is brutal and deadly.

----------

Devil505 (06-01-2014)

----------


## JackDallas

> I keep hearing angry citizens decrying this creature they refer to as "The Government" as if it's some evil being that descended on earth from the far reaches of the universe.
> 
> Aren't "We the people" the government?
> Don't we hold elections at regular intervals to choose who we want to represent us?
> Don't we all share some responsibility for the laws *WE* write via our elected reps in Congress?
> 
> Yes our system has problems but we have created those problems & it's up to us to find a peaceful way to resolve them.
> (end of today's sermon)
> 
> What do you all think?


It depends on your perspective. When President Bush was in office there was no "The Government". Everything that was done, according to Liberals, was done by Bush. Bush lied us into war; Bush was torturing babies in Iraq; Bush was eating babies for breakfast; Bush had killed 2 million Iraqi civilians at a wedding; Bush was spying on Americans. When Barack Obama became Obama became president and began doing almost the same nefarious shit that President Bush had been doing, Liberals suddenly started reporting that "The government was doing this or that; The government was spying; the government was over taxing; the government was keeping secrets. It wasn't Barack Obama....*Oh fuck noooo*...it was *The Government*. 

Your contention that_ We the people_ are the government used to be valid. But thanks to Barack Obama and the Progs we the people have been cut out of the equation. It is no longer our government and it is no longer our country. The rats have taken over the Ship of State.

----------

Sheldonna (06-01-2014)

----------


## Hansel

> You obviously have no idea what a true fascist state looks like.  My recommendation for you is to travel the world a bit.  At least get out of your home town.


Off hand I don't know of any fascist countries, at least not the militant type, unless it might be some jerkwater place in Africa. What did you have in mind?

----------


## Max Rockatansky

Any country with a despot or highly authoritarian government would be educational for anyone who can't tell the difference between the US and Nazi Germany.

----------


## catfish

> It depends on your perspective. When President Bush was in office there was no "The Government". Everything that was done, according to Liberals, was done by Bush. Bush lied us into war; Bush was torturing babies in Iraq; Bush was eating babies for breakfast; Bush had killed 2 million Iraqi civilians at a wedding; Bush was spying on Americans. When Barack Obama became Obama became president and began doing almost the same nefarious shit that President Bush had been doing, Liberals suddenly started reporting that "The government was doing this or that; The government was spying; the government was over taxing; the government was keeping secrets. It wasn't Barack Obama....*Oh fuck noooo*...it was *The Government*. 
> 
> Your contention that_ We the people_ are the government used to be valid. But thanks to Barack Obama and the Progs we the people have been cut out of the equation. It is no longer our government and it is no longer our country. The rats have taken over the Ship of State.


You've just describe the Limbaugh Theorem. Obama has managed to enact policies to destroy us and at the same time creates the impression that he doing everything he can to fight against them.Ever notice he is never aware of anything until  it becomes national news and then he is mad as hell...i.e.Fast and furious, IRS scandal,The VA etc.....and liberals call conservatives ignorant.

----------

Sheldonna (06-01-2014)

----------


## teeceetx

The "Government" is a beast of our own making, and what we made, only we can ultimately take down.  One day in the far future, the people of this country will dismantle whatever is left of our once great country.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> The "Government" is a beast of our own making, and what we made, only we can ultimately take down.  One day in the far future, the people of this country will dismantle whatever is left of our once great country.


Which time period in our history do you classify as our being a "great country"?

----------


## Invayne

> It depends on your perspective. When President Bush was in office there was no "The Government". Everything that was done, according to Liberals, was done by Bush. Bush lied us into war; Bush was torturing babies in Iraq; Bush was eating babies for breakfast; Bush had killed 2 million Iraqi civilians at a wedding; Bush was spying on Americans. When Barack Obama became Obama became president and began doing almost the same nefarious shit that President Bush had been doing, Liberals suddenly started reporting that "The government was doing this or that; The government was spying; the government was over taxing; the government was keeping secrets. It wasn't Barack Obama....*Oh fuck noooo*...it was *The Government*.


No, Jack, you're mistaken there. Obama is doing just what Bush did, but they're OK with it now. No one is complaining anymore. Notice how there is no more anti-war movement even though this treasonous administration is still at war, AND killing American citizens. They don't care as long as it's "their" guy doing it.

So no, they're not complaining about "the Government". They'll start whining and marching in the streets again if a Republican gets selected. Until then...crickets.

----------

JackDallas (06-01-2014),Sheldonna (06-01-2014)

----------


## Mordent

> You evidently don't believe that we are any better than Nazi Germany. I disagree. (they were fascists & we are a democracy)


Yeah....


> Hitler's Nazi Party became the largest *democratically elected party* in the GermanReichstag, leading to his appointment as chancellor in 1933.


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

----------

Invayne (06-01-2014)

----------


## Dan40

> Yeah....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler


Prior to Hitler's election the German nation was in fiscal, economic, governmental, and employment turmoil.  More like chaos .  Germany had no internally produced wealth.  The DM was becoming worthless.  Unemployment had hit 30%.  Hindenburg had changed the government many times and a number of national elections were held.  Some "governments" of Germany lasting only hours before being replaced.  The Communist Party was gaining power, and the Nazi's were their only remaining opposition.  Every other party had all but collapsed.  While the "musical chairs" of governments were going on, Hitler and the Nazi's were solidifying the plans for if and when THEY got power.  The German Parliament had many Nazi's elected to it over the years.  So in yet another election, Hitler was elected, AND had power and support in the Parliament.

And the rest is history.

----------


## Dos Equis

> I disagree that anarchy is a Utopia.  History shows "the Law of the Jungle" is brutal and deadly.


There is no utopia, so why try to convince others into thinking that there is?

That is why collectivism will always fail.

Libertarians, on the other hand, will never force anyone to do anything.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> I do not care where you have been or what you have seen, what is done in other countries has  nothing to do what is happening here, but I do see where you are coming from.  You want total anarchy where everyone can do whatever they want to do without restriction or reprisal for the results of those actions.


No, that would be more like the government you have in which your elite, privileged rulers can do what they want without restriction and without reprisals. They can take your wealth and give it to their buddies and there's no punishment. They can expend your treasure on whatever will line their own coffers and increase their power. And you believe that you cannot live without them. That, somehow, people are not capable of self-rule and protecting their homes, families and communities without a political elite to live off their production.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> And in your perfect world there would be total anarchy because there would be no laws.


Question: which comes first, law or the state? 

If it's the state, as you seem to imply, how is a state lawfully established?

----------


## Dos Equis

> Question: which comes first, law or the state? 
> 
> If it's the state, as you seem to imply, how is a state lawfully established?


The state creates laws, and then later ignores them as they see fit.

Geesh, I thought everyone knew that.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Incorrect, but if we're going to make up definitions to fit our world views, this conversation is going to get even sillier than it is.


If one looks up the term "fascism" it seems that a number of philosophers make up definitions of that word that fit their world views. Whose definition do you believe is superior and why so?

----------

michaelr (06-01-2014)

----------


## Sled Dog

> I should have made myself clearer. I was not talking about the President having a Constitutional right to kill an American citizen, but the citizen, even thought he joined the Taliban still having his Fifth Amendment and other rights.


I recall a time when the Rodents were all aghast at their own allegations that Reagan was running so-called "death squads" in Honduras.

The Rodents don't seem to have any problem with the FACT that King Obama is murdering American citizens, and others, by Nintendo drones.

Wait.  Nintendo doesn't really sell shoot-em-up games.  By X-box drones.

----------


## michaelr

> I keep hearing angry citizens decrying this creature they refer to as "The Government" as if it's some evil being that descended on earth from the far reaches of the universe.
> 
> Aren't "We the people" the government?
> Don't we hold elections at regular intervals to choose who we want to represent us?
> Don't we all share some responsibility for the laws *WE* write via our elected reps in Congress?
> 
> Yes our system has problems but we have created those problems & it's up to us to find a peaceful way to resolve them.
> (end of today's sermon)
> 
> What do you all think?


You mean besides the traitors and scum in congressled by the treasonous Obama? Their bank and multinational corporate owners.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Libertarians, on the other hand, will never force anyone to do anything.



Nonsense.

If a man commits murder, libertarians will either force him to die, or force him to spend the rest of his life in prison.

However, libertarians will not sentence a man to life in prison, and then let him go out of some misplaced compassion because he's about to die of prostate cancer.

----------

Invayne (06-01-2014),michaelr (06-01-2014)

----------


## Sled Dog

> It wasn't wrong when Ike did it to enforce the SCOTUS decision in Brown v Board of education & *Obama hasn't done it.*


Damn boy.

Eisenhower ordered the Arkansas National Guard to...STAND DOWN and protect the people....countermanding the order your Rodent governor of Arkansas had given to those same troops to hurt them.

If your Rodent governor had not intruded military force into a civil proceedings to violate the Constitution, there would have been no call whatsoever for the President to get involved.

----------


## Sled Dog

> You evidently don't believe that we are any better than Nazi Germany. I disagree. (they were fascists & we are a democracy)


King Obama is a fascist, and, by extension, so must every single Stupid that voted for him.

----------

Invayne (06-01-2014),michaelr (06-01-2014)

----------


## Sled Dog

> You obviously have no idea what a true fascist state looks like. My recommendation for you is to travel the world a bit. At least get out of your home town.


Just because some fascist states were like Italy and National Socialist Germany, King Obama is also fascist, and so-called "liberal" billionaires like Zuckerman are working hard to make it more so.

----------

michaelr (06-01-2014)

----------


## Sled Dog

> The ACA passed both house of Congress & was signed into law by our President.
> Many of the people who were against it thought it didn't go far enough.
> (The GOP now doesn't even mention the ACA)


Here's the usual load of shit from the Left.

OBAMACare, to use it's official name, was passed out of the Senate with only 59 of the required 60 votes for cloture.  The vote counted at #60 was cast by Al Steal-The-Election Franken, and hence illegal.

The prompting of many of those 59 votes was based on bribery, a violation of Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution, that constituting a high-crime under the provisions for impeachment.  Incidents of bribery include the Kornhusker Kickback, Landrieu's Hospital Fund, etc.

OBAMACare was ORIGINATED in the Senate, and, since it was unconstiutionally rewritten to be a tax bill by the corrupt United States Supreme Guys in Black Dresses, it is in direct and complete violation of Article I, Section 7, Part 1, the Originations Clause.

NOT ONE American voted to pass OBAMACare, only DemocRATS.

OBAMACare was opposed by the majority of citizens.

There is no more egregious example of the corruption of democratic principles and the disregard of the will of the people and the oath of the poliicians to protect and obey the Constitution of the Unites States of America in the entire history of the United States than the passage of OBAMACare.

----------

Invayne (06-01-2014),Mordent (06-01-2014)

----------


## Sheldonna

> It's impossible to limit the size of the state. Government has no purpose in a civil society, it's completely unnecessary and detrimental. To state that 'evil' is necessary is counterintuitive.


Ok.  Let's say that somehow, magically (or supernaturally), overnight our federal "big government" disappeared.  What would we be left with?  The same thing we'd have after a nuke attack.  Chaos.  Upheaval.  Violence.  Rioting.  Panic.  And just as the US citizens would suddenly be victims at the hands of other citizens...they (we) would also be victims of foreign entities that would take the opportunity to pounce and to destroy us all.  What then?  We just let them because we would suddenly have no other choice or recourse?  Sounds like a #1 wet dream of all anti-American enemies to me.

So....wake the hell up.  We need government if for no other reason (and it's the only reason why I still need government) than to protect us from enemy factions/nations.

----------


## Sled Dog

> I am in your corner on this one. Fascism usually requires an authoritarian style of governance and like other totalitarian leftist regimes, requires military to impose and enforce the policy.


King Obama illegally APPOINTED the CEO of Government Motors, after illegally seizing the company from it's bond holders and distributing that company's stock to his goonion supporters.

A clear act of fascism.




> However, I don't view fascism in the same light as socialism or communism.


Then you're wrong.   There's no effective difference between the three. 

All lead to totalitarianism.
All violate basic human rights.
All corrupt societies.
All seize power to grow power.
All use the same platitudes to con the masses.
All lead to mass murder.

NONE end well.

----------

Invayne (06-01-2014)

----------


## Sled Dog

> I disagree with the belief that government is necessary... it's been proven to be detrimental to civil society.


Shit.

Without government there is anarchy.  Words have definitions that cut like a knife.

With anarchy the rise of government is centered on gang lords and war lords.

Under war lords societies coalesce into kingdoms and feudalism.  And we're then back to the Dark Ages.

That's what NO GOVERNMENT does.

What the United States had was LIMITED and CLEARLY DEFINED government.   That's what a Civil Society of free men requires.    A just government no stronger than needed to protect their freedoms from criminals and too weak to take those freedoms away.

No freedom exists without government, only My Might Makes It Mine.

----------


## michaelr

> Ok.  Let's say that somehow, magically (or supernaturally), overnight our federal "big government" disappeared.  What would we be left with?  The same thing we'd have after a nuke attack.  Chaos.  Upheaval.  Violence.  Rioting.  Panic.  And just as the US citizens would suddenly be victims at the hands of other citizens...they (we) would also be victims of foreign entities that would take the opportunity to pounce and to destroy us all.  What then?  We just let them because we would suddenly have no other choice or recourse?  Sounds like a #1 wet dream of all anti-American enemies to me.
> 
> So....wake the hell up.  We need government if for no other reason (and it's the only reason why I still need governmen) than to protect us from enemy factions/nations.


You don't need a massive overbearing goverment to quash anarchism, but it's guaranteed to give you tyranny. Thats why we're where we are. Now that the government is so vast, to validate it existence and keep them relevant, they all become well armed.

If you cut the government by two thirds, you still have enough to get the job done. Damn, we're not a bunch of animals. 

BTW, on your defense issue, give us a break. This so called government is a threat to security. Look at Ukraine, Egypt, Syria and others!

----------


## Sled Dog

> It depends on your perspective. When President Bush was in office there was no "The Government". Everything that was done, according to Liberals, was done by Bush. Bush lied us into war; Bush was torturing babies in Iraq; Bush was eating babies for breakfast; Bush had killed 2 million Iraqi civilians at a wedding; Bush was spying on Americans. When Barack Obama became Obama became president and began doing almost the same nefarious shit that President Bush had been doing, Liberals suddenly started reporting that "The government was doing this or that; The government was spying; the government was over taxing; the government was keeping secrets. It wasn't Barack Obama....*Oh fuck noooo*...it was *The Government*. 
> 
> Your contention that_ We the people_ are the government used to be valid. But thanks to Barack Obama and the Progs we the people have been cut out of the equation. It is no longer our government and it is no longer our country. The rats have taken over the Ship of State.


Fascists believe in Rule by Men, not the Rule of Law, hence Mussolini and Hitler, hence the Rodents' adoration of that disgusting bucket of slime Clinton, hence their worship of King Obama, hence their insistence that BUSH "did it".  They refuse to focus on any violation of law by their masters, they attribute everything to the person of their opponents.

If they weren't ignorant and easily led, society wouldn't have the problems it does.

----------


## Sled Dog

> You don't need a massive overbearing goverment to quash anarchism, but it's guaranteed to give you tyranny. Thats why we're where we are. Now that the government is so vast, to validate it existence and keep them relevant, they all become well armed.
> 
> If you cut the government by two thirds, you still have enough to get the job done. Damn, we're not a bunch of animals. 
> 
> BTW, on your defense issue, give us a break. This so called government is a threat to security. Look at Ukraine, Egypt, Syria and others!


There's a reason I call the DemocRATs Rodents.

They ARE a bunch of animals, lacking intelligence and reason, driven by hormones and emotion.

----------

michaelr (06-01-2014)

----------


## Sheldonna

> You don't need a massive overbearing goverment to quash anarchism, but it's guaranteed to give you tyranny. Thats why we're where we are. Now that the government is so vast, to validate it existence and keep them relevant, they all become well armed.


You DO, however, need an adequately sized government to repel enemy nations, who are just AS well armed as we are.  That is why conservatives (not RINOs) have been preaching about this for DECADES, with nobody on either side bothering to listen.




> If you cut the government by two thirds, you still have enough to get the job done. Damn, we're not a bunch of animals.


Maybe only by half vs. 2/3....since now, so many of these socialist programs are so ingrained that it would create more chaos than good to eliminate them.  But there are zillions of government agencies and positions that have never been necessary.....but were merely 'political payback' for support.  I'd start with the EPA and work from there.  Instead of gutting the US military, I'd gut government jobs across the board and I'd put back the work requirements in welfare.




> BTW, on your defense issue, give us a break. This so called government is a threat to security. Look at Ukraine, Egypt, Syria and others!


THIS administration/regime is not following the US constitution, so yes.  It is indeed a threat to OUR (not our enemies) security.  But don't let these anarchist putzes play you by getting you to agree with their BS.  They're on the side of our leftie enemies.....not on the side of constitutional Americans.

----------

michaelr (06-01-2014)

----------


## michaelr

> You DO, however, need an adequately sized government to repel enemy nations, who are just AS well armed as we are.  That is why conservatives (not RINOs) have been preaching about this for DECADES, with nobody on either side bothering to listen.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe only by half vs. 2/3....since now, so many of these socialist programs are so ingrained that it would create more chaos than good to eliminate them.  But there are zillions of government agencies and positions that have never been necessary.....but were merely 'political payback' for support.  I'd start with the EPA and work from there.  Instead of gutting the US military, I'd gut government jobs across the board and I'd put back the work requirements in welfare.
> 
> 
> 
> THIS administration/regime is not following the US constitution, so yes.  It is indeed a threat to OUR (not our enemies) security.  But don't let these anarchist putzes play you by getting you to agree with their BS.  They're on the side of our leftie enemies.....not on the side of constitutional Americans.


We don't really have enemy nations....we didn't. That can change back to normal. We, as dumbass Americans allow this country to be used as the technocrats toy box and piggy bank to push their form od democracy on people who don't want nor need it. It's fascim and dictatorship that they push, and supporters of this government, and even those who don't care much for the government support this under the guise of nationalism, or patriotism. It is neither.

----------

Invayne (06-01-2014)

----------


## Sheldonna

> *We don't really have enemy nations....we didn't. That can change back to normal.* We, as dumbass Americans allow this country to be used as the technocrats toy box and piggy bank to push their form od democracy on people who don't want nor need it. It's fascim and dictatorship that they push, and supporters of this government, and even those who don't care much for the government support this under the guise of nationalism, or patriotism. It is neither.


Now you're just dreaming (I hope), michael.  Are you serious???  You really think that ANY miraculous change in our government would bring about the acceptance of radical Islam?  Or the sudden approval of hard-core commie nations (our present amd past enemies)?  Give me a break!

The ONLY change that would gain acceptance of these present radical enemy nations would be America becoming exactly AS THEY ARE.

I don't know what propaganda spew-site you're buying into, but it's making you sound awfully silly.  Seriously.

----------


## michaelr

> Now you're just dreaming (I hope), michael.  Are you serious???  You really think that ANY miraculous change in our government would bring about the acceptance of radical Islam?  Or the sudden approval of hard-core commie nations (our present amd past enemies)?  Give me a break!
> 
> The ONLY change that would gain acceptance of these present radical enemy nations would be America becoming exactly AS THEY ARE.
> 
> I don't know what propaganda spew-site you're buying into, but it's making you sound awfully silly.  Seriously.


Yoh might have individuals wanting that but not nations.

----------


## Sheldonna

> Yoh might have individuals wanting that but not nations.


Huh?  Nations are made up of individuals.  I'm now more confused than ever @ your stance.

----------


## michaelr

> Huh?  Nations are made up of individuals.  I'm now more confused than ever @ your stance.


Government run nations. There are no governments in lines waiting to attack us, and if we kept more to ourselves, we'd have no problems.

----------

Invayne (06-01-2014)

----------


## Sheldonna

> Government run nations. There are no governments in lines waiting to attack us, and if we kept more to ourselves, we'd have no problems.


Soooo.....the NK and Iranian 'governments' want to be our friends?   Communist China owns a huge portion of our debt....because they luv us?

I want some of what YOU'RE smoking!

----------


## michaelr

> Soooo.....the NK and Iranian 'governments' want to be our friends?   Communist China owns a huge portion of our debt....because they luv us?
> 
> I want some of what YOU'RE smoking!


Didn't say they loved us, just saying they don't want to attack us. Let's supposed they did though, what is big government going to do to stop it, sick the dept of education or some shit on them?

----------


## Hansel

> Huh?  Nations are made up of individuals.  I'm now more confused than ever @ your stance.


Me too.   

I used to think that diplomacy and kindness might produce better results than military action but so far I am not seeing anything to bear that out.
We have dumped billions of dollars into ME countries like Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan to no avail. The plan was to make their lives physically more comfortable in hopes they would reject the snake oil of the jihadic terrorists, but has that happened to any large extent? Nation building just leaves us further in debt.

One problem with trying to appease or deal with Islamic countries is that the countries per se do not support the terrorists within their borders, so they say, and are therefore not the guilty parties. If someone buys that then I got a bridge they may be interested in. What they say and what they do are two different things, and Karzai is a master at milking us and paying lip service to our mission.

I think the biggest detriment to our success in the ME is lack of a clear cut military strategy to win one.  It reminds me of Nam in that we fought guerrillas, only to win some battles but lose the war. I see the wot as a war of attrition, and the crazies are counting on us giving up and going hope.
Maybe we should oblige them,,, after flattening the damn sandpiles, which brings up another obstacle to success in Afghanistan. It is very mountainous in places, which reminds me of the experience we had in the Korean Conflict. Fighting in mountains practically rules out heavy armament and relies on troops afoot and air attacks.  So is it any wonder it is slow going?

This is dirty pool and may be against international rules of warfare, but we need something other than conventional firepower to bring those idiots to heel.  Somehow we need to put the fear of God in them because we are wasting  lot of good people and have little to show for it.

----------

Sheldonna (06-01-2014)

----------


## Dan40

> Me too.   
> 
> I used to think that diplomacy and kindness might produce better results than military action but so far I am not seeing anything to bear that out.
> We have dumped billions of dollars into ME countries like Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan to no avail. The plan was to make their lives physically more comfortable in hopes they would reject the snake oil of the jihadic terrorists, but has that happened to any large extent? Nation building just leaves us further in debt.
> 
> One problem with trying to appease or deal with Islamic countries is that the countries per se do not support the terrorists within their borders, so they say, and are therefore not the guilty parties. If someone buys that then I got a bridge they may be interested in. What they say and what they do are two different things, and Karzai is a master at milking us and paying lip service to our mission.
> 
> I think the biggest detriment to our success in the ME is lack of a clear cut military strategy to win one.  It reminds me of Nam in that we fought guerrillas, only to win some battles but lose the war. I see the wot as a war of attrition, and the crazies are counting on us giving up and going hope.
> Maybe we should oblige them,,, after flattening the damn sandpiles, which brings up another obstacle to success in Afghanistan. It is very mountainous in places, which reminds me of the experience we had in the Korean Conflict. Fighting in mountains practically rules out heavy armament and relies on troops afoot and air attacks.  So is it any wonder it is slow going?
> ...


Diplomacy and kindness DO work well.  But the proper negotiating atmosphere must be in place.  If the negotiating table is surrounded by our tanks with main guns pointed at the table.  Then negotiations can proceed to an agreeable resolution.

In Vietnam some DC yahoo came up with the "Win their hearts and minds" campaign.

The troops decided that if we got them by the balls, their hearts and minds would follow.

If we are not negotiating from a position of overwhelming strength and the willingness to use it.  We are just whistling in the wind.

----------

Sheldonna (06-01-2014)

----------


## Sheldonna

> Me too.   
> 
> I used to think that diplomacy and kindness might produce better results than military action but so far I am not seeing anything to bear that out.
> We have dumped billions of dollars into ME countries like Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan to no avail. The plan was to make their lives physically more comfortable in hopes they would reject the snake oil of the jihadic terrorists, but has that happened to any large extent? Nation building just leaves us further in debt.
> 
> One problem with trying to appease or deal with Islamic countries is that the countries per se do not support the terrorists within their borders, so they say, and are therefore not the guilty parties. If someone buys that then I got a bridge they may be interested in. What they say and what they do are two different things, and Karzai is a master at milking us and paying lip service to our mission.
> 
> I think the biggest detriment to our success in the ME is lack of a clear cut military strategy to win one.  It reminds me of Nam in that we fought guerrillas, only to win some battles but lose the war. I see the wot as a war of attrition, and the crazies are counting on us giving up and going hope.
> Maybe we should oblige them,,, after flattening the damn sandpiles, which brings up another obstacle to success in Afghanistan. It is very mountainous in places, which reminds me of the experience we had in the Korean Conflict. Fighting in mountains practically rules out heavy armament and relies on troops afoot and air attacks.  So is it any wonder it is slow going?
> ...


I agree.  Throwing money at them and trying to "buy" their friendship and loyalty has never worked due to their anti-western ideology.  They are brainwashed from childhood to hate western civilization (US and Israel, mostly), portrayed as 'the great satan'.  The only thing that these kind of people respect is a show of strength, which....under Obama.....is never gonna happen again.  Quite the contrary, in fact.

The Soviets tried fighting in Afghanistan and failed.  So then we jump in and try it too....with conventional weaponry?  How stupid.  And even moreso now that we have a metrosexual Pansy-In-Chief commanding our armed forces.   How could we NOT lose now?

----------


## Devil505

> It depends on your perspective. When President Bush was in office there was no "The Government". Everything that was done, according to Liberals, was done by Bush. Bush lied us into war; Bush was torturing babies in Iraq; Bush was eating babies for breakfast; Bush had killed 2 million Iraqi civilians at a wedding; Bush was spying on Americans. When Barack Obama became Obama became president and began doing almost the same nefarious shit that President Bush had been doing, Liberals suddenly started reporting that "The government was doing this or that; The government was spying; the government was over taxing; the government was keeping secrets. It wasn't Barack Obama....*Oh fuck noooo*...it was *The Government*. 
> 
> Your contention that_ We the people_ are the government used to be valid. But thanks to Barack Obama and the Progs we the people have been cut out of the equation. It is no longer our government and it is no longer our country. The rats have taken over the Ship of State.


Partisan bullshit!

----------


## Hansel

> Soooo.....the NK and Iranian 'governments' want to be our friends?   Communist China owns a huge portion of our debt....because they luv us?
> 
> I want some of what YOU'RE smoking!


Hell who needs to attack us when we have Obama giving it away to them? 

As to a major conflict in the future, I am really concerned about our ability to pull together as a nation  to support a war effort. Our backs will have to be against the wall before we see such unity of purpose. Since Vietnam have we had so little support for our foreign policy, and rightly so. It is dumb and fruitless in many ways.

----------


## Invayne

> Me too.   
> 
> I used to think that diplomacy and kindness might produce better results than military action but so far I am not seeing anything to bear that out.


So far? I'm sorry...what?

I must have missed the diplomacy and kindness of our government while we go all around the world causing destabilization, death, and destruction. Funny, that.

----------


## Sheldonna

> Didn't say they loved us, just saying they don't want to attack us. Let's supposed they did though, what is big government going to do to stop it, sick the dept of education or some shit on them?


Bull.  They would have already attacked us if they thought they could get away with it without becoming a glass parking lot in the process.  Our strength is our ability to deter enemy or rogue nations with our defense capabilities.  THAT is what government is for.  Deterrence and national security.  Not all of this other regulate-everything, anti-constitutional mandating and welfare socialist bullcrap.

----------


## Invayne

Why is everyone so afraid of Iran attacking us? When was the last time they attacked anyone? Let's not forget that there are more dangerous ones out there that most people consider our "friend" and "ally".

----------

Devil505 (06-01-2014)

----------


## Sheldonna

> No, Jack, you're mistaken there. Obama is doing just what Bush did, but they're OK with it now. No one is complaining anymore. Notice how there is no more anti-war movement even though this treasonous administration is still at war, AND killing American citizens. They don't care as long as it's "their" guy doing it.
> 
> So no, they're not complaining about "the Government". They'll start whining and marching in the streets again *if a Republican gets selected*. Until then...crickets.


Yes, and then suddenly....any and ALL American military deaths will again be front-page "NEWZ" and reported on 24/7 by left-wing media.

Effing leftist hypocrite POSs.

----------


## Sheldonna

> *Hell who needs to attack us when we have Obama giving it away to them*? 
> 
> As to a major conflict in the future, I am really concerned about our ability to pull together as a nation  to support a war effort. Our backs will have to be against the wall before we see such unity of purpose. Since Vietnam have we had so little support for our foreign policy, and rightly so. It is dumb and fruitless in many ways.


Well, he's gonna need some excuse to declare Martial Law, dontcha know.  I'm sure he and his MB bros will cook up some plan to further that leftist (and anti-America) agenda.

----------


## Hansel

> King Obama illegally APPOINTED the CEO of Government Motors, after illegally seizing the company from it's bond holders and distributing that company's stock to his goonion supporters.
> 
> A clear act of fascism.
> 
> 
> 
> Then you're wrong.   There's no effective difference between the three. 
> 
> All lead to totalitarianism.
> ...


The primary difference is in the economic order. In fascism the gubmint controls the private industry that will make it war toys but is less intrusive than under socialism. Perhaps it is  matter of intent.  For example, the steel works and the huge chemical company did quite well making things for Hitler.
He also had the banks eating out of his hand.  Under socialism the people in principle own the factors of production but under Hitler that was not the case.

In  an economic sense Hitler was a boon to the German people because he put  lot of them back to work making war materiel. So in  the case of Germany fascism was not all bad.

I think that people are confused as to what fascism means these days, but perhaps the word has taken on a new meaning. As with other orders, there are probably no classic ones and most are a blend of more than one economic or political order.  I think that in the case of Obama the word statism is more descriptive of what we are seeing, with the state being the federal government.

----------


## michaelr

> Bull.  They would have already attacked us if they thought they could get away with it without becoming a glass parking lot in the process.  Our strength is our ability to deter enemy or rogue nations with our defense capabilities.  THAT is what government is for.  Deterrence and national security.  Not all of this other regulate-everything, anti-constitutional mandating and welfare socialist bullcrap.


Really, huh. Not even close.

----------


## Hansel

> So far? I'm sorry...what?
> 
> I must have missed the diplomacy and kindness of our government while we go all around the world causing destabilization, death, and destruction. Funny, that.


I think that Obama once said he would try more diplomacy and such.  If we wanted to be real foolish assholes we could be in Pakistan, Korea, and Iran too.  We are already in Yemen on a small scale and have been for years now.  And we must be nosing around across the Red Sea on the mainland of Africa in small ways.  So much for Obama's gun barrel diplomacy.

If there is oil we will be there to some degree, you can count on that.

----------

Invayne (06-02-2014)

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> I recall a time when the Rodents were all aghast at their own allegations that Reagan was running so-called "death squads" in Honduras.
> 
> The Rodents don't seem to have any problem with the FACT that King Obama is murdering American citizens, and others, by Nintendo drones.
> 
> Wait.  Nintendo doesn't really sell shoot-em-up games.  By X-box drones.


Well, it was the DemonicRats that were complaining about Constitutional rights the the discussion that I was talking about.

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> Question: which comes first, law or the state? 
> 
> If it's the state, as you seem to imply, how is a state lawfully established?


Quit dodging the facts, just admit that all you want is total anarchy.

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> No, that would be more like the government you have in which your elite, privileged rulers can do what they want without restriction and without reprisals. They can take your wealth and give it to their buddies and there's no punishment. They can expend your treasure on whatever will line their own coffers and increase their power. And you believe that you cannot live without them. That, somehow, people are not capable of self-rule and protecting their homes, families and communities without a political elite to live off their production.


And who are these elitists?  Obama and company, George Soros, the Clintons?  Who, oh, I know the banks that your ows buddies rall against?

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> The ACA passed both house of Congress & was signed into law by our President.
> Many of the people who were against it thought it didn't go far enough.
> (The GOP now doesn't even mention the ACA)


It was pushed through the Congress, no one on the right voted for the ACA because they saw the mess coming with it.

----------


## Devil505

> It was pushed through the Congress, no one on the right voted for the ACA because they saw the mess coming with it.


No one in the GOP voted for it because they aren't allowed to do their own thinking in the GOP. They stay in line or get lousy committee assignments & less campaign money for elections.
The GOP is the most undemocratic (small "d" ) party we have in this country!

----------


## Hansel

> So far? I'm sorry...what?
> 
> I must have missed the diplomacy and kindness of our government while we go all around the world causing destabilization, death, and destruction. Funny, that.


We have tried diplomacy with  Iran and Russia, with mixed results.  It is hard to reason with the unreasonable, but diplomatic moves before going off half cocked and attacking someone are usually the mode of operation. Note that we don't try to push around the major countries or those that have nukes.

As to our military strikes, I think that Gulf I was appropriate but I question Gulf II after SH was taken out and our latest failure, Afghanistan.

----------


## Hansel

> So far? I'm sorry...what?
> 
> I must have missed the diplomacy and kindness of our government while we go all around the world causing destabilization, death, and destruction. Funny, that.


What do you suggest that we do?

----------


## Hansel

> Quit dodging the facts, just admit that all you want is total anarchy.


I don't see total anarchy as being  viable form of governance for a large country like the USA. We already have Detroit and South Chicago, real jungles full of apes.

If a civilization exists it is implied that there is some form of governance, if no more than standards of decency.  The law of the west and frontier justice just won't hack it in this day of complex and varied societies.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I don't see total anarchy as being  viable form of governance for a large country like the USA. We already have Detroit and South Chicago, real jungles full of apes.
> 
> If a civilization exists it is implied that there is some form of governance, if no more than standards of decency.  The law of the west and frontier justice just won't hack it in this day of complex and varied societies.


Agreed.  Important to such a large governance is strict adherence to a Constitution protecting individual rights.  Most of our problems are related to the chipping away of those rights.

----------

Hansel (06-02-2014)

----------


## Hansel

> Agreed.  Important to such a large governance is strict adherence to a Constitution protecting individual rights.  Most of our problems are related to the chipping away of those rights.


It seems to be a low key but steady erosion, just like rust on metal.   

One good sign is that the states are trying to push back against Washington policy.  This morning's paper had a piece on states joining together to fight the proposed EPA standards on emissions from coal fired power plants. It is an economic struggle with coal being a major source of our grid power. I wish we had a suitable and adequate substitute for coal but looking at it another way, it is available in huge quantities so we need to utilize it.

I just cannot believe that NG is as plentiful as some say it is. It burns more cleanly than coal but a power plant would really deplete a  gas field in short time it seems.  We need to learn to use NG for applications such as space heating and use the coal and other hydrocarbons for the heavy lifting such as power plants and smelting operations.  

I am a bit of an alternate energy fan and have done some studies in the past on possible renewable sources of energy. Once again, "renewable" is the key trait of any fuel if we are to get hooked on it long term.  Methanol, an alcohol, is pretty caustic but sources say that the feed stock for this fuel is very adequate, being primarily woody plants, hence the term wood alcohol. It is not for everyone but it is renewable and apparently the feedstock is plentiful in areas where there is vegetation.  We need to think in terms of  a multi fuel economy rather than a one size fits all concept if we are to get good utilization of the various biofuels that are available in some areas but not in others.  One has to learn to go with what he's got, so to speak.

Frankly I don't care what I burn in my truck as long as it works and is not cost prohibitive. My truck is flex fuel but the little Equinox is not, which seems to be ass backwards from the standpoint of fuel consumption. Heavy vehicles will really suck it up where a small light weight car would give pretty decent performance on E85 it seems.

----------

Max Rockatansky (06-02-2014)

----------


## Hansel

Max I really enjoy your sensible and adult opinions on the issues.

----------


## Hansel

> Quit dodging the facts, just admit that all you want is total anarchy.


I don't think it is realistic to want such.  South Chicago and Detroit are telling us that. Life in the jungle is short and miserable.
Survival of the fittest is a  cruel joke.

----------

Old Ridge Runner (06-03-2014)

----------


## Sled Dog

> You DO, however, need an adequately sized government to repel enemy nations, who are just AS well armed as we are. That is why conservatives (not RINOs) have been preaching about this for DECADES, with nobody on either side bothering to listen.


Yes, a strong military is needed.

But what we don't need, and what is not allowed by the Constitution, are ANY of the following:

A government to protect us from chemical substances that are apparently just jumping up off the street and injecting themselves into our veins, blowing up our noses, and burning with a hot desire to smoke up our lungs.

A central gorvernment to educate us.

A government to run the biggest Ponzi Scheme in the world, to help us retire.

A government to tax us to provide health insurance.

A central government that owns more the western states than the western states do.

A government that values completely useless jumping mice over thirsty cattle that we could eat.

A government that take our children from us on the mere presumption of wrong doing.

A government that forbids us from exploiting our own energy resources.

A government that makes the breath we exhale a poison gas subject to bureaucratic control.

A government that steals from the useful to buy votes from the useless...to make the government even more powerful.




> Maybe only by half vs. 2/3....since now, so many of these socialist programs are so ingrained that it would create more chaos than good to eliminate them.


Eliminate them anyway.

Either take a moral stand, or cower.  Don't get splinters in your ass crack from sitting on that rickety wooden fence.




> THIS administration/regime is not following the US constitution, so yes. It is indeed a threat to OUR (not our enemies) security. But don't let these anarchist putzes play you by getting you to agree with their BS. They're on the side of our leftie enemies.....not on the side of constitutional Americans.


Major portions of the federal government have been unconstitutional since FDR.

THIS dictator is taking the accumulation of illegal powers and medea malfeasance to wreak as much damage as he can.

----------

Invayne (06-02-2014),OriginalCyn (06-05-2014),Sheldonna (06-02-2014)

----------


## Sled Dog

> No one in the GOP voted for it because they aren't allowed to do their own thinking in the GOP. They stay in line or get lousy committee assignments & less campaign money for elections.
> The GOP is the most undemocratic (small "d" ) party we have in this country!


Thus is the Robot Rodent programmed to speak.

Explain why RODENT Senators and Sentorettes HAD TO BE BRIBED to vote for OBAMACare.

Because they were thinking thoughts the Rodent Masters did not approve.

----------


## Sled Dog

> We have tried diplomacy with Iran and Russia, with mixed results. It is hard to reason with the unreasonable, but diplomatic moves before going off half cocked and attacking someone are usually the mode of operation. Note that we don't try to push around the major countries or those that have nukes.
> 
> As to our military strikes, I think that Gulf I was appropriate but I question Gulf II after SH was taken out and our latest failure, Afghanistan.


Diplomacy works best when the nation behind him holds a big god-damned stick, plus a viable military, energy independence, and the means to fuck up totally the one-horse oil-based economy of the aggressor.

Diplomacy does not work at all when the Stupids elect a dickless traitor with no backbone and, naturally, every desire for the Russians and Chinese to supersede the US.

----------


## Sled Dog

> It seems to be a low key but steady erosion, just like rust on metal.


Nope.

It's fatigue.   I tested helicopter rotor blades to fatigue failure for several years.  The most entertaining break was from a initiating flaw on a inner fillet in a 15-5PH rotor spindle.  The circular beach marks worked their way to the barest outer surface of the part, reducing the effective area of the spindle by some 10%.   The part then ruptured in complete failure, releasing 12 tons of tensile force instantly.    Made  really impressive bang.   More impressive were the test pilots who rushed over to see it.   If it had been a real rotor blade in a real helicopter, they would have been falling from the sky.

You see, the crack didn't have to be visible, it didn't have to damage a large part of the structure, it's damage was completely invisible (strain gage traces showed NO warnings), and yet it had the potention to completely destroy the machine in an instant.

Sad to say, this nation is beyond the point of recovery, the damage done is too deep.

----------


## Sheldonna

> Yes, a strong military is needed.
> 
> But what we don't need, and what is not allowed by the Constitution, are ANY of the following:
> 
> A government to protect us from chemical substances that are apparently just jumping up off the street and injecting themselves into our veins, blowing up our noses, and burning with a hot desire to smoke up our lungs.
> 
> A central gorvernment to educate us.
> 
> A government to run the biggest Ponzi Scheme in the world, to help us retire.
> ...


Can't argue with that.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I don't think it is realistic to want such.  South Chicago and Detroit are telling us that. Life in the jungle is short and miserable.
> Survival of the fittest is a  cruel joke.


Agreed.  Total anarchy is usually a temporary measure until people can regroup and start fighting the bandits and other assholes.  

People _want_ stability and the best way to achieve that is through some form of coordination with all groups within their trading areas.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Well, he's gonna need some excuse to declare Martial Law, dontcha know.  I'm sure he and his MB bros will cook up some plan to further that leftist (and anti-America) agenda.


This isn't Libya or Saudi Arabia.  Left-wingers were paranoid as Hell after the 2008 election that Bush would declare martial law to keep office.  It's a common custom, and a healthy one!, for Americans to distrust government.  Being overly paranoid about it can be carried too far.  

Let's say Obama did declare martial law.  Who's going to enforce it?  The United States military, the National Guard and most police departments lean primarily which direction?  Yup, they lean right.  IF a President was stupid enough to declare martial law, it'd last less than a day because the people with the guns would take a very dim view of those usurping the Constitution of the United States of America.

----------


## Invayne

> Let's say Obama did declare martial law.  Who's going to enforce it?  The United States military, the National Guard and most police departments lean primarily which direction?  Yup, they lean right.  IF a President was stupid enough to declare martial law, it'd last less than a day because the people with the guns would take a very dim view of those usurping the Constitution of the United States of America.


History shows us that most of them would probably "follow orders". There are people right here on this forum that believe no law should be broken, so they too would go along with it. They would peacefully hand over their guns and pray that their masters won't hurt them. That's just the way it is....

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> History shows us that most of them would probably "follow orders". There are people right here on this forum that believe no law should be broken, so they too would go along with it. *They would peacefully hand over their guns and pray that their masters won't hurt them.* That's just the way it is....


I doubt that. 

Let's look at the Boston bombing.  Martial law wasn't declared, but people were asked to stay off the streets and they did, voluntarily.  That lasted a week.  Okay, so many people are scared of shrapnel.  Fine, but how long would that hold up?  What if it turned into weeks, if not months of curfews, always required to carry one's papers ("show me zee papers!", random frisking, roadblocks and other draconian measures?  How long before people began to complain?  Started resisting?  How long before some idiot orders his squad to fire and a entire families are mowed down in a hail of gun fire?  Then what would happen?  

Our military has less than million members.  Even if all of them "followed orders" and shot down or imprisoned their fellow American citizens, the fact remains there are over 250 million guns in this country and between 70 and 80 million adults own guns.  If aroused, and it would take a lot, American citizens can raise quite a ruckus.  Declaring martial law would definitely push them over that edge.

----------


## hoytmonger

> I don't think it is realistic to want such.  South Chicago and Detroit are telling us that. Life in the jungle is short and miserable.
> Survival of the fittest is a  cruel joke.


South Chicago and Detroit are both products of the state, or rather failures of the state... they are not examples of anarchy.

----------


## hoytmonger

> I doubt that. 
> 
> Let's look at the Boston bombing.  Martial law wasn't declared, but people were asked to stay off the streets and they did, voluntarily.  That lasted a week.  Okay, so many people are scared of shrapnel.  Fine, but how long would that hold up?  What if it turned into weeks, if not months of curfews, always required to carry one's papers ("show me zee papers!", random frisking, roadblocks and other draconian measures?  How long before people began to complain?  Started resisting?  How long before some idiot orders his squad to fire and a entire families are mowed down in a hail of gun fire?  Then what would happen?  
> 
> Our military has less than million members.  Even if all of them "followed orders" and shot down or imprisoned their fellow American citizens, the fact remains there are over 250 million guns in this country and between 70 and 80 million adults own guns.  If aroused, and it would take a lot, American citizens can raise quite a ruckus.  Declaring martial law would definitely push them over that edge.


Martial law wasn't declared... but it was enforced. Police entered homes with machine guns and without warrants.

When push comes to shove, the police, DHS and likely the military will turn on civilians.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Martial law wasn't declared... but it was enforced. Police entered homes with machine guns and without warrants.
> 
> When push comes to shove, the police, DHS and likely the military will turn on civilians.


Which is why I doubt you've ever worked for either.

----------

Lefty (06-02-2014)

----------


## Sheldonna

> This isn't Libya or Saudi Arabia.  Left-wingers were paranoid as Hell after the 2008 election that Bush would declare martial law to keep office.  It's a common custom, and a healthy one!, for Americans to distrust government.  Being overly paranoid about it can be carried too far.  
> 
> Let's say Obama did declare martial law.  Who's going to enforce it?  The United States military, the National Guard and most police departments lean primarily which direction?  Yup, they lean right.  IF a President was stupid enough to declare martial law, it'd last less than a day because the people with the guns would take a very dim view of those usurping the Constitution of the United States of America.


In order to create chaos......our ability to communicate (and organize) would be marginalized, if not eliminated completely.  Cell phones, internet, tv "newz" would all be cut off.....leaving Americans wondering WTF.  By the time we figured it out, it would already be OVER....and we would be slaves of the leftist state officially....vs. the unofficial version we have right now.

And you'd be amazed how "pliant" and wussy folks become if or when their kids' stomachs are empty and they have no way to feed them or themselves other than to beg the elitist government for food.  It's been done in other nations in the past.  I can see it happening here under this Marxist coup.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> In order to create chaos......our ability to communicate (and organize) would be marginalized, if not eliminated completely.  Cell phones, internet, tv "newz" would all be cut off.....leaving Americans wondering WTF.  By the time we figured it out, it would already be OVER....and we would be slaves of the leftist state officially....vs. the unofficial version we have right now.


People would be rioting in the streets.  Those with guns would fight any "authorities" and take their guns.  The American people would win by sheer mass; there're more of us than there're of them.

----------

Lefty (06-02-2014)

----------


## Sheldonna

> People would be rioting in the streets.  Those with guns would fight any "authorities" and take their guns.  The American people would win by sheer mass; there're more of us than there're of them.


But again, with no organization and no _leaders_ on our side, and with facing the reality of  mass starvation (and yeah, that's what leftists always do....why do you think they're working so tirelessly to control ALL food production?)....people would be too weak to 'go out and' fight.  Everyone would just be trying to defend their own home and family and what little food they had.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> But again, with no organization and no _leaders_ on our side, and with facing the reality of  mass starvation (and yeah, that's what leftists always do....why do you think they're working so tirelessly to control ALL food production?)....people would be too weak to 'go out and' fight.  Everyone would just be trying to defend their own home and family and what little food they had.


I think many National Guard units and state Governors would take exception to such measures.  What you are suggesting is that the vast majority of military personnel, police, state governments and businessmen would happily go along with martial law.  I doubt that would happen.

In fact, I doubt any President would be dumb enough to declare martial law at all in the next few years.  9/11 was the closest we came and it didn't happen.  If another 9/11 happened and a President did decide to declare martial law, I think most Americans would riot since they are better educated about the realities now.

----------

Lefty (06-02-2014)

----------


## Sheldonna

> I think many National Guard units and state Governors would take exception to such measures.  What you are suggesting is that the vast majority of military personnel, police, state governments and businessmen would happily go along with martial law.  I doubt that would happen.
> 
> In fact, I doubt any President would be dumb enough to declare martial law at all in the next few years.  9/11 was the closest we came and it didn't happen.  If another 9/11 happened and a President did decide to declare martial law, I think most Americans would riot since they are better educated about the realities now.


I think you're being overly (and unjustly...lol) optimistic.  On the other hand.....perhaps I'm being too pessimistic (as usual).  

Let's hope that you are correct and that I am not, eh?

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I think you're being overly (and unjustly...lol) optimistic.  On the other hand.....perhaps I'm being too pessimistic (as usual).  
> 
> Let's hope that you are correct and that I am not, eh?


I'm no Polly Anna, but I do tend to see the glass as being half-full not half-empty.  Mostly I'm a realist. I've been around the world a few times.  I've worked for, with or otherwise associated with the government for most of my life.  The Lefties see the military as "the Military", a single entity, but I know it to be composed of thousands of men and women who are primarily damn fine Americans seeking to serve their country.  Like any other group, there are a few knuckleheads, but the vast majority love their country and fervently believe in living up to their oath of defending the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.  Martial law is an abrogation of our Constitution.  Many people would fiercely object to seeing their Constitutional rights taken away.

----------

Sheldonna (06-02-2014)

----------


## Lefty

> I'm no Polly Anna, but I do tend to see the glass as being half-full not half-empty.  Mostly I'm a realist. I've been around the world a few times.  I've worked for, with or otherwise associated with the government for most of my life.  The Lefties see the military as "the Military", a single entity, but I know it to be composed of thousands of men and women who are primarily damn fine Americans seeking to serve their country.  Like any other group, there are a few knuckleheads, but the vast majority love their country and fervently believe in living up to their oath of defending the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.  Martial law is an abrogation of our Constitution.  Many people would fiercely object to seeing their Constitutional rights taken away.


Really well said except for the lefty comments.  I believe there is a HUGE left representation in the military.  And loving our country is why we fight so hard to get the elite away from controlling it.

----------

Max Rockatansky (06-02-2014)

----------


## Sled Dog

> I doubt that. 
> 
> Let's look at the Boston bombing. Martial law wasn't declared, but people were asked to stay off the streets and they did, voluntarily.


"Voluntarily"?

They were FORCED to remain inside or the trigger happy pigs would shoot them.

Their HOMES were SEARCHED, house by house, block by block, with NO warrant, NO probable cause, and NO constitutional authority, and NO choice in the matter.




> Our military has less than million members. Even if all of them "followed orders" and shot down or imprisoned their fellow American citizens, the fact remains there are over 250 million guns in this country and between 70 and 80 million adults own guns. If aroused, and it would take a lot, American citizens can raise quite a ruckus. Declaring martial law would definitely push them over that edge.


Things the military has that the citizen does not.

Tanks.
Fully automatic weapons.
Fuel-Air bombs.
JDAMS.
Supersonic fighter aircraft.
Stealth aircraft.
Stealth bombers.
Napalm.
Grenades.
Cannons.
Tear gas.
CS gas.
Body Armor.
Gas masks.
C-cubed-I.
GPS (that would be turned off to the civillians).
Attack helicopters.
PROFESSIONAL TRAINING.

It's all wonderful to point out the millions and millions of citizens under arms, but if the military turns en masse against those citizens, the citizenry is unlikely to triumph.  

And King Obama and the Rodents are busy turning the US military into a liberal paradise, focused on loyalty to the government, not the nation.    They're even working to import foreign mercenaries with no connection to the citizenry at all.

----------

Invayne (06-02-2014)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Really well said except for the lefty comments.*  I believe there is a HUGE left representation in the military*.  And loving our country is why we fight so hard to get the elite away from controlling it.


Not so much.  :Stick Out Tongue: 

OTOH, there aren't a lot of far Righties either.  Most military personnel lean right, but understand the wisdom of moderation.  As the Republican Party has moved further and further right, condemning anyone left of far right as a "RINO" and becoming increasingly polarized, many military members have left the Republican Party to become Independents.  Notice that they didn't switch to become Democrats.  :Big Grin: 

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/arti...itical-parties



> Political party affiliation has fallen sharply among those wearing the uniform today, a new Military Times survey shows.An exclusive survey of some 1,800 active-duty troops shows the percentage of self-identified Republicans has decreased by one-third since 2004, from 60 percent to 41 percent, while the percentage of self-identified independents has nearly doubled to 32 percent during the same period.
> 
> These career-oriented officers and mid-grade and senior enlisted members are still far more conservative than liberal, but they are less likely today to identify with the GOP, the survey shows.
> 
> Much of the shift appears to have occurred only very recently, with the percentage of troops identifying themselves as Republican dropping nine percentage points from 2008 to 2009 and the percentage of those calling themselves independents increasing 10 points over the same period.
> 
> Respondents are also more pessimistic about the mission in Afghanistan, more optimistic about Iraq and virtually divided about President Obama's performance as commander in chief.



http://swampland.time.com/2012/11/05...an-republican/



> Indeed, there has been a conservative drift among U.S. military officers since the draft ended. In a 2009 survey of 4,000 Army officers, Heidi Urben, an active-duty officer and doctoral candidate at Georgetown University, found that between 1976 and 1996, the share of senior military officers identifying itself as Republican jumped from one-third to two-thirds, while those claiming to be moderates fell from 46% to 22%.Senior military officers who described themselves as liberal fell from 16% in 1976 to 3% in 1996. Urben found that younger officers leaving the Army were far more likely to identify themselves as Democrats than those opting to stay, which would tend to make the more senior ranks increasingly Republican.
> 
> Past surveys have shown senior military officers to generally be conservative and identify with the Republican Party, a trend which has solidified with the advent and professionalism of the all-volunteer force, Urben wrote in her 2010 dissertation. Meanwhile, recent surveys suggest that the officer corps is more likely to be conservative and Republican than most enlisted Soldiers, an important distinction to keep in mind, considering enlisted Soldiers outnumber officers by four to one in the Army.
> 
> A Pew survey released last year showed post-9/11 veterans political leanings are the reverse of the public theyre serving: 36% describe themselves as Republicans, and 21% as Democrats; 34% of the public said they were Democrats, and 23% Republican. Six in 10 vets say theyre more patriotic than the average American.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Which is why I doubt you've ever worked for either.


The cops had NO PROBLEM, none whatsoever, tossing a grenade into a baby's crib.

http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads...278#post317278

There are so-called "conservatives" defending that action and blaming the baby's mother for the injury.

----------

BleedingHeadKen (06-03-2014)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> The cops had NO PROBLEM, none whatsoever, tossing a grenade into a baby's crib.


When you climb back off the ceiling, maybe you'll find out they didn't do it on purpose.  They didn't even know the kid was in the house.

----------


## Sled Dog

> As the Republican Party has moved further and further right,


That has nothing to do with the United States.  What country are you babbling about?

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> That has nothing to do with the United States.  What country are you babbling about?


Nothing you would understand.

----------


## Sled Dog

> When you climb back off the ceiling, maybe you'll find out they didn't do it on purpose. They didn't even know the kid was in the house.



They were SUPPOSED TO CHECK.

It's called "criminal negligence".    Or didn't you know that cops can be criminals, too, like when they toss a live grenade in a baby's face.    

If a civillian had done that, he'd be in prison.

Is the pig that did that facing anything resembling a criminal charge?

----------


## Sled Dog

> Nothing you would understand.


So you won't tell us what country you're talking about.

Noted.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> So you won't tell us what country you're talking about.
> 
> Noted.


The smart people already know.  As for the dumb asses, who cares what they think?

----------


## Sled Dog

> The smart people already know. As for the dumb asses, who cares what they think?


Nobody cares what you think.

That's why I whittled your post down to the factual error you made and refuted that.  It served no purpose of mine to shred your logical structure based on your axiomatic error.  The fact of the error pulled the structure down without effort.

Get back on topic. This conversation is finished.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> This conversation is finished.


Thank God!  I was getting bored even scrolling through the dribble.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Quit dodging the facts, just admit that all you want is total anarchy.


Except, that it isn't a fact. Perhaps it's you dodging the fact that you have no political principles which ground you. Just just float with the wind like most people and that's why we get ever increasing leviathan government.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> And who are these elitists?  Obama and company, George Soros, the Clintons?  Who, oh, I know the banks that your ows buddies rall against?


Yup. All of them. If they are siphoning from the productive, then they are part of the problem. And you likely support half of them while railing against the other half. As if it were a football game rather than the future of your children and grandchildren at stake.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> It was pushed through the Congress, no one on the right voted for the ACA because they saw the mess coming with it.


So they were against it after they were for it. They would have eagerly voted it in had it been a President with an R by his name.  After all, it was conservatives who originally proposed the idea.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> So they were against it after they were for it. They would have eagerly voted it in had it been a President with an R by his name.  After all, it was conservatives who originally proposed the idea.


Not the ACA.  Healthcare has been a big issue since the Reagan days.  It was one of the first projects taken on by Bill Clinton, and like Barack Obama 16 years later, he fucked it up.  Just because Romney signed a bill similar in some respects to the ACA doesn't mean "it was the conservatives who originally proposed the idea".

----------


## JustPassinThru

> I'm no Polly Anna, but I do tend to see the glass as being half-full not half-empty.  Mostly I'm a realist. I've been around the world a few times.  I've worked for, with or otherwise associated with the government for most of my life.  The Lefties see the military as "the Military", a single entity, but I know it to be composed of thousands of men and women who are primarily damn fine Americans seeking to serve their country.  Like any other group, there are a few knuckleheads, but the vast majority love their country and fervently believe in living up to their oath of defending the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.  Martial law is an abrogation of our Constitution.  Many people would fiercely object to seeing their Constitutional rights taken away.


They wouldn't see it that way, not immediately.  Law-abiding substantial citizens always move with restraint in such situations.

They'd hold their ground until provoked and threatened, attacked, into retaliation.  THAT would be when Federal and other forces land HARD...not on the zombie rioters and arsonists, but on the dangerous Teabagger terrorists who're out there shooting at innocent men of color.  Who just happen to be carrying Molotov cocktails with slings.

THIS is WHY it's important for whole STATES, or sections of larger states, to separate from the Union.  Prevent this sort of violent agitprop from coming to be; preserve order in the municipalities while preventing Washingtoon troops from deploying.

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> So they were against it after they were for it. They would have eagerly voted it in had it been a President with an R by his name.  After all, it was conservatives who originally proposed the idea.


That is nothing but conjecture on your part.

----------


## Devil505

> That is nothing but conjecture on your part.


LOL....BHK is absolutely right & we all know it. (even you)

Demint summed it up perfectly as a purely partisan effort to "Break" Obama


Party over country as usual for Demint!

----------

BleedingHeadKen (06-03-2014)

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> Yup. All of them. If they are siphoning from the productive, then they are part of the problem. And you likely support half of them while railing against the other half. As if it were a football game rather than the future of your children and grandchildren at stake.


Why would I support your side of the fence?

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> LOL....BHK is absolutely right & we all know it. (even you)
> 
> Demint summed it up perfectly as a purely partisan effort to "Break" Obama
> 
> 
> Party over country as usual for Demint!


Beat Obama on what?  You talk about party over country and the people, you better look into your Democratic Party buddy.

----------


## Devil505

> Beat Obama on what?  You talk about party over country and the people, you better look into your Democratic Party buddy.


Beat Obama on anything & everything he tries to do.......regardless of whether it would be good for the country.
On the night Obama was inaugurated, Mitch McConnell said his main goal was to make Obama a one-term President & that's what he & many GOP leaders have been doing these last 6 years.

To me that's putting *Party Over Country* & is unacceptable!

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> Beat Obama on anything & everything he tries to do.......regardless of whether it would be good for the country.
> On the night Obama was inaugurated, Mitch McConnell said his main goal was to make Obama a one-term President & that's what he & many GOP leaders have been doing these last 6 years.
> 
> To me that's putting *Party Over Country* & is unacceptable!


And the Democrats are angels, they would never do anything like that.  Like complaining that the Republicans never want to help straighten things out while Republican House bills collect dust on Dirty Harry's desk.

----------


## Devil505

> And the Democrats are angels, they would never do anything like that.  Like complaining that the Republicans never want to help straighten things out while Republican House bills collect dust on Dirty Harry's desk.


I never said the Dems are angels but I've never seen any party decide that destroying a President should be their number one goal regardless of the damage they do to their country.......until the Karl Rove neocons took over the GOP.

This GOP is a different animal than this country has ever seen before & true/patriotic conservatives need to change it or destroy it & start a new party.
Do you know anyone who proudly proclaims to be a Republican anymore? (even Republicans running for Congress claim to be "*Independent* Voices"  these days!)

----------


## Hansel

I tend to agree with you.  The Pubs have been at it for years now, and what do they have to show for?  They are just alienating the moderates and will feel it the next time election comes around. 

The GOP needs a set of priorities. If Obama pulls a boner that is of little consequence then blow it off and get over it. It is for sure he hasn't slowed up on his idiocy and won't because that is one of his objectives, to be "in your face" with his anti-American chicanery.

This prisoner swap thing is the latest of his moves, and the jury is still out on it. Should we have just let the man rot in captivity?

----------


## Devil505

> This prisoner swap thing is the latest of his moves, and the jury is still out on it. Should we have just let the man rot in captivity?


The prisoner swap is a gamble no doubt but what was the alternative?....Let an American citizen be held in captivity & what do we do the the bad guys we held in Gitmo....shoot them? (we should have long ago tried them & executed those who deserved it. To late at this point)

Obama had no clear good decision & we don't know what's going on behind the scenes. 
Time will tell if it was a good or bad decision but the Right's knee-jerk condemnation of anything Obama does is meaningless at this point. (If Obama personally discovered a cure for cancer..... the Right would argue that he just added to the world's starvation situation by keeping so many people alive!)

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> That is nothing but conjecture on your part.


Yep, Romneycare is all conjecture. And Gingrich on Meet the Press supporting the mandate, comparing it to mandatory auto liability insurance? That's just conjecture as well. Even though he did it twice. And, it's just conjecture that Republican Chief Justice John Roberts rescued the mandate. And, it's just pure speculation that Stuart Butler, from the Heritage Foundation, was the first to propose the individual mandate back in the 80's.

----------

Devil505 (06-03-2014)

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Why would I support your side of the fence?


I don't know. If you are authoritarian, you wouldn't. You like to see people ordered about and your morals shoved down their throat. And, that's fine. Only, you don't really have an argument as to why people shouldn't do the same to you even when you are diametrically opposed to their morals.

If, on the other hand, you prefer liberty, equality under the law, and the freedom to do whatever you want so long as you don't interfere with the freedom of others, then my side of the fence looks pretty good.

----------

Longshot (06-07-2014)

----------


## Swedgin

*Who is "The Government?"* --A collection of elite Aristocratics who have gamed the system for their own goals, wealth, power and prosperity, at great cost to the American People...





> I keep hearing angry citizens decrying this creature they refer to as "The Government" as if it's some evil being that descended on earth from the far reaches of the universe.


--Because people are angry at the realization that, after more than 200 years of a Representative Republic, we are turning into the very Aristocracy that our forbearers revolted from....





> Aren't "We the people" the government?


--Not unless you are wealthy, powerful, or, politically connected....





> Don't we hold elections at regular intervals to choose who we want to represent us?


--Yes, but, as I said, the Aristocrats have thoroughly 'gamed the system.'  And, while we may be able to vote one, in or out, in the vast majority of cases, once they are in, they are there for life....




> Don't we all share some responsibility for the laws *WE* write via our elected reps in Congress?


--Maybe.  We, the people, are most definately the ones who PAY for the egress of the Elites....




> Yes our system has problems but we have created those problems & it's up to us to find a peaceful way to resolve them.
> (end of today's sermon)


--Yes, I agree!




> What do you all think?


I am thinking:

#1.  Term Limits for Congress.
#2.  NO raises for Congress, if we are in deficits.
#3.  Strict limitations on Lobbyists and what they can provide.  (Taking Senator Poo-bah to a Washington Aristocrats game is one thing.  Taking them on a month-long vacation in Europe, is quite another.  Giving them thousands and thousands of dollars for their campaign chest should be...right out!)
#4.  A return to the political system, as set up in the US Constitution.
#5.  Return more power, wealth and authority to the State and Local regions, while taking away the tools of central planning, as used in the Imperial Capital.

----------


## Devil505

> *Who is "The Government?"* 
> 
> --A collection of elite Aristocratics who have gamed the system for their own goals, wealth, power and prosperity, at great cost to the American People...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --Because people are angry at the realization that, after more than 200 years of a Representative Republic, we are turning into the very Aristocracy that our forbearers revolted from....
> 
> ...


I agree with much of what you say especially about aristocrats but I don't see both parties as equally guilty.

----------


## Dan40

> *Who is "The Government?"* 
> 
> --A collection of elite Aristocratics who have gamed the system for their own goals, wealth, power and prosperity, at great cost to the American People...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --Because people are angry at the realization that, after more than 200 years of a Representative Republic, we are turning into the very Aristocracy that our forbearers revolted from....
> 
> ...


I completely agree on term limits for all legislators.  But consider this as well.  Legislators must vote on laws and they must face regular reelections.  Meanwhile bureaucrats can pass laws without any vote and and not only don't face reelections, they cannot be fired.

We need to take regulatory ability AWAY from bureaucrats.  And the lobby money quietly goes mostly to the bureaucrats that can quietly pass favorable regulations and WILL be available for influencing for 30 years, guaranteed.



http://www.regulations.gov/#!home


Newly Posted Regulations

    Today(107)
    Last 3 Days(192)
    Last 7 Days(533)
    Last 15 Days(1,116)
    Last 30 Days(2,185)
    Last 90 Days(6,574)

This is a normal MONTH for bureaucrats..

I've never seen it below 5500 for 90 days and have often seen it over 7000.

----------


## Dan40

> I agree with much of what you say especially about aristocrats but I don't see both parties as equally guilty.


3 words,

Clown Prince odumbo.

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> I don't know. If you are authoritarian, you wouldn't. You like to see people ordered about and your morals shoved down their throat. And, that's fine. Only, you don't really have an argument as to why people shouldn't do the same to you even when you are diametrically opposed to their morals.
> 
> If, on the other hand, you prefer liberty, equality under the law, and the freedom to do whatever you want so long as you don't interfere with the freedom of others, then my side of the fence looks pretty good.


What you don't or can't see is that without laws you have no way to rein in those who would interfere with your rights.  So you side of the fence is full of nothing but weeds.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Beat Obama on anything & everything he tries to do.......regardless of whether it would be good for the country.
> On the night Obama was inaugurated, Mitch McConnell said his main goal was to make Obama a one-term President & that's what he & many GOP leaders have been doing these last 6 years.
> 
> To me that's putting *Party Over Country* & is unacceptable!


Poor stupid little liberals.  Their EVERY effort after GW Bush WON the election of 2000 was to prevent him from doing everything, stonewalling, and attempting to make him a "one-termer", which, of course, is what EVERY POLITICAL PARTY does with EVERY presidential election.

And then you clods elected a racist traitor muslim born in Kenya and you can't handle the truth any more.

Poor things.   If you can't handle the world, crawl back into your mother arleady.

----------


## Sled Dog

> I never said the Dems are angels but I've never seen any party decide that destroying a President should be their number one goal regardless of the damage they do to their country.......until the Karl Rove neocons took over the GOP.


What damage done to the country?

The GOP attempted to stop *O-BAA-AAA-AAA-MAAA*Care. That's called SAVING the country in any American's book.

YOU people elected a criminal traitor. The DUTY of EVERY American is to stand in that thing's way. YOU supoprted him, you're no American.

----------


## Sled Dog

> The prisoner swap is a gamble no doubt but what was the alternative?


It wasn't a gamble. 

It's the routine of treason we've come to expect from the Fascist that has referred to TWO SEPARATE attacks on Fort Hood as "workplace violence", from the dictator who waged an illegal war to assist al qeada's takeover of Libya, and who backed al qeada's candidate in the Egyption troubles, recently.

What else could be done?

We should have taken the five requested exchangees and shot them,  taken five other top muslim terrorists and shot them as well, then tossed them all into a pig yard at feeding time.

You don't win wars by coddling enemies.

----------


## Devil505

> Poor stupid little liberals.  Their EVERY effort after GW Bush WON the election of 2000 was to prevent him from doing everything, stonewalling, and attempting to make him a "one-termer", which, of course, is what EVERY POLITICAL PARTY does with EVERY presidential election.


Untrue.
Until recently both political parties tried to do what was good for their country....not just their party.
Bush was not mistreated by the Dems until well after the Iraq invasion.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Not the ACA. Healthcare has been a big issue since the Reagan days. It was one of the first projects taken on by Bill Clinton, and like Barack Obama 16 years later, he fucked it up. Just because Romney signed a bill similar in some respects to the ACA doesn't mean "it was the conservatives who originally proposed the idea".


The Rodents have been attempting to steal the health care industry since the days of FDR.

The Red Queen attempted it, too.

Now the system is ruined by Obama, and will not be repaired for at least half a century.   Every single dumbfuck Obama voter will get to enjoy the same high level of care under ObamaCare as the vets have been getting from the VA....but they have destroyed their opportunity to get private medical care if their DMV care doesn't work out.

They deserve what they asked for.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Untrue.
> Until recently both political parties tried to do what was good for their country....not just their party.
> Bush was not mistreated by the Dems until well after the Iraq invasion.


You can't handle the truth.

Also, you seem to have a serious mental dysfunction if you can't recall what you Rodents did under Bush.

REmember the Valerie Plame bitch?

Where's YOUR outrage at KING OBAMA releasing the name of the top CIA agent in Trashcanistan?

You don't have any.

----------


## Devil505

> Where's YOUR outrage at KING OBAMA releasing the name of the top CIA agent in Trashcanistan?


Have a link to that?

----------


## Ghost of Lunchboxxy

> Aren't "We the people" the government?


That's the IDEA, it's not the REALITY.

When you have an entrenched, lifetime tenure bureaucracy, you have a body that is answerable to no one and accountable to no one. 

When judges have a lifetime tenure, they, too can act like lords within their realm, and acknowledge the people's will not at ALL [the gay marriage votes a classic case in point].

When Union of Chamber of Commerce money counts for more than the popular will.

No, the gap between the people and the government is greater than it has ever been, and will become greater.

----------

Mordent (06-03-2014),OriginalCyn (06-05-2014)

----------


## Sled Dog

> Have a link to that?


It's called "current events".

If you're not current, it's your problem.

----------

Mordent (06-03-2014)

----------


## Devil505

> It's called "current events".
> 
> If you're not current, it's your problem.


cya Snorkum

----------


## Dan40

> Have a link to that?


http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...istan-reporter

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...in-afghanistan

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...637_story.html

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybens...istan-n1843837

http://twitchy.com/2014/05/25/whoops...hief-in-kabul/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5393154.html

http://www.tpnn.com/2014/05/26/shock...n-afghanistan/

Do you liberals NOT understand anything?

Google has 833,000 hits for this total fuck up.

This is my favorite!

https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2014/05/26

_"Not Wikileaks, Not Snowden... White House Outs CIA Station Chief"

_In case you are not aware [almost guaranteed] this IS a criminal offense.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> cya Snorkum


Wasn't Snorkum the psycho who always talked in the third person?

----------


## Devil505

> Wasn't Snorkum the psycho who always talked in the third person?


Yup

----------


## Devil505

> http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...istan-reporter
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...in-afghanistan
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...637_story.html
> 
> http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybens...istan-n1843837
> 
> http://twitchy.com/2014/05/25/whoops...hief-in-kabul/
> ...


*White House mistakenly identifies CIA chief in Afghanistan
*http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...637_story.html


Plame was no mistake.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Yup


Why do you think Sled Dog is Snorkum?

----------


## Mordent

> Why do you think Sled Dog is Snorkum?


Sled Dog is the Mayor. He's also one of my all-time favorite posters.

----------

Invayne (06-03-2014),Sled Dog (06-03-2014)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Sled Dog is the Mayor. He's also one of my all-time favorite posters.


Because he lives on his own planet?

----------


## Dan40

> *White House mistakenly identifies CIA chief in Afghanistan
> *http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...637_story.html
> 
> 
> Plame was no mistake.


But electing the completely incompetent, unqualified, inept, ideologue odumbo certainly was.

5 years of the most outrageous wasteful spending in history to achieve a 12.3% unemployment rate and a negative GDP growth.  Coupled with the USA becoming a worldwide laughing stock under this complete stupid asshole you lovingly worship.

Worshiping a totally inept fool makes you,,,,,,,,,,what? A t.i.f X2?

----------


## Mordent

> Because he lives on his own planet?


Because he fearlessly calls things as they are.

----------

Invayne (06-03-2014)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Because he fearlessly calls things as they are.


Fearless is stupid.  Smart people are afraid.  Courageous people are afraid but go forward anyway.

----------


## Mordent

> Fearless is stupid.  Smart people are afraid.  Courageous people are afraid but go forward anyway.


Fearless is fearless. I'm smart and I'm not afraid. Semantics aside, you obviously dislike the Mayor, as is your right. I do not, as is mine.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Fearless is fearless. I'm smart and I'm not afraid. Semantics aside, you obviously dislike the Mayor, as is your right. I do not, as is mine.


Agreed on liking or disliking people.  I do consider people on their merits.  Being outspoken, fearless and the like _can_ be good traits, just like a gun can be a tool of good.  It's not the trait, but how it's used that matters.  
You seem to be focusing on his fearlessness but I focus on how he's using it.  That is the difference from my POV.

----------


## Mordent

> Agreed on liking or disliking people.  I do consider people on their merits.  Being outspoken, fearless and the like _can_ be good traits, just like a gun can be a tool of good.  It's not the trait, but how it's used that matters.  
> You seem to be focusing on his fearlessness but I focus on how he's using it.  That is the difference from my POV.


He and I aren't 100% in agreement, but I appreciate his style. Anything that aggravates the left is okay in my book.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> He and I aren't 100% in agreement, but I appreciate his style. Anything that aggravates the left is okay in my book.


Anything that aggravates the partisans on both sides is fine with me.   The problem with that is that it's usually one partisan asshole aggravating another partisan asshole.  

Now, if it was up to me, I'd step back and let them all kill each other thereby leaving a higher percentage of more sensible people remaining.

----------


## Mordent

> Anything that aggravates the partisans on both sides is fine with me.   The problem with that is that it's usually one partisan asshole aggravating another partisan asshole.  
> 
> Now, if it was up to me, I'd step back and let them all kill each other thereby leaving a higher percentage of more sensible people remaining.


Step back, then. I enjoy the fray.  :Smile:

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Step back, then. I enjoy the fray.


The fray can be fun.  Watching nutjobs bash each other is entertaining to a point.  When it consumes our national politics, much less drives our national politics into dysfunction, then it becomes a problem requiring the involvement of more sensible people.

----------


## Mordent

> The fray can be fun.  Watching nutjobs bash each other is entertaining to a point.  When it consumes our national politics, much less drives our national politics into dysfunction, then it becomes a problem requiring the involvement of more sensible people.


Do you really think Sled Dog is that much of a problem, or are we just jousting here for the sport of it?

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> What you don't or can't see is that without laws you have no way to rein in those who would interfere with your rights.  So you side of the fence is full of nothing but weeds.


Who is against laws? What I'm against is the state.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Plame was no mistake.


No.  It was a deliberate smear campaign by the Rodents to make Bush a one-term president by covering his entire tenure with an empty scandal.

Who said King Obama's leak of that agent's name was a mistake?  The White House.

How convenient.

I bet you believed the White House when it said it found no wrong doing when it investigated Obama's orders to the IRS persecuting the TEA Party groups, too.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Why do you think Sled Dog is Snorkum?


Because the Sled Dog kicks his ass just as badly as the Mayor did, without the deliberately annoying third person dialogue, which was only an affectation because the Mayor was perfectly aware that the Stupids need squirrels to non-function at their incompetent best.

----------

Invayne (06-03-2014),Mordent (06-03-2014)

----------


## Sled Dog

> Anything that aggravates the partisans on both sides is fine with me. The problem with that is that it's usually one partisan asshole aggravating another partisan asshole. 
> 
> Now, if it was up to me, I'd step back and let them all kill each other thereby leaving a higher percentage of more sensible people remaining.


Yeah, being a partisan for the truth is a real bitch.

People who didn't like the Mayor were afraid of the truth.


Truthfulness in defense of liberty is no vice.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Who is against laws? What I'm against is the state.


Can't have laws without a state to write them and enforce them.

Welcome to reality.

----------


## Invayne

> Beat Obama on anything & everything he tries to do.......regardless of whether it would be good for the country.
> On the night Obama was inaugurated, Mitch McConnell said his main goal was to make Obama a one-term President & that's what he & many GOP leaders have been doing these last 6 years.
> 
> To me that's putting *Party Over Country* & is unacceptable!


Like the Democrats are doing right now? Devil...I know you're a big Obomber supporter, but when are you going to open your eyes to the reality of this treasonous piece of shit? I understand...I was just like you...ask @michaelr, he'll tell you. You have to open your eyes eventually.

----------

michaelr (06-03-2014)

----------


## Invayne

> No, the gap between the people and the government is greater than it has ever been, and will become greater.


Sounds like a fucking winner to me.

----------


## Invayne

> Sled Dog is the Mayor. He's also one of my all-time favorite posters.


I would almost think he may be Freedom For All, who was one of my favorites back in the day, but I guess I'll never know...

----------

michaelr (06-03-2014)

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Can't have laws without a state to write them and enforce them.
> 
> Welcome to reality.


So if laws can't exist without the state, how is a state lawfully established?

BTW - You are ignoring the Lex Mercatoria, a body of laws not written by a state.

----------

Longshot (06-07-2014)

----------


## Sled Dog

> I would almost think he may be Freedom For All, who was one of my favorites back in the day, but I guess I'll never know...


Same guy, lost password.  Created a new account.

Then the fascists got annoyed and pulled the "banned forever for having two accounts" gag.

----------

Invayne (06-04-2014)

----------


## Sled Dog

> So if laws can't exist without the state, how is a state lawfully established?
> 
> BTW - You are ignoring the Lex Mercatoria, a body of laws not written by a state.


We've educated you on this before.

States are born in blood, like all mammalian children.

The state becomes lawful when the people accept the laws of the state AND the laws of the state do not violate their natural human rights, among which are the rights of life, liberty, property, and the ability to tell someone else to fuck off and die.

MOST states in the history of the world were never lawful states, kings having an aversion to the Right of Refusal.

The United States was, at one time, the most lawful state in history.

The Rodents ruined that.

And you're wrong.  I've seen every episode of Lexx.  790 reminds me of almost every Obama voter on the planet.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> We've educated you on this before.


Yeah. Right.

<----------------------------------------------------------->
You're this much libertarian__________________                                                                            ^      Go any further, and that there is crazy talk! That's pretty much your entire schtick. 




> States are born in blood, like all mammalian children.


Graphic, and empty, rhetoric. Save it for the Obama and Bush voters. They can't tell the difference.




> The state becomes lawful when the people accept the laws of the state AND the laws of the state do not violate their natural human rights, among which are the rights of life, liberty, property, and the ability to tell someone else to fuck off and die.


A state has a monopoly on the legal use of force. That makes it inherently a violation of natural rights.




> MOST states in the history of the world were never lawful states, kings having an aversion to the Right of Refusal.


Name a state that doesn't have an aversion to the Right of Refusal. Even the Constitution had to be forced onto the people.




> The United States was, at one time, the most lawful state in history.


Would you take a ride home from the soberest drunk in the bar? Even if it's true, it's still a state. 




> The Rodents ruined that.


I will concede that there is a point at which the state is so small that I would probably take little notice of it and not worry for the future of my children and grandchildren. Looking back in history, that would probably have to be pre-civil war, though, coming from a long line of abolitionists, I'd have to say that I'd still be solidly against the institution of slavery.




> And you're wrong.  I've seen every episode of Lexx.  790 reminds me of almost every Obama voter on the planet.


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

Anyone who claims to be libertarian should know about a system of law that arose outside the control of any state. But how can that be, if the state is the source of law?

----------



----------


## hoytmonger

> I disagree that anarchy is a Utopia.  History shows "the Law of the Jungle" is brutal and deadly.


I've never stated that anarchy was utopian... that description generally comes from those that don't know what anarchy is. Neither is anarchy the 'law of the jungle', your need for hyperbole shows a distinct inability, or unwillingness, to grasp the concept of what anarchy is.




> Any country with a despot or highly authoritarian government would be educational for anyone who can't tell the difference between the US and Nazi Germany.


A knowledge of the history of the Nazi regime would be educational for those that rely on state propaganda to form their opinions and would exemplify the many similarities between the US and Nazi Germany. Start with economics.

----------


## hoytmonger

> Can't have laws without a state to write them and enforce them.
> 
> Welcome to reality.


Statist propaganda. The laws manufactured and enforced by the state only serve to promote and protect the state.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I've never stated that anarchy was utopian... that description generally comes from those that don't know what anarchy is. *Neither is anarchy the 'law of the jungle', your need for hyperbole shows a distinct inability, or unwillingness, to grasp the concept of what anarchy is.*


Maybe that's because the anarchists here can't explain it themselves.   Every time they try to explain their idealism is poked full of holes and they retreat into fantasy.




> A knowledge of the history of the Nazi regime would be educational for those that rely on state propaganda to form their opinions and would exemplify the many similarities between the US and Nazi Germany. Start with economics.


I am quite well versed into the excesses of authoritarian governments.  Besides the fucking Nazis, there are the totalitarian socialists in the USSR and the PRC, not to mention the DPRK.   History is replete with examples of totalitarian and authoritarian states.  The problem we see here is that the anarchists lack the maturity and/or the ability to grasp that there is a middle group between complete anarchy and complete domination by a state.  Another problem is the anarchists ability to grasp basic human nature.

----------


## Foghorn

> I keep hearing angry citizens decrying this creature they refer to as "The Government" as if it's some evil being that descended on earth from the far reaches of the universe.
> 
> Aren't "We the people" the government?


Well, that really does gets down to the crux of the situation now doesn't it?

 - If unelected officials at the EPA mandate we all ride mopeds to work, have We The People been fairly represented?  No one voted for this.

- If the President mandates that only white people over the age of 50 be issued speeding tickets, how are We The People being self-governed?  That is rule by fiat.

- If the biased media refuses to present real facts to the American people, are we able to fairly evaluate the votes we have cast for elected officials?  The public is being misled.

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

While the above examples pose questions we might kick around in present day, the underlying issues have always been around knawing at the tug of war between liberty and tryanny.  The Founding Fathers struggled over just such issues.

At the end of the day, we all have to decide for ourselves what is the desired ratio of liberty to tyranny.  Thats really the bottom line and everyone is likely to come up with different answers depending upon who you ask.

For me, I evaluate government actions by asking a simple question.  Does this particular action leave a better world for my children?

----------

Mordent (06-04-2014)

----------


## Devil505

> Like the Democrats are doing right now? Devil...I know you're a big Obomber supporter, but when are you going to open your eyes to the reality of this treasonous piece of shit? I understand...I was just like you...ask @michaelr, he'll tell you. You have to open your eyes eventually.


The GOP offers no alternative & requires their candidates to be much further Right than the American voter.
This is why they keep losing Presidential elections & will keep doing so & blaming it on "Voter Fraud", "The sun was in their eyes", or any other lame excuse to deny that demographics are changing in this country & their base is dying off with every election cycle.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> So if laws can't exist without the state, how is a state lawfully established?
> 
> BTW - You are ignoring the Lex Mercatoria, a body of laws not written by a state.


Nonetheless, the Lex Mercatoria required a body to enforce those laws and resolve disputes.  The merchants had to abide by the results even if it negatively impacted their "freedom" to do as they please.

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> Who is against laws? What I'm against is the state.


If you vote, you are part of the state, because you give the people voted into office the right to make the laws for you.  So if you are against the state and you vote, you are saying you are against your self.

----------

Max Rockatansky (06-04-2014)

----------


## Devil505

> Well, that really does gets down to the crux of the situation now doesn't it?
> 
>  - If unelected officials at the EPA mandate we all ride mopeds to work, have We The People been fairly represented?  No one voted for this.
> 
> - If the President mandates that only white people over the age of 50 be issued speeding tickets, how are We The People being self-governed?  That is rule by fiat.
> 
> - If the biased media refuses to present real facts to the American people, are we able to fairly evaluate the votes we have cast for elected officials?  The public is being misled.
> 
> --------------
> ...


Those founding fathers were smart enough to put in place a series of checks & balances that would not allow any of your scenarios to stand.

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
Winston Churchill

----------

Foghorn (06-05-2014)

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> I don't know. If you are authoritarian, you wouldn't. You like to see people ordered about and your morals shoved down their throat. And, that's fine. Only, you don't really have an argument as to why people shouldn't do the same to you even when you are diametrically opposed to their morals.
> 
> If, on the other hand, you prefer liberty, equality under the law, and the freedom to do whatever you want so long as you don't interfere with the freedom of others, then my side of the fence looks pretty good.


Standing equal under the law does not mean you can do what ever you want as long as you do not harm anyone else.  Equal under the law means that you have certain rights before the law, such as a trial by jury, to have representation in court, not be tried for the same crime twice, etc.  Equal under the law does not mean you can break the law just because you think it is unjust.

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> Yep, Romneycare is all conjecture. And Gingrich on Meet the Press supporting the mandate, comparing it to mandatory auto liability insurance? That's just conjecture as well. Even though he did it twice. And, it's just conjecture that Republican Chief Justice John Roberts rescued the mandate. And, it's just pure speculation that Stuart Butler, from the Heritage Foundation, was the first to propose the individual mandate back in the 80's.


This is another misgiving on you part, the people voted for Romneycare, it was not forced on them like Obamacare was particularly since the Obamacare law was not permitted to be read until it was voted on.

----------

catfish (06-04-2014)

----------


## Devil505

> This is another misgiving on you part, the people voted for Romneycare, it was not forced on them like Obamacare was particularly since the Obamacare law was not permitted to be read until it was voted on.


Obamacare was passed by a majority of both houses in Congress and of course was read before it was voted on. (Congress never has a vote on a bill that members can't read first)

----------

Fisher (06-04-2014)

----------


## Hansel

> This is another misgiving on you part, the people voted for Romneycare, it was not forced on them like Obamacare was particularly since the Obamacare law was not permitted to be read until it was voted on.


But who read it.  

The following link points to  a comparison between Romneycare and Obamacare. For some reason the Romneycare seems to be workable where the other is not.
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2013/11/1...s-differences/

----------

Old Ridge Runner (06-05-2014)

----------


## Invayne

> Same guy, lost password.  Created a new account.
> 
> Then the fascists got annoyed and pulled the "banned forever for having two accounts" gag.


Ah...I had a feeling it was you....(((((hugs)))))) Now we need to find Truth Detector....I loved that guy! LOL!

----------


## Fisher

> This is another misgiving on you part, the people voted for Romneycare, it was not forced on them like Obamacare was particularly since the Obamacare law was not permitted to be read until it was voted on.


I don't think you're correct here. Some activist groups did collect enough signatures to put reform on the ballot but things didn't get that far because the legislature in Mass. took care of this before the issue could be put to the people. It does seem that the reform had widespread support though so I don't think it can be characterized as being jammed down the public's throat. I think it's funny it's called Romneycare, he really didn't have a lot to do with it.

The House bill was available for the public to read before the House voted on it. If no one had read it then Stupak never would have made an issue of the wording in the bill and Boehner couldn't have taken exception to wording on the House floor. Interviews were done in the media with people who had read the bill, private citizens were able to read it. I downloaded it, I didn't read the whole thing though because it was a long bill and I have a short attention span.

----------

Devil505 (06-04-2014),Old Ridge Runner (06-05-2014)

----------


## Mordent

> Obamacare was passed by a majority of both houses in Congress and of course was read before it was voted on. (Congress never has a vote on a bill that members can't read first)


I hope you don't have a breakdown when we repeal the POS.



Not really.

----------


## Mordent

> Ah...I had a feeling it was you....(((((hugs)))))) Now we need to find Truth Detector....I loved that guy! LOL!


I miss Oldschool/Blackbeard, too.

----------


## Mordent

> This is why they keep losing Presidential elections


Gawd, are you drones ever gonna shut up with this bullshit?  The dems won twice in a row. The repubs won twice in a row before that. The dems twice before that, and the repubs three times before that. Do the math if you're able.

----------


## Hansel

> I don't think you're correct here. Some activist groups did collect enough signatures to put reform on the ballot but things didn't get that far because the legislature in Mass. took care of this before the issue could be put to the people. It does seem that the reform had widespread support though so I don't think it can be characterized as being jammed down the public's throat. I think it's funny it's called Romneycare, he really didn't have a lot to do with it.
> 
> The House bill was available for the public to read before the House voted on it. If no one had read it then Stupak never would have made an issue of the wording in the bill and Boehner couldn't have taken exception to wording on the House floor. Interviews were done in the media with people who had read the bill, private citizens were able to read it. I downloaded it, I didn't read the whole thing though because it was a long bill and I have a short attention span.


The length of the monster may have been a factor, as it was with you. People did not have time to read the fine print and really think about  it.

Once again, Medicare is not compulsory so why should the ACA be compulsory? Seniors are automatically enrolled in Part A with no premium cost to them and Part B requires a monthly premium, but it is relatively affordable and is entirely voluntary.  Funding for Part A is take from general tax revenues and this must be quite a load as Part A is for hospitalization claims.  

Perhaps there were some misgivings on the part of a few people when Medicare was implemented in the early sixties but I have yet to hear a participant say they are getting the shaft like they are saying about the ACA.   

I am very leery of having a single payer plan for publicly funded insurance, which is what Medicare is for the most part, but it seems such a plan would be more cost efficient for the providers and the profit incentive would not be there.  I think in Medicare an organization handles its claims, and is called CMS.
 Off hand I don't know if it is a for-profit outfit or not.  The way it is a provider needs to have a sizeable staff just to handle the many insurance claims for the various insurors. That must be a real nightmare.

----------


## Hansel

CMS is apparently a government organization that handles Medicare, Medicaid, and other government funded insurance plans, even the friggin' ACA.

See cms.org

----------


## Fisher

> The length of the monster may have been a factor, as it was with you. People did not have time to read the fine print and really think about  it.
> 
> Once again, Medicare is not compulsory so why should the ACA be compulsory? Seniors are automatically enrolled in Part A with no premium cost to them and Part B requires a monthly premium, but it is relatively affordable and is entirely voluntary.  Funding for Part A is take from general tax revenues and this must be quite a load as Part A is for hospitalization claims.  
> 
> Perhaps there were some misgivings on the part of a few people when Medicare was implemented in the early sixties but I have yet to hear a participant say they are getting the shaft like they are saying about the ACA.   
> 
> I am very leery of having a single payer plan for publicly funded insurance, which is what Medicare is for the most part, but it seems such a plan would be more cost efficient for the providers and the profit incentive would not be there.  I think in Medicare an organization handles its claims, and is called CMS.
>  Off hand I don't know if it is a for-profit outfit or not.  The way it is a provider needs to have a sizeable staff just to handle the many insurance claims for the various insurors. That must be a real nightmare.


I don't agree with the mandate and while I agree that Medicare is an interesting topic my post you quoted really had nothing to do with Medicare.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Sounds like a fucking winner to me.


Until the shooting starts.

----------


## Devil505

> Once again, Medicare is not compulsory so why should the ACA be compulsory?


For the same reason that income taxes are mandatory.
You have no choice & are required to pay for protection from threats like foreign invasion, mid-air collisions & food safety.....right?
Paying for protection from the threat of sickness & injury is now no different.
(this country couldn't afford to keep paying for people who paid nothing & used the ER for all their HC for free.......that we all paid for)

Think of it as a tax if you want but it is constitutional & necessary for the "General Welfare" of our country.

----------


## Hansel

> I don't agree with the mandate and while I agree that Medicare is an interesting topic my post you quoted really had nothing to do with Medicare.


I was pointing out the difference between Medicare and ACA.  And the ACA apparently affects Medicare and Medicaid.  In other words the ACA is an absurd piece of dung in comparison.

----------

Mordent (06-04-2014)

----------


## Sled Dog

> Yeah. Right.
> 
> <----------------------------------------------------------->
> You're this much libertarian__________________ ^ Go any further, and that there is crazy talk! That's pretty much your entire schtick.


You've no clue what a libertarian is.

You're still stuck on trying to figure out how a state becomes lawful...after the libertarian explained it to you.




> Graphic, and empty, rhetoric. Save it for the Obama and Bush voters. They can't tell the difference.


Run along and learn something about human history.




> A state has a monopoly on the legal use of force. That makes it inherently a violation of natural rights.


Bullshit.

Depends on how the force is used, and to what purpose. Also, the state has the monopoly on DEFINING the legal use of force, not on holding. As you may have failed to notice, the United States Constitution PROTECTS the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and the Federalist Papers in that regard make it perfectly plain that the People may resort to arms to protect their liberties if a tyrant arises. 

All of which means the State does not have a monopoly on the use of force...not lawful states, anyway. For lawful states do not deny their citizens the freedom to rebel. This goes back again, as you will note and treasure if you ever grow up to be a real libertarian, back to the Right of Refusal.

The Right of Refusal is ultimately backed up by firepower. Read the Weapon Shop of Isher by A.E. van Vogt, since you're young enough to probably have never heard of it. Read also Eric Frank Russel's The Great Explosion, and it's derivative novel by Paul Hogan, Voyage From Yesteryear.

So long as the people are not denied their right to possess firearms, they're Right of Refusal is largely intact.

Why do you think the Rodents are so hysterically anti-firearm?

They don't want people to have the power to refuse them.




> Name a state that doesn't have an aversion to the Right of Refusal. Even the Constitution had to be forced onto the people.


ALL states are constructs of people and led by people, and thus all states have an aversion to refusal, because people are what they are.

You can't construct any form of state, lawful or lawless, without people, so you are going to have to get over the idea that an ideal state can be created. That's for little girls, not men.




> Would you take a ride home from the soberest drunk in the bar? Even if it's true, it's still a state.


A state of drunkeness?

What...?




> I will concede that there is a point at which the state is so small that I would probably take little notice of it and not worry for the future of my children and grandchildren. Looking back in history, that would probably have to be pre-civil war, though, coming from a long line of abolitionists, I'd have to say that I'd still be solidly against the institution of slavery.



You sure will. In any state that is so small, and thus so weak, that you don't notice it, isn't noticed by the tyrants among you, either. So the miniscule state won't last long, and your children will look fine in their iron collars or sown on patch equivalents.

Unless your new tyrant has a big investment in tattoo parlors....




> Anyone who claims to be libertarian should know about a system of law that arose outside the control of any state. But how can that be, if the state is the source of law?


Laws can't exist without the state. Lexx was on the air for about six years at the most. Stanley never did get laid. Kai died, undied, lived, died again, and never poked Xev. Just in case you didn't know. It was a show about the worst case of animal abuse ever, poor Lexx died of starvation. Eating Holland just wasn't enough.

The Merchant Princes WERE the state.  It was an OLIGARCHY of OLIGARCHIES.

Duh.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Statist propaganda. The laws manufactured and enforced by the state only serve to promote and protect the state.


Human history.

EVERYONE that promotes anarchy is totally ignorant of human history, human nature, and this place called Somalia.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Maybe that's because the anarchists here can't explain it themselves. Every time they try to explain their idealism is poked full of holes and they retreat into fantasy.
> 
> 
> 
> I am quite well versed into the excesses of authoritarian governments. Besides the fucking Nazis, there are the totalitarian socialists in the USSR and the PRC, not to mention the DPRK. History is replete with examples of totalitarian and authoritarian states. The problem we see here is that the anarchists lack the maturity and/or the ability to grasp that there is a middle group between complete anarchy and complete domination by a state. Another problem is the anarchists ability to grasp basic human nature.


Complete anarchy ALWAYS leads to complete totalitarian domination.

That's why the rodents pursue it so avidly.

Because they're stupid.

----------


## Sled Dog

> The GOP offers no alternative & requires their candidates to be much further Right than the American voter.
> This is why they keep losing Presidential elections & will keep doing so & blaming it on "Voter Fraud", "The sun was in their eyes", or any other lame excuse to deny that demographics are changing in this country & their base is dying off with every election cycle.


No alternative to slavery, fascism, and totalitarianism you people love so much?

As far as the health care industry goes, it was getting less best becuase...you Rodents regulated it and lawyered it.  Duh.  

Want to fix that?  Dump the regulations, deny the lawyers medical care.

Want to increase employment in the United States?  Of course you don't, but the path to doing that is to fire all the Watermelons in the bureaucracies of the US government, dump all the Watermelon regulations, and obey the friggin' Constitution, which will entail smaller government, lower taxes, and hence encourage economic investment, growth, and a resulting booming economy.

Reagan's "failed policies of the past" resulted in the creation of nearly a million jobs a month.   King Obama can't create a million jobs in two years, because his goal is the destruction of jobs, and, since you support him that's your goal, too.

Explain how Al Franken became a Senator...don't forget to discuss, in detail, how he was getting more votes from some precincts than were registered voters in those precincts. 

Explain how North Carolina found 37,500 voters who voted in NC AND in some other state. Then tell us how the vote fraud you rodents engage in and defend isn't a serious problem.

Explain why you support fraud in elections. DO NOT claim you do not.

----------

Mordent (06-04-2014)

----------


## Sled Dog

> Those founding fathers were smart enough to put in place a series of checks & balances that would not allow any of your scenarios to stand.


Yeah. It's called "the Constitution" a document you live in complete ignorance of.

For example, the Constitution requires the President to "faithfully execute" all laws. 

Where is your protest at King Obama's TWENTY-TWO completely unconstitutional "adjustments" to ObamaCare, most of which were done solely to game elections? You certainly have a search party out looking for it, don't you?

Where is your protest at King Obama's illegal war in Libya and his treasonous aid to al qeada thereby? Not to be found.

Where is your protest at King Obama's unconstitutional fiat eliminating the work requirement of the Welfare Reform Act of 1996? Same place your outrage at King Obama's illegal war in Libya is kept, to be sure.

Where is your protest at King Obama's illegal bypassing of Congress and creating a de-facto amnesty for the illegal alien criminals who CLAIM they're innocents brought here when they were brats? Completely non-existence.

Yet YOU want to post some namby-pamby remarks about checks and balances and the founding fathers, while you spend your every post shitting on the Constitution?

You sign blank checks all the time, and never look to the balance of your grandchildren's future.

----------

Mordent (06-04-2014)

----------


## Sled Dog

> This is another misgiving on you part, the people voted for Romneycare, it was not forced on them like Obamacare was particularly since the Obamacare law was not permitted to be read until it was voted on.


Really?  RomneyCare was passed by a state-wide ballot initiative?  How then did Romney have to sign it into law?

RomneyCare was passed by legislative fiat without due regard for the right of the people to engage in their own personal affairs, and as such it is no less unconstitutional than MessiahCare.

----------


## Devil505

> No alternative to slavery, fascism, and totalitarianism you people love so much?
> 
> As far as the health care industry goes, it was getting less best becuase...you Rodents regulated it and lawyered it.  Duh.  
> 
> Want to fix that?  Dump the regulations, deny the lawyers medical care.
> 
> Want to increase employment in the United States?  Of course you don't, but the path to doing that is to fire all the Watermelons in the bureaucracies of the US government, dump all the Watermelon regulations, and obey the friggin' Constitution, which will entail smaller government, lower taxes, and hence encourage economic investment, growth, and a resulting booming economy.
> 
> Reagan's "failed policies of the past" resulted in the creation of nearly a million jobs a month.   King Obama can't create a million jobs in two years, because his goal is the destruction of jobs, and, since you support him that's your goal, too.
> ...





> Yeah. It's called "the Constitution" a document you live in complete ignorance of.
> 
> For example, the Constitution requires the President to "faithfully execute" all laws. 
> 
> Where is your protest at King Obama's TWENTY-TWO completely unconstitutional "adjustments" to ObamaCare, most of which were done solely to game elections? You certainly have search party out looking for it, don't you?
> 
> Where is your protest at King Obama's illegal war in Libya and his treasonous aid to al qeada thereby? Not to be found.
> 
> Where is your protest at King Obama's unconstitutional fiat eliminating the work requirement of the Welfare Reform Act of 1996? Same place your outrage at King Obama's illegal war in Libya is kept, to be sure.
> ...


Come on.....be honest......is this Rush or Sean posting here??

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Complete anarchy ALWAYS leads to complete totalitarian domination.
> 
> That's why the rodents pursue it so avidly.
> 
> Because they're stupid.


Agreed they're stupid, but not sure about "complete totalitarian domination".  Certainly there are a few examples of chaos turning into an authoritarian regime.

----------


## Mordent

> Come on.....be honest......is the is Rush or Sean posting here??


I can always tell when your intellect fails you by the nature of your non-responses.

----------


## Devil505

> I can always tell when your intellect fails you by the nature of your non-responses.

----------


## Mordent

505_zpsd05d7302.jpg

----------

BleedingHeadKen (06-06-2014)

----------


## Sled Dog

> Come on.....be honest......is this Rush or Sean posting here??


Shot through the heart
 and the truth's to blame
 you give fascism a bad name.

----------


## Dan40

> This is another misgiving on you part,  the people voted for Romneycare, it was not forced on them like  Obamacare was particularly since the Obamacare law was not permitted to  be read until it was voted on.







> Really?  RomneyCare was passed by a state-wide ballot initiative?  How then did Romney have to sign it into law?
> 
> RomneyCare was passed by legislative fiat without due regard for the right of the people to engage in their own personal affairs, and as such it is no less unconstitutional than MessiahCare.


FYI, both of you.

Romneycare is a liberal lie misnomer..

It WAS NOT passed by a vote of the people.

You can look up MA gov records and find the accurate story of the MA healthcare law.  And when you do, do not neglect to review the many many changes AFTER Romney left the Gov's office.

MA had their own state Medicaid type program and it received funding subsities from the Fed Gov.  Then DC decided that all states need to align with the Federal Medicaid program to receive their subsidies.

So Romney announced to the MA Democrat dominated state legislature that changes to health care must be made or lose Federal funds.  Romney made proposals on how to change the MA law to receive federal funds.

But,

The Democrat controlled congress of MA came up with a new type health care law.  Much like what lying liberals dubbed, Romneycare.  The Democrats made public what the law would be.  Romney WARNED that if they passed such a law, he WOULD veto it.  Democrats introduced the Democrat bill into both the House and Senate of MA.  Not Romney, not ANY Republican.  Democrats passed the bill in both Houses and sent it to Romney.  MA has a "line item veto," where the Gov can veto PARTS of a bill and sign other parts into law.  The Federal Govt does NOT have a line item veto.  Federal laws are all or nothing.

The Democrat proposed and passed health care law had 17 sections.  Romney, as he warned, did veto 8 of the 17 parts.  He signed into law the remaining 9 parts of the bill.  What he signed did not include penalties for not being insured, and did not include the employer mandate, or cover illegals.

THAT IS THE ONLY MA HEALTH CARE LAW ROMNEY SIGNED.

When the Democrat controlled congress got their chopped up bill back, they went to work to override Romney's vetoes.  It took approx 6 months before they had the 2/3rds majority in both Houses to override ALL of Romney's vetoes.

Romney never signed the final bill as his signature was moot as the legislature had overcome his vetoes.

And after Romney left the Governorship, the MA legislature made dozens of changes to the law, making it into what it was until obamascam came along.

You can even look that part up on Wikipedia,  


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massach...th_care_reform


*Legislation*

 In Fall 2005, the House and Senate each passed health care insurance  reform bills. *The legislature made a number of changes to Governor  Romney's original proposal,* including expanding MassHealth (Medicaid and  SCHIP) coverage to low-income children and restoring funding for public health  programs. The most controversial change was the addition of a provision  which requires firms with 11 or more workers that do not provide "fair  and reasonable" health coverage to their workers to pay an annual  penalty. This contribution, initially $295 annually per worker, is  intended to equalize the free care pool charges imposed on employers who  do and do not cover their workers.
 On April 12, 2006, Governor Romney signed the health legislation.[19] *He vetoed eight sections of the health care legislation, including the controversial employer assessment.[20] He vetoed provisions providing dental benefits to poor residents on the Medicaid program, and providing health coverage to senior and disabled legal immigrants not eligible for federal Medicaid.[21]  The legislature promptly overrode six of the eight gubernatorial  section vetoes, on May 4, 2006, and by mid-June 2006 had overridden the  remaining two.[22]"*


"

*Changes to the law*

 In 2008 and 2010, much more substantive changes were made to the law,  one of the most important of which was to begin an open enrollment  period for those receiving subsidized health insurance and anyone buying  insurance, including those paying full price, as an individual.[32]  Prior to that 2010 change, under RomneyCare Massachusetts residents  buying healthcare insurance individually could do so at any time,  eventheoreticallyas being admitted to a hospital or entering an  emergency room. This led to a gaming of the system and research by the  state said this gaming added 1%-2% to premium costs,[33]  which were continuing to rise for other reasons as well. Given the  continuing overall rise in premiums post Massachusetts 2006 healthcare  insurance reform,[34]  the major goal of the 2012 amendment was to introduce price controls on  health care itself; it is not directly related to healthcare insurance  as are the earlier legislative actions.
 Commonwealth Care insurance (and Commonwealth Choice insurance for  those not receiving subsidies) has been replaced by PPACA-consistent  insurance for 2014. Among other differences, consistent with PPACA, the  out of pocket spending limits and deductibles are higher under similarly  priced (after a PPACA tax credit) PPACA-consistent insurance than the  superseded Massachusetts insurance law.[_citation needed_]  To try to compensate for these higher limits and deductibles, the  Commonwealth funded an additional insurance program called  Connectorcare, by which residents who previously would have qualified  for Commonwealth Care can get very similar benefits for about the same  price."


There NEVER was any Romneycare Law.  It has always been a Democrat proposed law, a Democrat passed law, and a Democrat veto override of a vetoed Democrat law.

The word, Romneycare, is just another in a long unending series of total, complete, liberal LIES.

----------

Fisher (06-04-2014),Invayne (06-05-2014),Mordent (06-05-2014),OriginalCyn (06-06-2014)

----------


## Sled Dog

> FYI, both of you.
> 
> Romneycare is a liberal lie misnomer..
> 
> It WAS NOT passed by a vote of the people.


I believe ObamaCare forces everyone to carry transgender surgery coverage.

I beleive it also covers repairs to failed sarcasm detectors. Get your checked while you can.

However, I also thank you for an informative post, even if you did miss my sarcastic intent earlier.

Here's the Question:

IF Romney did as you said, and I'm not disputing it, WHY didn't he campaign on the issue properly?  

Romney made no effort at all to set the record straight, made no effort to use ObamaCare as the centerpiece of his election campaign, and in general ran a basically half-assed typical RINO Rush To The Middle Campaing on the Dole/McStain model.

----------


## Dan40

> 


Lying liberals collapse in the face of the truth.  Always have, always will.

----------


## Dan40

> I believe ObamaCare forces everyone to carry transgender surgery coverage.
> 
> I beleive it also covers repairs to failed sarcasm detectors.  Get your checked while you can.


With all the liberals in our nation, I have to have my bullshit detector so finely tuned that I've turned off the sarcasm detector.  To increase the accuracy of my bullshit detector, I'd have to turn off my pussy seeking missile, and THAT, I will not do, no matter how much the liberals lie.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> This is another misgiving on you part, the people voted for Romneycare, it was not forced on them like Obamacare was particularly since the Obamacare law was not permitted to be read until it was voted on.


What does the fact that "they" accepted have to do with whether it is a big government program?

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> You've no clue what a libertarian is.


Would you like to debate? I'll be happy to hold a formal debate with you. The only requirement is that you must a) use logic and b) avoid all rancor. I don't think you can do that, but it would be worth a shot.




> You're still stuck on trying to figure out how a state becomes lawful...after the libertarian explained it to you.


I enjoy philosophic discussions with a touch (or more) of iconoclasm. If you like being the broken record and having one viewpoint that is never challenged, that is your problem.  I suggest, however, that you avoid getting into any philosophic discussion. They just make you irrationally angry.

No "libertarian" explained how the state becomes lawful. You throw out vague rhetoric and claim that it is reason. Either law comes before the state, or the state comes before law. It cannot be one or the other.




> Run along and learn something about human history.


Considering that your exposition of history mirrors the same crap that one finds in government-run public elementary school textbooks, I think I've got a firmer grasp of it than you do.





> Depends on how the force is used, and to what purpose. Also, the state has the monopoly on DEFINING the legal use of force, not on holding. As you may have failed to notice, the United States Constitution PROTECTS the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and the Federalist Papers in that regard make it perfectly plain that the People may resort to arms to protect their liberties if a tyrant arises.


The Constitution is words on paper. It protects nothing as it is not a thing that can act. As I said, elementary-school level thinking on your part. The Constitution outlines what some long dead people wanted from the government they sought to impose. 

You, like many others, have an almost spiritual concept of the COTUS, as if it magically confers power. Do you also put your hand on the Bible under the belief that it will cure you of disease?




> All of which means the State does not have a monopoly on the use of force...not lawful states, anyway. For lawful states do not deny their citizens the freedom to rebel. This goes back again, as you will note and treasure if you ever grow up to be a real libertarian, back to the Right of Refusal.


The Constitution is not a libertarian document. A real libertarian holds to the non-aggression principle, not some document written by some long dead men. You are more like a Bible-Thumper, only your Bible is the Constitution. As if it binds modern day politicians through the divine Jefferson, Madison and Hamilton and Demi-God-like Founding Fathers. That's great for the fevered imaginations of a school-boy, but the Constitution has no power nor binds anyone in truth. 




> So long as the people are not denied their right to possess firearms, they're Right of Refusal is largely intact.


Your right to possess firearms has long been abridged. Today, you may still have permission to possess a firearm subject to rules and regulations, or that permission may be denied for all sorts of reasons. 




> Why do you think the Rodents are so hysterically anti-firearm?


I don't trust anyone who presumes the right to rule, for any reason, not least because 50%+1 of those enfranchised to mark a box on a piece of paper said so. So what do I care if some are louder than others about certain things?




> The Merchant Princes WERE the state.  It was an OLIGARCHY of OLIGARCHIES.


Merchant princes? What political power did they hold through inheritance or divine right? Or, do you mean because they worked together to create and accumulate wealth, they were "princes"? Typical progressive thinking to hate wealth and anyone who acts outside of the state to create rules that enrich the most people.

----------



----------


## Sled Dog

> Would you like to debate? I'll be happy to hold a formal debate with you. The only requirement is that you must a) use logic and b) avoid all rancor. I don't think you can do that, but it would be worth a shot.


Nothing less interesting than "debating" with the relgiously devout. The sheerest definition of anarchy precludes libertarianism, and libertarianism is utterly dependent on a lightweight government that can protect freedom but not steal it....and systems that require government are not anarchistic.

What's the point in debating dictionary terms, except your failure to accept them for what they are?

You gonna quote some Rothbard? You expect me to quote Rand?

Ain't happenin'.  I'm the Mayor's libertarian, the libertarian of Sled Dogs everywhere, who won't pull the useless if they get to cut the traces.   He's the libertarian of the Ten Megaton Solution, who recognizes that freedom means nothing unless one is willing to kill to protect it.

You are using definitions to suit your purposes instead of using definitions to define ideas...which is what the word "definition" means.




> I enjoy philosophic discussions with a touch (or more) of iconoclasm. If you like being the broken record and having one viewpoint that is never challenged, that is your problem. I suggest, however, that you avoid getting into any philosophic discussion. They just make you irrationally angry.


You don't seem to be enjoying my shredding your complacence in the wonders and miracles of anarchy.

Wrong icons getting clasted?




> No "libertarian" explained how the state becomes lawful. You throw out vague rhetoric and claim that it is reason. Either law comes before the state, or the state comes before law. It cannot be one or the other.


Nope. I described human history.

You can't divorce human history from political discourse.  Divorce human reality from ideology and you wind up with socialism, fascism, communism, and anarchy as religious beliefs.   States are formed in violence, lawful states reject violence after their foundation and seek to create a system of justice based on the truths as they know them - in an effort to reduce violence to a minimum. Every society has a different idea of truths. The truth of every anarchy is "might makes right". This is something Western Civilization is known to have largely rejected since Aeschylus won the Greater Dionysia Tragedy Competition with the Oresteia, the only extant complete Greek tragic trilogy...that fact alone should inform you just how important the concepts Aeschylus projected were in the intervening millenia.

You've demonstrated no awareness of the fullness of the history of Western Civilization. Why are you so eager to disassemble it?

I make no claims to expertise in this area, I'm merely the only poster that brings these matters up for review.

Anarchy is when Clytemnestra hacked Agammemnon in his bath, the very night the king returned home from Troy. She was in a tiff because Casseopeia was riding in the place of honor next to the king, who had slaughtered Clytemnestra's daughter, Iphigenia, the king's daughter, to bribe the gods for fair winds to get to where they can kill Trojans.

That's anarchy. No laws were involved in making judicial rulings.

Orestes committed the crime of matricide, in revenge for Clytemnestra's hacking his father in the bath. Which pissed off the Furies no end. The Furies were gods who sought vengeance for the crimes against parents (forgive me, it's been close to thirty years since I read the Oresteia or of the Curse of the Atreides). The Furies pursued Orestes seeking vengeance. 

Orestes finally gained refuge in the Athens, under the grey-eyed goddess Athena... damned Illiad never goes away...who referred the matter to...
... a secular tribunal of human judges in Athens, proclaiming that vengeance is not for the individual, that the state has alone has the indepence of judgement to have an objective viewing of the facts and the ability therefore to render an impartial judgement.

Really, Greek and Roman Lit is an important course....even if I am an old white male... but not dead yet.   I want to go for a walk...




> Considering that your exposition of history mirrors the same crap that one finds in government-run public school textbooks, I think I've got a firmer grasp of it than you do.


So, how's your impressions on the Oresteia coming along?  You really need to read it.  Or was it written by a dead white guy, and thus bears no relevance to today's issues?

Orestes was merely the last in a chain of vengeance in House Atriedes that began when Tantalus served a guests' sons to his guest for dinner.

Welcome to your introduction to the historic understanding of what anarchy is really all about. It's about the strong lording it over the weak.




> The Constitution is words on paper. It protects nothing as it is not a thing that can act. As I said, elementary-school level thinking on your part. The Constitution outlines what some long dead people wanted from the government they sought to impose.


What protects the weak in your anarchy paradise? From where do they draw their authority, and from whom do they get the message that a given response is enough? And how is it enforced that Reponse A to Event A- is no different than Repsonse B to identical Event A-?




> You, like many others, have an almost spiritual concept of the COTUS, as if it magically confers power. Do you also put your hand on the Bible under the belief that it will cure you of disease?


You do an awful lot of strawmanning. Do you get inside them after you've built them and stroll around the neighborhood?

My conception of the Constitution is not unigue. It's not ill-defined. It recognizes perfectly that anti-aircraft guns do not work when the men who should be manning them are out shitting in the park at an OWS rally, where all the best whiny anarchists hang out.

The Constitution works when people understand it (you do not, I do), where people demand that it be obeyed (you do not, I do), and where people defend it (you do not, I'm a veteran of the United States Navy). 

Maybe you need to be lectured by Horatio Bunce, as a famous American once was (perhaps) http://hushmoney.org/Davy_Crockett_Farmer_Bunce.htm




> The Constitution is not a libertarian document.


Never said it was.

Name a real government framing document that comes closer that also lasted longer than the Weimar Republic.

The Perfect should never become the enemy of the Good. A libertarian society requres as many people as possible to be intelligent and informed.

Anarchy relies on ignorance and muscle.

Which is to be preferred, even though neither is 100% possible?




> A real libertarian holds to the non-aggression principle,


In fantasy land, yeah.  By that interpretation, libertarians are not libertarians if they come between a woman and her rapists, since that intervention is an act of agression by someone who is not acting in SELF-defense.

In the real world, the safety of my children comes before religious dogma. I'm perfectly willing to incinerate every square inch of land outside of North America if it would guarantee the safety of my children from terrorists. Limp-dicked Europeans that find offense to this idea don't seem to be a problem for me. 

Because I am not ignorant, I also recognize that defending the safety of other children in my nation leads to stronger safety for my own.   Some biblical figure showed how the rupture strength of a bundle of sticks is dependent on the cumulative moment of inertia of all the stick in a bundle, and that no single stick can have the same strength.   Alexandre Dumas declared "united we stand, divided we fall".

Is this why the public schools in the United States refuse to teach literature any more, because of such subversive ideas?

I see that "Ten Megaton Solution"'s posts are still available on freerepublic, which quickly decided it couldn't digest libertarian thought when the TMS posted in favor of same-sex marriage, that matter being a core MYOB marker for people enamored of freedom.

You'll never guess who Ten Megaton Solution was, I'll wager.  (Actually, you might, since I introduced him up above on an edit.)

That monicker was based on the Ivy-Mike test on the former island of Eugelab in the South Pacific, and was adopted by someone who was slightly offended by the anarchists' attacks on the US on September 11, 2001 and what he was certain was going to be a completely predictable defense of the terrorists by the Rodents.   (That was back in 2001.   The predictions have come true, with King Obama trading terrorists for deserters)

Guess how big the Ivy-Mike Firecracker was.




> not some document written by some long dead men.


The first anarchists are dead to.

So is Rothbard.

People who complain about the greatest civil secular document in the history of man being written by "dead men". You forgot to mention that they were white, too. Can you tell the class what happens to the all men who write a document 230 years ago? Can you tell the class what happened to every single person in the United States who ate carrots during the Civil War?

The deaths of the Framers are irrelevant to the treasure they left for their posterity. Which means ME. You don't value it, so they didn't leave it for you.  Jonathan Swift is dead, does that make Gulliver's Travels irrelevant?  (you have read Gulliver, haven't you?)




> You are more like a Bible-Thumper, only your Bible is the Constitution. As if it binds modern day politicians through the divine Jefferson, Madison and Hamilton and Demi-God-like Founding Fathers. That's great for the fevered imaginations of a school-boy, but the Constitution has no power nor binds anyone in truth.


You get unhappy when the legal restrictions in the Constitution bite you in the ass? Or are you just unhappy when those legal constrictions upset your apple cart of anarchy? 

I refer to the Constitution when? When the Rodents are intent on violating it...because, your irrelevant moaning and groaning to the contrary, the Constitution IS STILL the LAW of the United States. As such, it can be referred to by ANYONE with the ability to read it (it's in English, you know) as a refutation of Rodent-style fascism.

It drives the friggin' Rodents into gibbering babbling strawman constructing frenzies.

What's this thread about, again? Oh YEAH....it's about THE GOVERNMENT.

Got ANY CLUE what the Constitution DEFINES? Do tell. There's some seriously potent sarcastic magic in that question, you know.




> Your right to possess firearms has long been abridged.


No. It hasn't.

My ABILITY to possess has been infringed.

Words have meaning, you're always going to get caught up in your conceptual failures if you can't use language precisely.




> Today, you may still have permission to possess a firearm subject to rules and regulations, or that permission may be denied for all sorts of reasons.


See what you just described? You descibed the infringement on my ability to possess, not on my right. 

For some reason you seem to believe in your strawman that I am not aware that even the Constition, as a law, means nothing without men to defend it. I shall refer you to Federalist 29 for a refresher. Note also, that despite the efforts of the Rodents and other fascists, the government's efforts to disarm the public have effectively failed.

Which means the Ultimate Recourse to Tyranny has not yet been denied the Americans.




> I don't trust anyone who presumes the right to rule, for any reason, not least because 50%+1 of those enfranchised to mark a box on a piece of paper said so. So what do I care if some are louder than others about certain things?


What you're really saying is that you don't believe in law, period. 

Which means you are not any form of libertarian, ALL of whom recognize the necessity of law and objectivity to maintain a stable and just system to protect individual freedom.




> Merchant princes? What political power did they hold through inheritance or divine right? Or, do you mean because they worked together to create and accumulate wealth, they were "princes"? Typical progressive thinking to hate wealth and anyone who acts outside of the state to create rules that enrich the most people.


Study the concept of "oligarchy".

----------

Dan40 (06-05-2014),OriginalCyn (06-06-2014)

----------


## Sled Dog

> Come on.....be honest......is this Rush or Sean posting here??


They WISH they had me writing for them.

They're too far to the left.

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> What does the fact that "they" accepted have to do with whether it is a big government program?


It wasn't forced on them, that is what matters.  After all you are the one who want to be free to do what you want to do without government interference as long as it does not harm anyone, and yet you permit the government to shove a healthcare down you throat without you permission and you call yourself free.

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> Really?  RomneyCare was passed by a state-wide ballot initiative?  How then did Romney have to sign it into law?
> 
> RomneyCare was passed by legislative fiat without due regard for the right of the people to engage in their own personal affairs, and as such it is no less unconstitutional than MessiahCare.


Did you hear an out cry by the masses as we did with Obamacare?  No, you didn't.  The citizens of MA. knew what was coming and applauded it.  They were for it, they wanted it.

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> I don't think you're correct here. Some activist groups did collect enough signatures to put reform on the ballot but things didn't get that far because the legislature in Mass. took care of this before the issue could be put to the people. It does seem that the reform had widespread support though so I don't think it can be characterized as being jammed down the public's throat. I think it's funny it's called Romneycare, he really didn't have a lot to do with it.
> 
> The House bill was available for the public to read before the House voted on it. If no one had read it then Stupak never would have made an issue of the wording in the bill and Boehner couldn't have taken exception to wording on the House floor. Interviews were done in the media with people who had read the bill, private citizens were able to read it. I downloaded it, I didn't read the whole thing though because it was a long bill and I have a short attention span.


You are correct, perhaps I should have stated it differently.  Thank you.

----------


## Hansel

> It wasn't forced on them, that is what matters.  After all you are the one who want to be free to do what you want to do without government interference as long as it does not harm anyone, and yet you permit the government to shove a healthcare down you throat without you permission and you call yourself free.


What could he have done to stop it from happening?

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> Obamacare was passed by a majority of both houses in Congress and of course was read before it was voted on. (Congress never has a vote on a bill that members can't read first)


give me a break.  it was passed on a Democratic vote only and no one, I repeat no one was permitted to read it before it was passed.  Why do you think that the Republicans didn't vote on it, it is because they were not permitted to read it first.  However, Obamacare is getting off of the topic of this thread.

----------


## Devil505

> give me a break.  it was passed on a Democratic vote only and no one, I repeat no one was permitted to read it before it was passed.  Why do you think that the Republicans didn't vote on it, it is because they were not permitted to read it first.  However, Obamacare is getting off of the topic of this thread.


LOL....whatever you say. (Congress is going to hold a vote but not allow anyone to see what they're voting for/against?)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> LOL....whatever you say. (Congress is going to hold a vote but not allow anyone to see what they're voting for/against?)


The bill was presented one night and voted on the NEXT night.

The bill was 2000 PAGES of legalese.  Very, very few people even NOW have read that bill in its entirety...CAN read the bill.  And you wanna stand there with a straight face and claim the members READ that garbage?

----------

Old Ridge Runner (06-05-2014)

----------


## Devil505

> The bill was presented one night and voted on the NEXT night.
> 
> The bill was 2000 PAGES of legalese.  Very, very few people even NOW have read that bill in its entirety...CAN read the bill.  And you wanna stand there with a straight face and claim the members READ that garbage?


So how did the Dems know to vote for it & the Repubs to vote against it if no one knew what the bill said???

Suppose the bill was that all Dems would not get paid anymore?
Suppose the bill was a request for Obama to resign?<G>

The whole idea that Congress would vote on a bill they knew nothing about is just silly!

----------


## JustPassinThru

> So how did the Dems know to vote for it & the Repubs to vote against it if no one knew what the bill said???


You gotta be shitting me.

First, it was a straight partisan issue.

Second, it was KNOWN it was a partial/incremental program to socialize medicine.  Conservatives of principle know there's no justification for such a program and no "middle ground" - any more than someone can be half-pregnant.

Both Rs and Ds didn't know and didn't care.  Dems wanted more government, didn't care about the details.  It was their principles, too...as far as goobermint is concerned, more is always better.

----------


## JustPassinThru

> The whole idea that Congress would vote on a bill they knew nothing about is just silly!


_"We have to pass the bill so we can find out what's IN it!"_

--Botox Nan of San-Fran

_"Who has time to read these bills?"_

--John Conyers.

----------

Invayne (06-05-2014)

----------


## Devil505

> second, it was known it was a partial/incremental program to socialize medicine.  Conservatives of principle know there's no justification for such a program and no "middle ground" - any more than someone can be half-pregnant.
> 
> Both rs and ds didn't know and didn't care.  Dems wanted more government, didn't care about the details.  It was their principles, too...as far as goobermint is concerned, more is always better.


gop bs. (it was originally a GOP idea until Obama poisoned it by agreeing with them)

----------


## Devil505

> _"We have to pass the bill so we can find out what's IN it!"_


That's only part of what she said .... (goto youtube to see this & the original cut by Fox News)



The "We" she was talking about was the American people, not the Congress. (they had the bill & their hands prior to the vote)

----------


## JustPassinThru

There is no limit to what Obamabots will explain away - even if only in their own vacuous minds.

----------


## Devil505

> There is no limit to what Obamabots will explain away - even if only in their own vacuous minds.


How come your party has pretty much stopped their complaining & promise to repeal it?

----------


## JustPassinThru

> How come your party has pretty much stopped their complaining & promise to repeal it?


It's not my party.

I don't wear a team jersey - I support PRINCIPLES.

The Republican Party is being torn asunder; done by Institutional RINOs who want the party to be the Democrat II Party; in opposition to those who have voted for its candidates and who have registered as members in the past.

So don't try to tag me in with what Gargles Boner is up to.  I don't support it or him or the Chamber of Crony-Corporatist Commerce influences in it.

----------


## Devil505

> It's not my party.
> 
> I don't wear a team jersey - I support PRINCIPLES.
> 
> The Republican Party is being torn asunder; done by Institutional RINOs who want the party to be the Democrat II Party;


So you're argument with today's GOP is that aren't radical/far-right enough. Got it.
Think that's why the voters rejected Romney?

----------


## JustPassinThru

> So you're argument with today's GOP is that aren't radical/far-right enough. Got it.
> Think that's why the voters rejected Romney?


No, the voters rejected Romney because he was MUSH; PROUD mush; he stood for, essentially nothing and wasn't willing even to defend THAT.

He essentially ceded the election.  Towards the end, conservatives, the largest voting bloc of the Republican Party, couldn't have cared less about him.

----------


## Reverend

> Towards the end, conservatives, the largest voting bloc of the Republican Party, couldn't have cared less about him.


And that was a HUGE mistake. Yet there will still be people who will do it again.

----------


## Dan40

> LOL....whatever you say. (Congress is going to hold a vote but not allow anyone to see what they're voting for/against?)







Is false propaganda the only thing you are allowed to know?

----------

Mordent (06-05-2014),Sled Dog (06-06-2014)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> And that was a HUGE mistake. Yet there will still be people who will do it again.


Although I did vote for Romney, I'd be tempted to not do so - were it to repeat.

NO ONE was less enthused about the Romney campaign than Romney.  I don't know how that is...cold feet?  But obviously he had serious self-doubts that bordered on psychological issue.

What if he had won?  Would he have had the gonads to undo all this Barrymandered crapola?  I now seriously doubt it...sometimes, the thing to do to persuade others that you're right, is to let them have what they think they want.

Like Obamaconomy.

----------


## Devil505

> Is false propaganda the only thing you are allowed to know?


So why did Fox News cut out here last 7 words when they first aired it. (away from the fog of the controversy)


They were forced later to air her complete sentence.
The "we" means the voters so they can see it...."away from the fog of the controversy."

Karl Rove style trickery & video edits will not win elections anymore.

I hope we can get back on topic here again: 
*Who is "The Government?"*

----------


## RMNIXON

> No, the voters rejected Romney because he was MUSH; PROUD mush; he stood for, essentially nothing and wasn't willing even to defend THAT.
> 
> He essentially ceded the election.  Towards the end, conservatives, the largest voting bloc of the Republican Party, couldn't have cared less about him.



For one thing he was way to defensive about Romneycare. Unable to admit he made a serious mistake in order to please the liberals in his State. When he argued that the approach would fail on a National Level he was correct as we know all too well. But the argument looked weak.

----------


## Devil505

> For one thing he was way to defensive about Romneycare. Unable to admit he made a serious mistake in order to please the liberals in his State. When he argued that the approach would fail on a National Level he was correct as we know all too well. But the argument looked weak.


Doesn't sound to me like Romney felt it was a "serious mistake" back in 2006:



Either that or Romney is a fantastic liar who the GOP was trying to slip into the WH.

----------


## JustPassinThru

Romney was an unfit candidate.  I don't know how to make that more clear.

And two years ago all the paid shills like yourself were babbling on about "_He's the only candidate that can WIN!!_"  In fact, he was one of the few who could LOSE...snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

----------

Mordent (06-05-2014)

----------


## Dan40

> So why did Fox News cut out here last 7 words when they first aired it. (away from the fog of the controversy)
> 
> 
> They were forced later to air her complete sentence.
> The "we" means the voters so they can see it...."away from the fog of the controversy."
> 
> Karl Rove style trickery & video edits will not win elections anymore.
> 
> I hope we can get back on topic here again: 
> *Who is "The Government?"*


I posted Pelosi saying her entire statement.

YOU bring up FOX.  I did not.  Why do you always want to evade and avoid?  She said, "We have to pass the bill to find out what's in it."   "Outside the fog of controversy." does not change, add or subtract to what she said and meant.

And what she said was a lie.  Bills can be posted on the Thomas Register [unfamiliar to you?] and/or The Congressional Record. [another newsflash for you], AND BILLS THAT ARE NOT RUSHED THROUGH CONGRESS ARE ROUTINELY POSTED ON BOTH.  There was NO NEED to have an immediate vote on the ACA bill, other than the Democrats DID NOT want it examined.  The ACA passed the House on 03/21/2010.  And was not signed by odumbo until 03/23/2010.  Why couldn't it be posted on 30/21/2010 and voted on days, weeks, or months later?  It did not go into effect in full until *2014.*

And FYI,  The bill passed the Democrat controlled House with 219 votes FOR. [218 needed]  All Democrats, no Republicans.  And 34 Democrats joined all the Republicans in voting against this worst law in history.

And WHY did we need to read it before it was passed?  Does the FACTS, that the president of the USA had to lie over and over to get even 219 votes mean nothing to you?  I guess not.


If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, PERIOD.  _LIE_

If you like your plan, you can keep your plan, PERIOD.  _LIE_

Families WILL save an average of $2500. each.  _LIE
_

And why have *38* provisions of the bill been ILLEGALLY ignored, delayed, not applied?  Because they do not and cannot FUNCTION.  Had the bill been posted, read, examined, and analyzed, 
*IT** WOULD NOT HAVE PASSED.


*As it was, the 219 votes were acquired by threatening, coercing, and bribing fellow Democrats to get the needed votes for passage.  and the Democrats voting against the ACA have been purged from the Democrat Party for their integrity.

This law is not only terrible, unworkable, and against all that America stands for, it is also a horrible demonstration of DISHONOR on the part of the Democratic Party and the POTUS.

----------

Invayne (06-05-2014),JustPassinThru (06-05-2014),Mordent (06-05-2014),OriginalCyn (06-06-2014),Sled Dog (06-06-2014)

----------


## Reverend

> What if he had won?  Would he have had the gonads to undo all this Barrymandered crapola? Like Obamaconomy.


He's a businessman, you do what you have to do to get us back in the black.

----------


## Reverend

> Romney was an unfit candidate.  I don't know how to make that more clear.


Then who in hell WAS fit? Romney was the only other choice we had, don't give me that coulda, shoulda, woulda crap. You remind me of the so-called conservatives who stayed home in 2008 because they didn't want to vote for the "RINO's" and we ended up with two years of Nazi Pelosi. I don't even listen to those guys bitch any more because they sat on their asses instead of stopping the bleeding. 

You don't always get what you want but the alternative is sometimes a lot worse. Deal with it.

----------


## Devil505

> This law is not only terrible, unworkable, and against all that America stands for, it is also a horrible demonstration of DISHONOR on the part of the Democratic Party and the POTUS.


*At 49 Percent Support, Obamacare Hits a High - ABC News*

abcnews.go.com › ABC News Blogs › Politics › Polls

ABC News



Mar 31, 2014 - Public support for the *Affordable Care Act* narrowly notched a new high in ... has *gained* among young adults, nonwhites, lower-income adults, ...


*Americans Stick With Obamacare as Opposition Burns Bright
*President Barack Obama’s health-care law is becoming more entrenched, with 64 percent of Americans now supporting it outright or backing small changes.


www.bloomberg.com/.../americans-stick-with-obam*aca*re...

Bloomberg L.P.



Mar 13, 2014 - ... Americans had enrolled in health plans via the *Affordable Care Act's* insurance exchanges, ... Those provisions are more *popular* with the country as a whole. .... Clinton Takes Book Primary With Warren *Gaining* in Second.You've visited this page 2 times. Last visit: 5/17/14



Poll: Obamacare *Popularity* Gains In Battlegrounds *...*
www.businessinsider.com/poll-obam*aca*re-*popularity*-bat...

Business Insider



Apr 28, 2014 - ... to exceed many expectations, a new poll makes it clear the*Affordable Care Act* is *gaining* in *popularity* — even in districts friendly to the law's ...

----------


## Mordent

*Your info is dated March 31st, mine is current. Next.





			
				Public Approval of Health Care Law
			
		

*


> *Polling Data*
> 
> Poll
> Date
> Sample
> For/Favor
> Against/Oppose
> Spread
> 
> ...


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...plan-1130.html

----------

Sled Dog (06-06-2014)

----------


## Reverend

> *At 49 Percent Support, Obamacare Hits a High - ABC News*
> 
> abcnews.go.com › ABC News Blogs › Politics › Polls
> 
> ABC News
> 
> 
> 
> Mar 31, 2014 - Public support for the *Affordable Care Act* narrowly notched a new high in ... has *gained* among young adults, nonwhites, lower-income adults, ...
> ...


Devil, you are as full of shit as a Christmas goose. Read the damn polls, Obamacare is caca.

----------

Mordent (06-05-2014)

----------


## Mordent

> Devil, you are as full of shit as a Christmas goose. Read the damn polls, Obamacare is caca.


Lol. True.

----------


## Devil505

> [B]Your info is dated March 31st, mine is current. Next.
> 
> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...plan-1130.html
> [/FONT][/COLOR]


We both posted poll data but the only "poll" that really matters is who won the 2012 Presidential election where President Obama promised to implement the ACA & Romney promised to repeal it.

----------


## Mordent

> We both posted poll data but the only "poll" that really matters is who won the 2012 Presidential election where President Obama promised to implement the ACA & Romney promised to repeal it.


Wrong, I posted an average of many polls. You cherry-picked one that suits your propaganda. Obamacare is getting repealed. You'd best get used to that fact.

----------


## Devil505

> Devil, you are as full of shit as a Christmas goose. Read the damn polls, Obamacare is caca.


While I & many other voters wish it would have been Medicare for all......The ACA (Obamacare) is much better than the tyranny of being at the mercy of the health  insurance industry like we were before.

*THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT & YOU*

As of Oct. 1, every state will have a health insurance marketplace, where consumers can shop for coverage. In addition to mandating that insurers in those marketplaces offer the 10 essential health benefits, the health care law also sets certain standards that all insurers must meet, whether they're providing health insurance through an employer or directly to individuals and small groups. The law:

Eliminates lifetime limits on essential medical expenses;Prohibits insurers from dropping your coverage or raising your premiums if you get sick — or from denying coverage if you have a preexisting condition;Ensures that your child can stay on your health plan until age 26;Caps annual out-of-pocket medical and drug expenses up to an estimated $6,400 for individuals and $12,800 for families.
*Learn more about the Affordable Care Act at HealthLawFacts.org*
*Learn how the law can specifically benefit you at HealthLawAnswers.org
http://www.aarp.org/health/health-in...-benefits.html*

----------


## Devil505

> Obamacare is getting repealed. You'd best get used to that fact.


When?

----------


## JustPassinThru

> Then who in hell WAS fit? Romney was the only other choice we had, don't give me that coulda, shoulda, woulda crap. You remind me of the so-called conservatives who stayed home in 2008 because they didn't want to vote for the "RINO's" and we ended up with two years of Nazi Pelosi. I don't even listen to those guys bitch any more because they sat on their asses instead of stopping the bleeding.


Coulda-shoulda-woulda.  Either Newt Gingrich or Rick Perry would have been better...IN THAT they would have GOTTEN THE BASE OUT.

Conservatives weren't gonna break legs rushing over to vote for the "Me, Too" Hopey-Changey Bobblehead candidate.

Romney failed the first test of a candidate - MOTIVATING his base to actually SUPPORT HIM.

Next!




> You don't always get what you want but the alternative is sometimes a lot worse. Deal with it.


I've said that a long time.  But there's a difference between reasonable compromise, and getting one more big-goobermint RINO Institutional Elitist jammed up our _mmm-mmm-mmm_s.

Romney hadn't even the stones to stand up to the Chicago punk-jesus.  So voters didn't have the enthusiasm to turn out for HIM.

I voted for him.  Held my nose and voted.  But I wasn't prancing around with ROMNEY buttons on, let me tell you.

----------


## Reverend

> While I & many other voters wish it would have been Medicare for all......The ACA (Obamacare) is much better than the tyranny of being at the mercy of the health  insurance industry like we were before*.*


Your hair is on fire, I just had one hell of an expensive and extensive surgery and the hospital bill was zero point zero. I still have conventional insurance. They paid for it. Under Obamacare I probably wouldn't have been able to find a doctor or a hospital, according to some of the victims of Obamacare.

----------

Mordent (06-05-2014)

----------


## Reverend

> Coulda-shoulda-woulda.  Either Newt Gingrich or Rick Perry would have been better...IN THAT they would have GOTTEN THE BASE OUT.
> 
> Conservatives weren't gonna break legs rushing over to vote for the "Me, Too" Hopey-Changey Bobblehead candidate.
> 
> Romney failed the first test of a candidate - MOTIVATING his base to actually SUPPORT HIM.
> 
> Next!
> 
> 
> ...


Good for you, at least you voted, the point is, you can't sit these out. There is too much at stake. If the base can't get "motivated" then they deserve what they get.

----------


## Devil505

> Your hair is on fire, I just had one hell of an expensive and extensive surgery and the hospital bill was zero point zero. I still have conventional insurance. They paid for it. Under Obamacare I probably wouldn't have been able to find a doctor or a hospital, according to some of the victims of Obamacare.


_I just had one hell of an expensive and extensive surgery and the hospital bill was zero point zero. I still have conventional insurance. They paid for it. Under Obamacare I probably wouldn't have been able to find a doctor or a hospital, according to some of the victims of Obamacare._

Supposition & hearsay don't convince juries. (and wrong on both counts)
In this case the American voter is the jury who made up his/her mind when they reelected Obama (who promised the ACA) & rejected Romney who promised to repeal it. 
In the meantime millions of Americans who couldn't get insurance b4 are now insured.

----------


## Maximatic

Government is an abstract set of available seats, the holders of which are presumed to have a right to make law which is presumed to apply to all people and things within an arbitrarily chosen geographic area.

In the context that bears on our lives, the holders of those seats are people who are able to convince enough people that they should be the ones to hold them.

Possible contestants for this popularity contest are limited to those in good standing with leaders of a dominant political party.

The leadership of a dominant political party consist of people already holding seats in government.

Therefore, contestants in the popularity contest to gain seats in government are chosen by those who hold seats in government.

Government is, thus, distinct from the people, who are not government.

----------


## Mordent

> When?


Not soon enough.

----------


## Dan40

> *At 49 Percent Support, Obamacare Hits a High - ABC News*
> 
> abcnews.go.com › ABC News Blogs › Politics › Polls
> 
> ABC News
> 
> 
> 
> Mar 31, 2014 - Public support for the *Affordable Care Act* narrowly notched a new high in ... has *gained* among young adults, nonwhites, lower-income adults, ...
> ...


As I have often said, you lying liberals love lying amongst yourselves most of all.  You never challenge the lies of other liberals, making lying lots of fun.  Here we challenge, and disprove EVERYONE of your incessant lies.  Much less fun for you, tedious for us.

obamascam is junk law.  It was passed as junk law.  It was signed as junk law. and it will be junk law until we have a Republican congress and a Republican president.  GUARANTEED WITHIN 10 YEARS.  Then the junk law will be junked.

----------


## Dan40

> *At 49 Percent Support, Obamacare Hits a High - ABC News*
> 
> abcnews.go.com  ABC News Blogs  Politics  Polls
> 
> ABC News
> 
> 
> 
> Mar 31, 2014 - Public support for the *Affordable Care Act* narrowly notched a new high in ... has *gained* among young adults, nonwhites, lower-income adults, ...
> ...


As I have often said, you lying liberals love lying amongst yourselves most of all.  You never challenge the lies of other liberals, making lying lots of fun.  Here we challenge, and disprove EVERYONE of your incessant lies.  Much less fun for you, tedious for us.

obamascam is junk law.  It was passed as junk law.  It was signed as junk law. and it will be junk law until we have a Republican congress and a Republican president.  GUARANTEED WITHIN 10 YEARS.  Then the junk law will be junked.

----------


## Devil505

> ..... and it will be junk law until we have a Republican congress and a Republican president.  GUARANTEED WITHIN 10 YEARS.  Then the junk law will be junked.


& you think millions of Americans will be happy having their family's insurance taken away?
Never happen.

----------


## RMNIXON

> Doesn't sound to me like Romney felt it was a "serious mistake" back in 2006:
> 
> Either that or Romney is a fantastic liar who the GOP was trying to slip into the WH.



Did you even bother to read what I posted?

I was being critical of Romney for being too defensive about his healthcare policy. How about we debate issues instead of just trying to score cheap points?

----------


## Invayne

> & you think millions of Americans will be happy having their family's insurance taken away?
> Never happen.


Only if they can go back to their old plans that they lost because of Obamacare...which cost less, by the way...

----------


## Devil505

> Did you even bother to read what I posted?
> 
> I was being critical of Romney for being too defensive about his healthcare policy. How about we debate issues instead of just trying to score cheap points?


Getting late for me RMN but here's what you said:



> For one thing he was way to defensive about Romneycare.* Unable to admit he made a serious mistake in order to please the liberals in his State.* When he argued that the approach would fail on a National Level he was correct as we know all too well. But the argument looked weak.


That video shows a governor proud of Romneycare & far from thinking it was a serious mistake.
That was my point, sorry if I wasn't clear.

----------


## Dan40

> & you think millions of Americans will be happy having their family's insurance taken away?
> Never happen.


Ahh, perhaps you were unaware, AGAIN, that more than 6 million existing policies WERE CANCELLED due to the fucked up pos obamascam.  And that the REASON that the employer mandate has been "delayed" indefinitely is because over 100 MILLION more policies would be cancelled due to obamascam.

The asshole liberals in D.C. have already SET that precedent.

You got anything else?

And even the tiniest,  most heavily damaged mind SHOULD be able to deduce that when obamascam is repealed, it will be replaced with a workable solution.

Perhaps I expect far too much from the liberal,,,,,"mind?"

----------


## Fisher

> & you think millions of Americans will be happy having their family's insurance taken away?
> Never happen.


It won't be taken away. If they like their doctor they'll be able to keep their doctor. If they like their plan they'll be able to keep their plan.   :Smile:

----------


## Sled Dog

> Did you hear an out cry by the masses as we did with Obamacare? No, you didn't. The citizens of MA. knew what was coming and applauded it. They were for it, they wanted it.


People who had decided to not be the victims of government fled Taxechusetts decades before RINO Romney was elected.   Come on, that's the state that elected a DUI murderer...FOR LIFE and who also sent to the House a thing that ran a gay brothel out of his DC apartment...FOR LIFE.

It wouldn't surpise me if statistics showed Taxechusetts had the highest per capita consumption of Viagra and Cialys in the country.

----------


## Sled Dog

> LOL....whatever you say. (Congress is going to hold a vote but not allow anyone to see what they're voting for/against?)


Well....geee....how convenient for you to completely forget that Nancy Idiot Pelosi told American that nobody could see what was in MessiahCare until it was passed.

The Americans haven't forgotten that quote.  Nor have we forgotten to corruption used merely to get the 59 votes it did get in the Senate.

----------


## Devil505

> People who had decided to not be the victims of government fled Taxechusetts decades before RINO Romney was elected.   Come on, that's the state that elected a DUI murderer...FOR LIFE and who also sent to the House a thing that ran a gay brothel out of his DC apartment...FOR LIFE.
> 
> It wouldn't surpise me if statistics showed Taxechusetts had the highest per capita consumption of Viagra and Cialys in the country.


I live in Massachusetts & Romneycare is pretty popular here.
Best thing he ever did as governor.

----------


## Sled Dog

> So how did the Dems know to vote for it & the Repubs to vote against it if no one knew what the bill said???


Because Rodents are totally corrupt and the Republicans are not quite totally stupid.




> Suppose the bill was that all Dems would not get paid anymore?


The Rodents wrote the bill. That language wasn't going to be in there. Non-Obama Period.




> Suppose the bill was a request for Obama to resign?


The Rodents wrote the bill. That language wasn't going to be in there. Non-Obama Period.




> The whole idea that Congress would vote on a bill they knew nothing about is just silly!


The whole idea that you can post what you just did is silly.

The idea that Congress votes in ignorance is fact.

You never heard of Shiela Jackson Lee?

----------


## Sled Dog

> gop bs. (it was originally a GOP idea until Obama poisoned it by agreeing with them)


Yeah, that's why the GOP not only shut down HillaryCare but took the House away from a 45 year Rodent domination as a direct result of the Red Queen's effort to steal the nation's health care system in 1994....because the GOP wanted nationalized health care.

Next you'll be telling us that Clinton was impeached because the Republicans invented blow jobs.

----------


## Sled Dog

> I live in Massachusetts & Romneycare is pretty popular here.
> Best thing he ever did as governor.


See what I mean?

There's no Americans in Taxechusetts, so naturally a fascist program is "popular".

----------


## Sled Dog

> That's only part of what she said .... (goto youtube to see this & the original cut by Fox News)
> 
> 
> 
> The "We" she was talking about was the American people, not the Congress. (they had the bill & their hands prior to the vote)


ONE:  What was the rush?

Answer:  If the Americans read the bill before it was voted on, the Rodents would witness the revival of an old colonial fashion statement, the Tar and Feather Outfit.

TWO:  Now that we've determined the Rodents were out to bamboozle, any particular reason YOU can poop out that the monstrous bill was not put on the internet for public review on comment for a minimum of 30 days?  You have a problem with voters making informed choices and contacting their elected representatives, outside of the fact that your support of fascists precludes any support for democratic processes or traditions?

THREE: What national emergency existed making it necessary to rush through the destruction of the US health-care system on a straight party-line overnight vote?   

FOUR:  Why was You Can't Read It Nancy making false claims of racism when she carried  The Giant Hammer to the House in the March of the Fascist Health Care Take-over Bill to the House?

----------

Invayne (06-06-2014),Old Ridge Runner (06-06-2014),OriginalCyn (06-06-2014)

----------


## Sled Dog

> There is no limit to what Obamabots will explain away - even if only in their own vacuous minds.


They're religious fanatics.

That's why I refuse to treat them with anything resembling respect.   When they stop lying they can try to earn respect again.   Until they do, they're just Rodents.

----------


## Sled Dog

> And that was a HUGE mistake. Yet there will still be people who will do it again.


Fuck the RINOs.

So long as the Establishment of RINOs decides that we "need" them, they can go to hell.

When they figure out that they can't win without us, and start not only listening to the  Americans but OBEYING them when they're elected after chasing their votes, ....well, then the maggots won't be RINO's anymore, will they.

Bush, Bush, Dole, Bush, Bush, McStain, Romney...

...don't know about you, but even when an Estalbishment RINO gets into office, either Bush, they shit on their constituency base and cater to the Rodents.  

So fuck them.   A lifetime of that crap is enough, no more.   Since electing RINOs' DOES NOTHING to even slow the rush to the Rodent Fascist Utopia, it's past time to educate the RINO's that "Extinct Means Forever".   No more should any RINO with a record of betrayal get an American vote.    If the Party of RINO's can't figure things out, then it really is time for the TEA Party coalition to become the TEA Party in fact.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Romney was an unfit candidate. I don't know how to make that more clear.
> 
> And two years ago all the paid shills like yourself were babbling on about "_He's the only candidate that can WIN!!_" In fact, he was one of the few who could LOSE...snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.


Romney was the RINO candidate.  The Rodents and the RINO's acted, as they always have, to prevent valid Americans from getting the GOP nomination.

The Rodents couldn't have an actual American who happened to be black and who really did live through the civil rights era the UNITED STATES get the GOP nomination against King Obama, who was neither American nor black.   Invent Bimbo Eruptions for Herman Cain.

The RINO's couldn't tolerate Reagan.  He devastated them.   He also got two RECORD landslide victories because he was a real American.   The RINOs hated him, and have repeatedly demonstrated the desire to LOSE rather than win HUGELY, if the candidate was not a RINO firmly in control of the Establishment.  The RINOs have worked against every conservative candidate.  

Non-Obama Period.

What?  You weren't expecting me to say "since 1992" or anything like that, were you?  The country-club elitist RINO Establishment "republicans" HATE the thought of freedom and liberty almost as much as any peice of shit that votes for a DemocRAT.

----------


## Reverend

> Fuck the RINOs.
> 
> So long as the Establishment of RINOs decides that we "need" them, they can go to hell.
> 
> When they figure out that they can't win without us, and start not only listening to the  Americans but OBEYING them when they're elected after chasing their votes, ....well, then the maggots won't be RINO's anymore, will they.
> 
> Bush, Bush, Dole, Bush, Bush, McStain, Romney...
> 
> ...don't know about you, but even when an Estalbishment RINO gets into office, either Bush, they shit on their constituency base and cater to the Rodents.  
> ...


You're not "fucking" anybody but yourself. Go ahead and vote for Ron Paul or Gary Johnson or whatever loser you want, the loony left will be happy for you.

----------


## Sled Dog

> He's a businessman, you do what you have to do to get us back in the black.


And the FIRST THING a businessman has to do is BELIEVE IN HIMSELF.

The fucking GOP didn't even have the guts to refuse the debates when they had no choice of who the third participant...er "moderator" was going to be.

Here's an idea the GOP will flatly reject:

Given how the Rodents selected all four of the "moderators" for the Presidential "debates", it's the GOP's turn in 2016.  For the 2016 debates the GOP should insist on the following moderators:

Walter Williams
Larry Elder
Thomas Sowell
Michelle Malkin

If the Rodents refuse, they're racist and they're waging a war on women.

Guaranteed, any of those four could make, and have made, life for RINO's as miserable as they do for the Rodents.

----------


## Reverend

> Supposition & hearsay don't convince juries.


We'll find out this fall when the only jury that matters votes.

----------

Devil505 (06-06-2014)

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> People who had decided to not be the victims of government fled Taxechusetts decades before RINO Romney was elected.   Come on, that's the state that elected a DUI murderer...FOR LIFE and who also sent to the House a thing that ran a gay brothel out of his DC apartment...FOR LIFE.
> 
> It wouldn't surpise me if statistics showed Taxechusetts had the highest per capita consumption of Viagra and Cialys in the country.


Ken was trying to say that the Republicans started the takeover of the healthcare system when Romney was governor of Mass.  I was pointing out that the Mass. takeover was what the citizens of that state wanted, where Obamacare was forces on the entire population.

----------


## Devil505

> Ken was trying to say that the Republicans started the takeover of the healthcare system when Romney was governor of Mass.  I was pointing out that the Mass. takeover was what the citizens of that state wanted, where Obamacare was forces on the entire population.


It was passed by majority vote in both Houses & signed into law like any other law.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> It was passed by majority vote in both Houses & signed into law like any other law.


First, it was signed and approved by only Democrats.  Second, many Americans were not happy with the results.   Yes, most Americans, including myself, are very concerned about the rising health care costs, but the ACA doesn't fix that.   What it really does is given 30 million Americans medical coverage.  For the Middle Class all it does is _raise_ their health care costs.  

Once again the Middle Class is fucked in the ass by Congress.

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> It was passed by majority vote in both Houses & signed into law like any other law.


It was passed because the citizens wanted it passed, they wanted the so called free beeie.

----------


## Devil505

> First, it was signed and approved by only Democrats.


That's because Repubs were ordered to vote against it by GOP brass.








> Second, many Americans were not happy with the results.


There's no Constitutional requirement that Congress must please every citizen with every law.







> Yes, most Americans, including myself, are very concerned about the rising health care costs, but the ACA doesn't fix that.   What it really does is given 30 million Americans medical coverage.  For the Middle Class all it does is _raise_ their health care costs.


We can both provide links "Proving" both sides of that question.
I believe it will lower costs.

----------


## Devil505

> It was passed because the citizens wanted it passed, they wanted the so called free beeie.


Insurance is not free under the *Affordable* Care Act.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> That's because they were ordered to vote against it by GOP brass.


So, according to you, all Democrats vote their conscience, but all Republicans are mindless fucking robots just following orders.  Got it.

In the case of Congress, they should at least please _most_ of the country.  As this poll notes, in many instances, it shows _harm_ to a quarter of Americans across the board.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/170756/fe...aw-helped.aspx

----------


## Sled Dog

> You're not "fucking" anybody but yourself. Go ahead and vote for Ron Paul or Gary Johnson or whatever loser you want, the loony left will be happy for you.


I no longer subscribe to your religion.   My nose will be pinched no more.  If the GOP candidate sucks as bad as ANY of those I listed, fuck 'em they're going to make terrible presidents anyway.

Were YOUR liberties protected under GHW Bush?    GHW Bush didn't say "No Newt, Axes", he said "no new taxes".  And he wanted everyone to read his lying lips, too.

Were YOUR liberties protected when RINO GHW signed the Save Our Swamps Act, a Watermelon bill that has done tremendous damage to the right of private property ownerhsip throughout America?

Were YOUR liberties protected when RINO GHW sigend the Crippled Whiny Non-Americans Act, also known as the completely unconsttutional Americans With Disability Act, which violated the Fifth Amendment rights of EVERY American and expanded the regulatory burden on ALL Americans?

Voting for the RINO got you that, just the very same as voting for Willy Horton Dukakis would have.

Voting for that RINO instead of squashing it told the RINOs they could once again run campaigns of betrayal because they were once again suckering the public now that that pesky REAGAN was out of the picture.

How'd your vote for RINO Dole go?   Got you an impeachment, but not a conviction, because you also sent Vacant Lott back to the Senate, plus the Escape Hatch who wanted to play the role of Rapist's Shrink.  You didn't get to see all the evidence against the Rapist the Special Prosecutor compiled because...the RINO controlled Senate refused to do their due diligence and allow a full prosecution of the case against the nation's First Black President.

How'd that vote for Bush go?   You happy with the new Drugs for Seniors Scam?  How's the further nationalizing of the unconstitutional Public School system going for you?   Did any of your RINO candidates even mention restoring control and funding of the schools to the states, where the Constitution requires it to be?

Were you happy that RINO Bush Again ever and anon labeled the religion of terrorism the "religion of peace"?   You found nothing offensive there, right?

Were you happy with his turn from the conflict in Trashcanistan to the pointless pivot to Iraq, a move that made no strategic sense at all?

You must have been ECSTATIC that the PATRIOT Act (almost all of which was written by Rodents when the Rapist was president and rejected by the GOP as being unconstitutional) was passed by a panicked House who were urged, but RINO Bush Again, to DO SOMETHING.   That was yet another bill that the people couldn't read until it was passed.

Your liberties have been curtailed by EVERY RINO.

Doing something stupid, over and over and over again, and getting the exact same result every time, and then proclaiming that we MUST do it again, is madness.

It's time to call up Susan Powter and stop the madness.

----------

Invayne (06-06-2014)

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> Insurance is not free under the *Affordable* Care Act.


That's what Polosi didn't want anyone to see before the bill was passed.  Everyone on the left was touting "free health care is here at last".

----------


## Sled Dog

> Insurance is not free under the *Affordable* Care Act.


It's not affordable, either.

And it's called *O-BAAA-AAA-AAA-MAAA*Care, for all the ignorant sheep that support him and it.

----------


## Sled Dog

> It was passed because the citizens wanted it passed, they wanted the so called free beeie.


The citizens didn't want that shit passed.

It never had 50% of the public behind it, even before we knew what was in it.

It still doesn't.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Then who in hell WAS fit? Romney was the only other choice we had, don't give me that coulda, shoulda, woulda crap. You remind me of the so-called conservatives who stayed home in 2008 because they didn't want to vote for the "RINO's" and we ended up with two years of Nazi Pelosi. I don't even listen to those guys bitch any more because they sat on their asses instead of stopping the bleeding. 
> 
> You don't always get what you want but the alternative is sometimes a lot worse. Deal with it.


Cain.

Santorum.

My husky bitch.

ANY of those three would make a better president than ANY RINO or Rodent.

Especially the last. Fluffy is good for a lot of votes.

And I shall deal with it.

I won't vote for it.

And I will tell every REAL American to rediscover the wonders of standing erect and surveying the stupid antics of the RINOs on the Serengeti by standing proud and tall.

And if enough REAL Americans take my advice, the Serengeti will become devoid of RINOs.

There's a point where compromise becomes surrender.   Surrender no more, late to the party is better than getting drowned in RINO dung.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Devil, you are as full of shit as a Christmas goose. Read the damn polls, Obamacare is caca.


Ummmm....Christmas geese are gutless....like John Kerry.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Coulda-shoulda-woulda. Either Newt Gingrich or Rick Perry would have been better...IN THAT they would have GOTTEN THE BASE OUT.
> 
> Conservatives weren't gonna break legs rushing over to vote for the "Me, Too" Hopey-Changey Bobblehead candidate.
> 
> Romney failed the first test of a candidate - MOTIVATING his base to actually SUPPORT HIM.
> 
> Next!
> 
> 
> ...


Perry was an insult, his comment that if I didn't support the illegal invasion the United States I had no heart guaranteeed that I will NEVER vote for the treasonous RINO sanctimonious prig.

----------


## Devil505

> In the case of Congress, they should at least please _most_ of the country.  As this poll notes, in many instances, it shows _harm_ to a quarter of Americans across the board.


That's why we hold elections.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Good for you, at least you voted, the point is, you can't sit these out. There is too much at stake. If the base can't get "motivated" then they deserve what they get.


How can they get motivated when there's only Rodent turds and RINO dung on the ballot?

Why should they be motivated when they face the choice of shit with a (D) or shit with an (R)?

If the GOP can only serve up shit, why vote for them?  Because you believe RINO turds taste better than Rodent droppings?

That's not a very good argument.

If the GOP wants its OWN BASE to be "motivated", it is incumbent upon the GOP to PROVIDE CANDIDATES that reflect the views of THAT BASE, not of the Establisment Elitists.

What're you going to do if Obama-hugging Christie is given the nomination by the Establishment?   

I ain't voting for that Obama-Care Loving, Amnesty Supporting donut addict.  Not ever.   If he's the face of the GOP, then they don't need me.   

I didn't vote for RINO Bush Again.   Neither time.   

My nose will never be fitted with a clothes pin again.

----------

Invayne (06-06-2014)

----------


## Sled Dog

> That's why we hold elections.


Rodents don't hold elections.

They hold election fraud.

----------


## Hansel

If the ACA is  supposed to reduce the cost of healthcare then we have a long wait. There is more to costs than insurance premiums, deductibles, 
and copays.  I have had some fairly expensive outpatient procedures in the past year and you should see what the hospitals and doctors are wanting. 
Thank God for my Medigap policy or I would be hurting.

It is my understanding that the ACA will in time have an impact on Medicare and Medicaid.  You can bet it won't be positive.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Government is an abstract set of available seats, the holders of which are presumed to have a right to make law which is presumed to apply to all people and things within an arbitrarily chosen geographic area.


What's with this "presumed" bullshit?

Legislators don't have a "right" to make law...it's their AUTHORITY do that.   Rights belong to individuals, government is about power and authority, transferred from the people for the purpose of protecting their life, liberty and freedom to pursue whatever it is that they feel like chasing.

And JUST laws do apply to all people in a nation.

Sheesh...where DO they come from?

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> That's why we hold elections.


Which is why I think we'll see a regime change both this November and in November 2016.

----------


## Sled Dog

> & you think millions of Americans will be happy having their family's insurance taken away?
> Never happen.


Millions of Americans WEREN'T happy when you Rodents STOLE their insurance, it's true.

But it DID happen, didn't it?

Millions of Americans weren't happy when their booze was stolen, too.

But Bill Clinton was able to get drunk and bust his knee, didn't he?

And nobody is going to take away anything they lawfully paid for.   Which doesn't apply to ObamaCare, because ObamaCare is unconstitutional.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Which is why I think we'll see a regime change both this November and in November 2016.


Too bad the Establishment RINOs spent so much money protecting those of their own dedicated to betrayal, many Americans are going to say, "if I have no place to go, then there's no point in going out to vote".

Just like they did in 2012.

----------


## Devil505

> Which is why I think we'll see a regime change both this November and in November 2016.


I think you're wrong on both counts.
(not much would change even if the GOP took control of the Senate with a small majority. (they would need a 2/3rds majority to overcome any veto) I can't think of a single Republican who could win his/her party's nomination *AND* the general election in 2016......can you?)

----------


## Sled Dog

> It was passed by majority vote in both Houses & signed into law like any other law.


You should know that the other people on this board are NOT stupid.

They even read the previous posts.

Check this one out, from Dan40:  (in other words, so much for your lying crap)




> FYI, both of you.
> 
> Romneycare is a liberal lie misnomer..
> 
> It WAS NOT passed by a vote of the people.
> 
> You can look up MA gov records and find the accurate story of the MA healthcare law. And when you do, do not neglect to review the many many changes AFTER Romney left the Gov's office.
> 
> MA had their own state Medicaid type program and it received funding subsities from the Fed Gov. Then DC decided that all states need to align with the Federal Medicaid program to receive their subsidies.
> ...

----------


## Sled Dog

> If the ACA is supposed to reduce the cost of healthcare then we have a long wait. There is more to costs than insurance premiums, deductibles, 
> and copays. I have had some fairly expensive outpatient procedures in the past year and you should see what the hospitals and doctors are wanting. 
> Thank God for my Medigap policy or I would be hurting.
> 
> It is my understanding that the ACA will in time have an impact on Medicare and Medicaid. You can bet it won't be positive.


What do you mean "in time"?

King Obama stole 700,000,000 dollars from Medicaid to hide the cost of O-BAAA-AAA-AAA-MAA-Care already.

----------


## Maximatic

> What's with this "presumed" bullshit?
> 
> Legislators don't have a "right" to make law...it's their AUTHORITY do that.   Rights belong to individuals, government is about power and authority, transferred from the people for the purpose of protecting their life, liberty and freedom to pursue whatever it is that they feel like chasing.
> 
> And JUST laws do apply to all people in a nation.
> 
> Sheesh...where DO they come from?


If you prefer the word "authority", then substitute it for "right" wherever you please. I'm not picky.

Do you have the authority to make a law which is binding on me? I'll assume your answer is "no".

Does any group of people have the authority to make a law which is binding on me? I'll assume your answer is "yes".

Where did they get it?

----------


## Hansel

> What do you mean "in time"?
> 
> King Obama stole 700,000,000 dollars from Medicaid to hide the cost of O-BAAA-AAA-AAA-MAA-Care already.


And yet the feds are wanting states to buy into some  sort of cost sharing sop for Medicaid. So far Kansas has refused to play.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I think you're wrong on both counts.
> (not much would change even if the GOP took control of the Senate with a small majority. (they would need a 2/3rds majority to overcome any veto) I can't think of a single Republican who could win his/her party's nomination *AND* the general election in 2016......can you?)


Time will tell.  Sure, part of depends on the Republicans to present candidates capable of win over a majority of voters.  In a national election, that won't be extremists.  Another part is the same as in 2008; after 8 years of one party in power, the public is ready to give the other guys a chance.  "Hope and Change", ya know?

----------


## Sled Dog

> If you prefer the word "authority", then substitute it for "right" wherever you please. I'm not picky.


Words mean things.




> Do you have the authority to make a law which is binding on me? I'll assume your answer is "no".


More importantly, do I want it?

No.

I lead them to the fount of knowedge, and many of the piss in it.




> Does any group of people have the authority to make a law which is binding on me? I'll assume your answer is "yes".
> 
> Where did they get it?


You again?   You cloned?   

People have the POWER to pass laws, since laws are power, and nothing but power.....you really do need to learn what words mean, that would help you answer you own damn questions...for anything they damn well please.

They draw the authority to pass some laws based on the fact that they are not your property and therefore there exists their reasonable expectation that you will leave them alone, and by extension, any others upon whom you would impose whatever it is they do not want you doing to them against their will.

Maybe they don't like being asked questions that the inquirer feels is a "gotcha" question for which he incorrectly believes there is no valid answer.   People believe questions like that exist when they have not established the proper axioms of life.

Libertarians, of course, have one, and only one axiom, upon which a completely coherently ideology can be built.   Now, what wuold that one axiom be, from which they can derive a secular authority to enact laws, be they in a group or even as an individual?

No clues, right? 

Here's a clue then, since you don't have one:

Who owns you?

Ponder that.

----------


## Sled Dog

> And yet the feds are wanting states to buy into some sort of cost sharing sop for Medicaid. So far Kansas has refused to play.



Well, yeah.

King Obama stole the Medicaid money to fund the unconstituitonal ObamaCare, thereby guaranteeing that Medicaid will collapse that much sooner.

Of course King Obama wants the states to cough up some cash, so the trail leading to the death of millions of people the bankrupt Medicaid fund can't pay for won't be part of his legacy.

He doesn't care about the people.  Because they live in the United States he does, in fact, want them to die as soon as possible, but he wants to believe he can bamboozle everyone about his legacy as the nation's Second Black President....even though it is racist to describe a mulatto as a member of only one race.

----------


## Dan40

> And yet the feds are wanting states to buy into some  sort of cost sharing sop for Medicaid. So far Kansas has refused to play.


As I understand it.  This is probably about "expanded" Medicaid.  Regular Medicaid, established long before obamascam remains as is by order of TSCOTUS.

obamascam first said that if states did not agree to set up expanded Medicaid, than the govt would stop the states' Medicaid reimbursement.

The SCOTUS declared that part of obamascam unconstitutional.  Called it extortion.  So now states can decide to have expanded Medicaid or not.  They will keep regular Medicaid in any case.

Under expanded Medicaid, the federal govt agreed to pay for the set up and to subsidize almost totally for the first 3 years.  Then the state must assume an increasing share of the expanded Medicaid burden.

Your state may not like the amount they are being asked to cough up for expanded Medicaid.

It seems the federal govt FORGOT that most states have BALANCED BUDGET LAWS, which the federal govt DOES NOT have.  For a state to come up with money, they HAVE to have a source of that money, OTHER THAN AN IOU, like the federals.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Nonetheless, the Lex Mercatoria required a body to enforce those laws and resolve disputes.  The merchants had to abide by the results even if it negatively impacted their "freedom" to do as they please.


You still think freedom means to "do as you please." If that's the case, then you can force others to do business with you if you are free, but then they aren't free. Those who broke the rules created by the traders were effectively banned from trading by being denied the association of other traders. It is no different than banning solicitors from knocking at your door. That does not restrict their freedom, as they were never free to knock on your door in the first place.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> If you vote, you are part of the state, because you give the people voted into office the right to make the laws for you.  So if you are against the state and you vote, you are saying you are against your self.


So, voting means that you a) consent to whatever the government does to you and b) that you cannot ever withdraw your consent by not voting?

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Standing equal under the law does not mean you can do what ever you want as long as you do not harm anyone else.  Equal under the law means that you have certain rights before the law, such as a trial by jury, to have representation in court, not be tried for the same crime twice, etc.  Equal under the law does not mean you can break the law just because you think it is unjust.


In order for anyone to be tried for violating an unjust law, there must be an agency with the power to do violence against the person who violates that rule. Neither you, nor I, have the power to punish someone for violating those laws. For instance, the state can lock you in a cage for, say, selling raw milk to willing buyers, and in the course of it's evidence gathering it may raid your property, detain you and do violence against your person should you resist. Neither you, nor I, have the right to do that as private citizens.  So, the agents of the state have legal privileges that you and I do not. Therefore, you and I are unequal to those agents under the law.

----------


## Devil505

> In order for anyone to be tried for violating an unjust law, there must be an agency with the power to do violence against the person who violates that rule. Neither you, nor I, have the power to punish someone for violating those laws. For instance, the state can lock you in a cage for, say, selling raw milk to willing buyers, and in the course of it's evidence gathering it may raid your property, detain you and do violence against your person should you resist. Neither you, nor I, have the right to do that as private citizens.  So, the agents of the state have legal privileges that you and I do not. Therefore, you and I are unequal to those agents under the law.


Of course we are unequal to people we authorize, give special privilege to & pay to do things none of the rest of us can do.
The President can send the 101st Airborne overseas on a mission....We cannot.
Marines can kill people in war but we cannot do the same on the street.
Secret Service agents can carry fully automatic weapons......most of us cannot.


Of course *we* authorize agents of the state to do things most of us can't.... so of course we are not all equal to those special cases.
I don't follow your argument???

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Nothing less interesting than "debating" with the relgiously devout.


That's interesting, because I consider myself to be a "big tent" libertarian. I've been in the party for a very long time and I work with a lot of different people with a lot of different viewpoints. While my views are toward the voluntaryist, I've even worked with Republicans in my area and very centrist Democrats. I've worked on various committees and I've always been in favor of the widest possible interpretation of the libertarian platform so as to involve as many people as possible in the party. 

Meanwhile, to you, anyone who doesn't agree with your exact views has "no idea" what libertarianism is and must be utterly wrong about everything else. Now, who is devout? I'm opinionated, to be sure, and I tolerate wide differences of opinion. Like the religiously devout, you get angry when anyone challenges your very narrow opinions and jump straight into the ad hominem with barely a lick of reason or logic to back it.




> The sheerest definition of anarchy precludes libertarianism, and libertarianism is utterly dependent on a lightweight government that can protect freedom but not steal it....and systems that require government are not anarchistic.


Since you are stuck on the dictionary definition of anarchy, let's use voluntaryism as that implies a system without anyone who rules over anyone else. Then your argument boils down to the notion that without an organization that has a monopoly on the use of force, there can be no governing body. That would be silly. There are many governing bodies without such a monopoly. A homeowner's association is a good example of a governing body that cannot initiate violence against those who are within the association.




> What's the point in debating dictionary terms, except your failure to accept them for what they are?


So, when you talk about "liberals", can I hold you to the dictionary term? Or does the dictionary only apply when it suits your agenda? How about "fascist"?




> Ain't happenin'.  I'm the Mayor's libertarian, the libertarian of Sled Dogs everywhere, who won't pull the useless if they get to cut the traces.   He's the libertarian of the Ten Megaton Solution, who recognizes that freedom means nothing unless one is willing to kill to protect it.


I get it. Life is one big rap battle to you. Put your hat on backwards and wear your pants low. That'll make you look more dangerous, and therefore more "right."




> You do an awful lot of strawmanning.


Pot. Meet kettle.




> My conception of the Constitution is not unigue. It's not ill-defined. It recognizes perfectly that anti-aircraft guns do not work when the men who should be manning them are out shitting in the park at an OWS rally, where all the best whiny anarchists hang out.


Your conception of the Constitution, like most who believe in myths and fairy-tales, is that it has some magical powers and authority that it doesn't have.




> The Constitution works when people understand it (you do not, I do), where people demand that it be obeyed (you do not, I do), and where people defend it (you do not, I'm a veteran of the United States Navy).


Ah, so you spent time defending the state, and you probably believe that you were defending the rights of others. Meanwhile, you weren't even defending your own rights.

Serving the government in the capacity of an indentured servant in a uniform doesn't make you an expert on much, except, perhaps, killing. I have nothing against a warrior class, but to believe that you were defending the Constitution is about as religiously devout as it gets.




> Maybe you need to be lectured by Horatio Bunce, as a famous American once was (perhaps) http://hushmoney.org/Davy_Crockett_Farmer_Bunce.htm


Love that story. Might do you good to re-read it, since here you are promoting military socialism.




> Name a real government framing document that comes closer that also lasted longer than the Weimar Republic.


The Magna Carta.




> The Perfect should never become the enemy of the Good. A libertarian society requres as many people as possible to be intelligent and informed.


While I don't disagree with you, I don't think you actually believe  that, since you attack anyone as unintelligent and uninformed who holds to different beliefs than you  do.





> In the real world, the safety of my children comes before religious dogma. I'm perfectly willing to incinerate every square inch of land outside of North America if it would guarantee the safety of my children from terrorists. Limp-dicked Europeans that find offense to this idea don't seem to be a problem for me.


I see, so killing innocent people to save the lives of a couple of innocent people is acceptable and "libertarian" in your mind. And yet if those people believe the same about their children and about the danger represented by your government, why they are "terrorists!"




> So is Rothbard.
> 
> People who complain about the greatest civil secular document in the history of man being written by "dead men". You forgot to mention that they were white, too. Can you tell the class what happens to the all men who write a document 230 years ago? Can you tell the class what happened to every single person in the United States who ate carrots during the Civil War?


Unlike any of the people you mention here, you have the belief that the document some long dead men created is binding and authoritative on those who live today, as if there is some magical power that forces a contract upon us.

White, black, red, wealthy, poor, doesn't matter. It is far more valuable to be concerned with the unalienable rights, the natural rights coming from self-ownership, than with some document that was great in concept, but has no power in reality.

I use to be like you, thinking that the Constitution was something that we must hold government to. Then I got big on the 9th amendment, since that, ostensibly, was meant to protect the rights not listed in the Bill of Rights. You know what you get from conservatives, like @Dan40 who liked this post? You don't have any rights unless they are listed in the Constitution. States have "rights" they say, and, as FDR said, the whatever the Constitution does not prohibit is authorized to government.

Demand your real rights, not some ideas scribbled on a piece of paper. Do you have the right to express your opinion because a document says so, or do you have that right because you are a self-owner like everyone else?




> What you're really saying is that you don't believe in law, period.


Ridiculous. I just don't believe that anyone has the right to interfere with the rights of others, even if they win popularity contests and get to spend their time scribbling their ideas on paper and pretending that it would be immoral not adhere to what they scribbled.

Yet, here you complain about strawmen, and then blatantly use them in your own posts. Hypocrite.

----------


## Sled Dog

> So, voting means that you a) consent to whatever the government does to you and b) that you cannot ever withdraw your consent by not voting?


a)...that's not true, there's a Constitution placing clearly defined limits on the power of government, 

and

b) that's the assuption inherent in democracies.   Don't like the laws, and the laws are constitutional, either live under the law and patiently work to overturn the law, re-write the Constitution, or leave.

Life in the real world comes with real choices.

Amazing.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> You still think freedom means to "do as you please."


Not me.  I think actions have consequences, but some here believe any encroachment to do as they please is tyranny.

----------


## Maximatic

> Words mean things.


You said this:




> What's with this "presumed" bullshit?
> 
> Legislators don't have a "right" to make law...it's their AUTHORITY do  that.


Then, you said this:




> People have the POWER to pass laws, since laws are power, and nothing  but power.....you really do need to lear


Make up your mind. Does congress have the moral authority to make law, or not?

----------

BleedingHeadKen (06-06-2014)

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Of course we are unequal to people we authorize, give special privilege to & pay to do things none of the rest of us can do.
> The President can send the 101st Airborne overseas on a mission....We cannot.
> Marines can kill people in war but we cannot do the same on the street.
> Secret Service agents can carry fully automatic weapons......most of us cannot.
> Of course *we* authorize agents of the state to do things most of us can't.... so of course we are not all equal to those special cases.
> I don't follow your argument???


So, then, they can initiate violence against others to suit their agenda; we cannot. We are not, therefore, equal under the law. You have created a special class, the government class, dominated by a privileged elite, and somehow believe that they are right to be so. Can you explain why it is legitimate for them to have that power?

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> a)...that's not true, there's a Constitution placing clearly defined limits on the power of government,


As if those in power really care. You are awfully trusting of a document to be of relevance to those who want the power to rule over you.




> b) that's the assuption inherent in democracies.   Don't like the laws, and the laws are constitutional, either live under the law and patiently work to overturn the law, re-write the Constitution, or leave.


You *believe* that is the assumption inherent in democracies. As if it's some rule written in stone, or it's a moral precept. You can go on believing that, for all I care, but I find it highly ironic that you would call others "devout" when you can't identify the source of that belief.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Make up your mind. Does congress have the moral authority to make law, or not?


Well, I think that would depend on the law. I'd be interested in hearing what you think are actual legitimate roles for Congress. For instance, I think it can make laws that pertain to how government operates, such as when a department may or may not discriminate. I think it could also make laws concerning the preservation of individual freedom and be legitimate. 

Of course, if Congress only did that, it could probably get away with convening for a day or two a year.

----------



----------


## Sled Dog

> That's interesting, because I consider myself to be a "big tent" libertarian.


There is no big tent. I'm in a house, no tent here.

You're a libertarian, or you're not. There's no grey areas to speak of.

Non-aborted babies are people from inception, aborted babies are murdered people. No middle ground.

The choice options of the incubator expired when she agree to have sex in a way that could cause pregnancy, or she was raped. No middle.

It's wrong to murder a baby for the crimes of it's father...especially when that crime happened before the baby was conceived. No middle ground. The burden of the crime of forcing baby on a woman by rape should be born by the criminal, not by the baby.

If rapists are not executed, should babies be executed for the crime of showing up at the exact scene of the crime?





> I've been in the party for a very long time and I work with a lot of different people with a lot of different viewpoints.


I'm so proud of you.

So you agree with the LP's Platform?

Hmm?

The LP isn't libetarian. It's a political party masquerading at libertarians just like the Democrats use voter fraud to support their version of the democratic process and just like almost no Republican can define what a republic is and why the US is no longer a republic.




> While my views are toward the voluntaryist, I've even worked with Republicans in my area and very centrist Democrats. I've worked on various committees and I've always been in favor of the widest possible interpretation of the libertarian platform so as to involve as many people as possible in the party.


You've been sleeping with an enema...er with the enemy. 

And you've desired to dilute the libetariean philosophy so that being a "Libertarian" requires less thought, thus less work, and thus increases the Party's donor base and registered voter list, so it can appear to be more relevant while becoming less meaningful.

The LP ran a candidate in Virginia. The LP's devoted efforts to help elect a Democrat to the governorship of Virginia advanced the cause of libertarianism (NOT the "LP") in what meaningful way? How was freedom advanced by losing the veto power of the governor over the fascist legislature?

I"m aware that real libertarians always face that dilemma, but in that situation it was clear that running any candidate was going to split the vote in favor of the Rodents....the party diametrically opposed to every value libertarians have.

Sometimes the libertarian has to make the decision to stay out of the way. The LP has the power to lose elections for the good, but it almost never has the power to take elections from the evil. Only Ralphie Nader has that power.




> Meanwhile, to you, anyone who doesn't agree with your exact views has "no idea" what libertarianism is and must be utterly wrong about everything else. Now, who is devout? I'm opinionated, to be sure, and I tolerate wide differences of opinion. Like the religiously devout, you get angry when anyone challenges your very narrow opinions and jump straight into the ad hominem with barely a lick of reason or logic to back it.


No, I've only been a libertarian for the last 36 years and I've only been articulating CLEAR libertarian principles while you're busy discussing anarchy but calling it "anarchism".

YOU haven't cited the ONE AXIOM all real libertarians recognize as the foundation of their rational ideology.

EVERYTHING I say as a libertarian about libertarianism is derived from that ONE TRUTH.

And you're completely clueless to what it is.

Go ahead, lecture us. If you can't identify your axiomatic foundation in concise terms....you can't even know what you yourself believe in...and if you don't know, you can't explain it.

So, go head, list your axioms.

I've got only one.




> Since you are stuck on the dictionary definition of anarchy, let's use voluntaryism as that implies a system without anyone who rules over anyone else. Then your argument boils down to the notion that without an organization that has a monopoly on the use of force, there can be no governing body. That would be silly. There are many governing bodies without such a monopoly. A homeowner's association is a good example of a governing body that cannot initiate violence against those who are within the association.


Yeah, using real definitions and using words correctly is such an unfair burden to place upon people who can't state their foundational axioms, who can't demonstrate knowledge of human history or human psychology.

It's just awful of the real libertarians to use words as if they had real meaning. 

Perhaps I should get my husky to sleep on my dictionary so all the words will be fuzzy with crooked grey/black/white hair.

Would that help you, a little husky assist?

I warn you, she does not like lumpy beds. But her blue eyes are irresistible.




> So, when you talk about "liberals", can I hold you to the dictionary term? Or does the dictionary only apply when it suits your agenda? How about "fascist"?


No. The dictionary term for "liberals" is a person dedicated to the expansion of individual liberty and the reduction of government authority to a sane minimum. That word has been co-opted and then corrupted by the Red Queens of the world to the point that it serves no function except as that of epithet. The word no longer has definition. It's grown moldy from it's association with DemocRATs.

Fascist is a derivation of left-wing socialist dogma in which favored individuals connected to the governemnt are allowed to retain nominal control over "their" companies and thus the profits, while taking orders in a controlled economy from a central government.

Obama, using that definition, is a fascist...witness his abuse of Government Motors. 

By extenstion, every dumbshit that supports Obama supports fascism and are thus also fascists.




> I get it. Life is one big rap battle to you. Put your hat on backwards and wear your pants low. That'll make you look more dangerous, and therefore more "right."


Crap battle? In ALL of my 1400 CD's, amongst something like 16,000 titles, the only crap song I have is "Whup, There It Is" on the Mighty Ducks 2 movie sound track.

Real music died in the 1990's, poisoned by crap music.

What's you're point, you hoping for some Doggy cheek peek?




> Pot. Meet kettle.


Anarchist, meet Yoda.




> Your conception of the Constitution, like most who believe in myths and fairy-tales, is that it has some magical powers and authority that it doesn't have.


Your failure to refute what my posts says all that is needed about your understanding of the Constitution, how it fits into libertarian ideology, how it does not fit, and how the real world compels compromise from all idealized political philosophy systems that do not allow themselves to descend into dogma.

As I TOLD YOU, I can derive the correct libertarian view from a single axiom, and axiom, furthermore, that you cannot disagree with and honestly call yourself a libertarian.

The ideology derived from that axiom is bruised from contact with the real world. That is called "life".




> Ah, so you spent time defending the state, and you probably believe that you were defending the rights of others. Meanwhile, you weren't even defending your own rights.


Actually, I defend the liberties of others. As a real libertarian, I'm fully aware that the word "rights" do not describe anything real. I recognize the word right to describe negative properties of behavior.

You ever read the story Footfall by Niven and Pournelle? The invading phtthp worried about combat with a technically inferior race who nevertheless had developed their own independent techology from nothing, whereas the Travelling Phtthp was using technology derived from hints left by their Predecessors.

You are arguing an ideology you've learned and studied from others...with a person who developed and honed his ideology from scratch, testing and rejecting ideas as they floated by. 

ONE axiom, buddy.

Whatchya got?




> Serving the government in the capacity of an indentured servant in a uniform doesn't make you an expert on much, except, perhaps, killing. I have nothing against a warrior class, but to believe that you were defending the Constitution is about as religiously devout as it gets.


Do you have ANY idea what the words you use mean, or do you talk in Orwellian phrases? Because you seem to be stringing words together that each have meaing by themselves, but not when strung in that order on your special pearl necklaces.

You have not cited a single specific remark, you have not cited how my interpretation of an event and it's relation to the Constitution is invalid, and how your interpretation is more correct.

You're pulling out a polysyllabic version of "I know I am, what are you". 




> Love that story. Might do you good to re-read it, since here you are promoting military socialism.


Yeah, that describes everything I say, to a T. I don't really resemble Mr. T, though. Don't have the shoulders.




> The Magna Carta.


A japanese cartoon map?

Must be, because if you meant the document signed in 1215 that spelled out some of the rights of the common man, you'll notice that it doesn't really do much for allowing those common men to grant THEIR CONSENT to be governed. You'll NEVER GUESS who did that. So I'll tell you...it's that Constitution you despise, and the Declaration of Independence.

You need to dig deeper into what Horatio Bunce had to say.




> While I don't disagree with you,


But you do. You should never deny self-evident truth.




> I don't think you actually believe that, since you attack anyone as unintelligent and uninformed who holds to different beliefs than you do.


I am not perfect, I am merely god.




> I see, so killing innocent people to save the lives of a couple of innocent people is acceptable and "libertarian" in your mind. And yet if those people believe the same about their children and about the danger represented by your government, why they are "terrorists!"


Welcome to the real world. No matter who you are, no matter where you go, eventually the real world finds and tries to kill you. 

Maybe it hasn't found you yet?

Let me ask you, how many friends did you have on Pan Am Flight 103?

The reality of here has all the objective reality that the abstract of there lacks. You've have grown up when you feel that in your gut.

When I'm required to make the choice between MY dead friends, my threatened children, my family, or theirs, MINE wins, every damn time. I do not sacrifice what is important to preach an abstract suicide pact. I'm a United States military veteran, and was perfectly willing to do my part to defend the United States, my home, from Mother Russia...and that included training to launch possibly nuclear tipped TLAM-N Tomahawk cruise missiles. 

As you were told, ideologies get bruised when in contact with reality. When forced to make a choice between protecting my family or sacrificing them to some bogus ideal of non-agression, my choice is for the lives I'm obligated to protect. If the enemy chooses to sacrifice the lives of his family to take a shot at mine, I was willing then, and am perfectly willing now, to kill his family to protet mine.

As my Ten Megaton Solution avatar avowed, I was, and am, perfectly willing to sterilize half the planet if by doing so threats from those regions will no longer rise up to smite my children. I don't do half-measures.

That's a decision only men are able to make. Small children insist in pretending a middle ground can exist. 

There's no happy middle in the real world. 




> Unlike any of the people you mention here, you have the belief that the document some long dead men created is binding and authoritative on those who live today, as if there is some magical power that forces a contract upon us.


You're back to that? Then go back and read what was already written. 




> White, black, red, wealthy, poor, doesn't matter. It is far more valuable to be concerned with the unalienable rights, the natural rights coming from self-ownership, than with some document that was great in concept, but has no power in reality.


Yes, we KNOW you don't understand the Constitution. You don't have to tell us again.




> I use to be like you, thinking that the Constitution was something that we must hold government to. Then I got big on the 9th amendment, since that, ostensibly, was meant to protect the rights not listed in the Bill of Rights. You know what you get from conservatives, like @Dan40 who liked this post? You don't have any rights unless they are listed in the Constitution. States have "rights" they say, and, as FDR said, the whatever the Constitution does not prohibit is authorized to government.


So, nobody told you that the Ninth Amendment as part of the Constitution?

We're not discussing Dan40, he's neither red nor a herring, and I never cast at a seen fish anyway.




> Demand your real rights, not some ideas scribbled on a piece of paper. Do you have the right to express your opinion because a document says so, or do you have that right because you are a self-owner like everyone else?


So you're still shadowboxing the photonic deficits of your own strawmen because the brilliance of my presentation ...scares you? ...blinds you? ....puts you off your feed (reading Dick Francis lately)...what?

You are now arguing about what you say I believe about the Constitution, instead of stating what I've SAID about the Constitution and going from there.

Juvenile.




> Ridiculous. I just don't believe that anyone has the right to interfere with the rights of others, even if they win popularity contests and get to spend their time scribbling their ideas on paper and pretending that it would be immoral not adhere to what they scribbled.


You can't begin to define the Rights of Man and thus cannot prioritize them, so how can you claim to know when the variously tiered Rights of Man come into conflict?

And what on earth do any popularity contests among RIGHTS have to do with anything?




> Yet, here you complain about strawmen, and then blatantly use them in your own posts. Hypocrite.



Actually, if I was to go back into your posts, and I have a roast in the oven and am NOT going to waste my time, you have been quoted sneering at "the law". Hence my comment was not a strawmen, and you've elected to make it into one by presuming my ignorance of your own postings.  At least I'm pretty sure I can, if I made the effort.

Don't require that of me.

Your homework is to state as many of your indispensible axioms as you can from which you derive your ideology.

You can do an axiomatic derivation of your politica beliefs, can't you?

----------


## Sled Dog

> You said this:
> 
> 
> 
> Then, you said this:
> 
> 
> 
> Make up your mind. Does congress have the moral authority to make law, or not?


What's morality got to do with it?


Congress has the CONSTITUTIONAL authority to pass legislation.

It's their assigned power, like Pikachu and Thundershock.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Of course we are unequal to people we authorize, give special privilege to & pay to do things none of the rest of us can do.
> The President can send the 101st Airborne overseas on a mission....We cannot.
> Marines can kill people in war but we cannot do the same on the street.
> Secret Service agents can carry fully automatic weapons......most of us cannot.
> 
> 
> Of course *we* authorize agents of the state to do things most of us can't.... so of course we are not all equal to those special cases.
> I don't follow your argument???


Hmm...

....someone needs to read Federalist 29 if he's going to say that The People don't have the authority to kill people in the street if doing so is made necessary by the people's need to protect their freedoms.

Oh, I forgot.

You don't understand the function of the Second Amdment.

----------


## Maximatic

> Well, I think that would depend on the law. I'd be interested in hearing what you think are actual legitimate roles for Congress. For instance, I think it can make laws that pertain to how government operates, such as when a department may or may not discriminate. I think it could also make laws concerning the preservation of individual freedom and be legitimate. 
> 
> Of course, if Congress only did that, it could probably get away with convening for a day or two a year.


I think the moral obligations those of us who are sane experience are morally binding, and that the purest purpose of law is served if it is used, only to prevent and resolve conflicts. So, of the moral moral obligations we experience, those that prevent more conflicts than they create are natural law. Among those, I can only discern negative obligations and voluntarily acquired obligations.

Property that is put to use in a way that is consistent with those obligations is justly acquired.

Given that, laws that forbid us from harming others already exist, so they can't be made. According to this, there is nothing wrong with a group of people agreeing to codify what they can of the natural law, or even making up some additional laws that they all agree to. But anything that goes beyond natural law can only rightly apply to them and their own justly acquired property.

----------


## Maximatic

> What's morality got to do with it?
> 
> 
> Congress has the CONSTITUTIONAL authority to pass legislation.
> 
> It's their assigned power, like Pikachu and Thundershock.


The constitution is words on paper. How can words on paper give power?

----------

BleedingHeadKen (06-06-2014)

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> There is no big tent. I'm in a house, no tent here.


It's your way or the highway. I know. Fortunately, we defeated your sort of thinking in the Libertarian Party over the last 10 years. Those who couldn't tolerate anything but their own viewpoint are mostly gone. The one's who insisted that the party would die if we didn't select Bob Barr as a candidate, and those who thought it ended with Bob Barr's nomination. 




> You're a libertarian, or you're not. There's no grey areas to speak of.


On the contrary, there is a fair amount of gray area. 

Reason had an article on this and suggested 5 types of libertarianism:

* Cato-influenced
* Rothbardian anarchism
* Mises Institute nationalism
* Jeff Friedman and Critical Review
* Hayek libertarianism

I think Randian libertarianism should also be in that list. 




> Non-aborted babies are people from inception, aborted babies are murdered people. No middle ground.
> 
> The choice options of the incubator expired when she agree to have sex in a way that could cause pregnancy, or she was raped. No middle.


This is a complex question under natural rights and deserves to be treated similarly to  other important questions: with logic and reason to determine what is the appropriate action under law. Unless you do so, I would question why you believe you can call anyone "devout" when it is apparent that you base your opinion on emotion and ingrained beliefs like any other progressive would. 

Even if we ignore the abortion question for the time being, we can still see that there are a wide number of libertarian viewpoints.




> It's wrong to murder a baby for the crimes of it's father...especially when that crime happened before the baby was conceived. No middle ground. The burden of the crime of forcing baby on a woman by rape should be born by the criminal, not by the baby.


With that, I would agree. I find it a highly hypocritical viewpoint for you, considering that in your last post to me you mentioned that you are quite willing to destroy entire populations of people in response to the crimes of a few.




> If rapists are not executed, should babies be executed for the crime of showing up at the exact scene of the crime?


Indeed. Should Muslim children be "scorched from the Earth" for the "crime" of showing up at the exact scene of a crime?




> The LP isn't libetarian. It's a political party masquerading at libertarians just like the Democrats use voter fraud to support their version of the democratic process and just like almost no Republican can define what a republic is and why the US is no longer a republic.


So long as we have the NAP and require that candidates sign it, I'm satisfied that it is a party of libertarians, even though we share a wide array of viewpoints on the role of government and the use of political power.

You are welcome to sit in stew in your little house and complain about not being validated by having everyone express an opinion that reflects yours.




> The LP ran a candidate in Virginia. The LP's devoted efforts to help elect a Democrat to the governorship of Virginia advanced the cause of libertarianism (NOT the "LP") in what meaningful way? How was freedom advanced by losing the veto power of the governor over the fascist legislature?


For me, it hastens the inevitable collapse of that government. Unlike you, I don't believe that the system will "work" if we just have enough faith and vote for the right people. The system works very well for those in power and it's not going to change until it's gone. So, that your faith is shaken because, god forbid, the libertarians aren't supporting the fascist, warfare/welfare-mongers of the Republican party, is your own problem. If that causes you to choose to not participate, you really won't be missed. I hear that the John Birch Society is still around; maybe you should join up with them.




> Sometimes the libertarian has to make the decision to stay out of the way. The LP has the power to lose elections for the good, but it almost never has the power to take elections from the evil. Only Ralphie Nader has that power.


Not all of us agree with you that it is "good" to have a Republican in power any more than it is a Democrat. 




> I've got only one.


And I've got only one - all human beings are self owners and it is wrong to interfere with the peaceful exercise of all the rights that extend from that self-ownership. It can be phrased as the non-aggression principle, or natural rights, or what have you. I've mentioned it many times on this forum. As far as I know, you have never mentioned yours. What, are you afraid that it'll be torn down? Is it based on the idea that the Constitution is some powerful paper and evil spirits will fall on the people if it is not upheld in solemn ceremonies by men putting their hands on Bibles and swearing solemn oaths? Do tell!




> Fascist is a derivation of left-wing socialist dogma in which favored individuals connected to the governemnt are allowed to retain nominal control over "their" companies and thus the profits, while taking orders in a controlled economy from a central government.


And, yet, that is not the dictionary definition of fascism. It's not even Mussolini's definition of fascism. Or is that creating an "unfair burden" to now hold you to the dictionary definition?




> Actually, I defend the liberties of others. As a real libertarian, I'm fully aware that the word "rights" do not describe anything real. I recognize the word right to describe negative properties of behavior.


And, yet, you ascribe properties to the Constitution that aren't real. Quite imaginary, in fact.




> Must be, because if you meant the document signed in 1215 that spelled out some of the rights of the common man, you'll notice that it doesn't really do much for allowing those common men to grant THEIR CONSENT to be governed. You'll NEVER GUESS who did that. So I'll tell you...it's that Constitution you despise, and the Declaration of Independence.


Ah, for someone who gets all whiney over strawmen, you really aren't afraid to use them. I'll make it clear, I don't "despise" the Constitution, and especially not the Declaration of Independence. I just don't ascribe magical qualities to the former, and I don't believe that the latter was the be all and end all of libertarian thought. Again, when you call others "devout", I think you are simply reflecting your own devotions to documents and ideas without applying any critical thought to them. You're really are an anachronism and can't stand that others are having conversations and moving forward. It's why you live in your own little "house", more like a personal chapel, where you can do your devotions and fling spitballs at libertarians who are having a lot of fun discovering and furthering the principles of liberty.




> You need to dig deeper into what Horatio Bunce had to say.


Yes, I get it, Hold the Constitution sacred. You're a devoted worshiper. I realize that there are a lot of libertarians who adore the Constitution and promote it endlessly. And I think that's fine becuase, like me, we agree on the many of the precepts. On the other hand, what if there were no Constitution, and the libertarian were put in the position of having to defend his rights? We must find another principle, and, since the Constitutuion was long ago abandoned by those in power, in fact, pretty much from day one, it behooves us to grasp those alternate principles in order to move forward. As I see it. And, whether you like it or not, whether you stew in your Constitution-as-Bible-Doctrine or not, those of us who adhere to the principles of liberty and natural rights will continue to call ourselves Libertarian and move together toward freedom.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> What's morality got to do with it?


I don't know. Some of us use moral principles to determine right and wrong. Then again, some of us call ourselves libertarian and rightly so; and you call yourself libertarian as if it were an assignation given to you by the Holy Write of the Constitution.




> Congress has the CONSTITUTIONAL authority to pass legislation.


And here we see that the Constitution is very much like the Bible in your view. It's written, apparently by demigods, and therefore it magically creates right and wrong.




> It's their assigned power, like Pikachu and Thundershock.


Ah, so you call me "juvenile" and then use juvenile imagery. Reflect much?

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> I think the moral obligations those of us who are sane experience are morally binding, and that the purest purpose of law is served if it is used, only to prevent and resolve conflicts. So, of the moral moral obligations we experience, those that prevent more conflicts than they create are natural law. Among those, I can only discern negative obligations and voluntarily acquired obligations.
> 
> Property that is put to use in a way that is consistent with those obligations is justly acquired.
> 
> Given that, laws that forbid us from harming others already exist, so they can't be made. According to this, there is nothing wrong with a group of people agreeing to codify what they can of the natural law, or even making up some additional laws that they all agree to. But anything that goes beyond natural law can only rightly apply to them and their own justly acquired property.


Perhaps it would be just, then, for a Congress to create laws which define what are appropriate punishments for crimes committed. And, to remain just, they would have to apply to everyone, equally. Thus, no armed enforcer for the state would have any rights or powers or privileges that any citizen does not have.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> The constitution is words on paper. How can words on paper give power?


Well, since we are in the mode of juvenile imagery, it reminds me of this video from TV Funhouse:

https://screen.yahoo.com/tv-funhouse...000000181.html

----------


## Maximatic

> Would you like to debate? I'll be happy to hold a formal debate with you. The only requirement is that you must a) use logic and b) avoid all rancor. I don't think you can do that, but it would be worth a shot.


I would pay to see such a debate. It would be nice if we could find an opponent for you who respects the laws of logic, can follow a point of contention from one exchange to the next, and holds an internally coherent position.

Failing that, maybe we can find a statist willing to agree to some specific resolution.

----------


## Sled Dog

> The constitution is words on paper. How can words on paper give power?


Magic, obviously.     The words serve as a focus for galactic dark matter and since our minds can channel galactic dark energy to harness the powers of dark matter, the Constitution serves as a locus of dark power.   Use the Force, Luke....

....I am your father....

=============

The reality is the Constitution provides an agreed upon contract between the people defining what powers they are surrendering to the State to form a more...

...shit, let me look it up...why quote from memory what the internet has on hand...the things I have to do to train people...


*We the People* of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


That says why.

The HOW is simple.  They agreed to surrender their power to vengeance, their judicial use of force (using force for vermin control), and their authority for the same, to a mutually agreeable ELECTED BODY of legislatures because human history has taught people that an objective goverment constrained by WRITTEN LAW is less dangerous to their liberty than government by common law and by government with out objective law at all.

The people surrender their authority, their natural right of human beings, to a higher more organized and what is supposed to be more objective formally structured group of people who are expected to comply with the written statutes.

That's friggin' how.    

Joe the Bar Owner hires Bill and Ted to be bouncers in Fridays.   Neither Bill or Ted have any innate authority to order people to leave the premises or even to physically remove people who don't do what they like from the premises.  Their authority comes from their contract, verbal or written, with Joe who transfers his authority, but not his responsibiilty for Bill and Ted to keep his joint reasonably peaceful, so that Joe can focus on running the bar as a whole and so all those patrons feel more secure when getting blasted out of their skulls.    

If Bill and Ted simply started evicting people without Joe's authority, Joe would have to call the cops on them.

That's how power descends from authority.  As for the United States, EVERY PERSON had the opportunity to withhold their power from the State, by leaving when the Constitution was ratified.   Their continued presence meant both concurrence (states are created by the forceful actions of the few, always) with the document, and their presence also transfers to those holding offices defined by that document their authority to exist.

Maybe you should enlist in the Marines.  They do a REALLY good job of teaching recruits where power comes from and the difference between authority and responsibility.

----------


## Sled Dog

> It's your way or the highway. I know. Fortunately, we defeated your sort of thinking in the Libertarian Party over the last 10 years.


That's right. Now you run recycled Establishment RINO Republicans as your presidential nominee. You must be so proud of that.

Meanwhile, you're transformed that failed Libertarian Party of potheads who promise to make ferrets legal pets in California to the failed Libertarian Party of today who works hard to help DEMOCRATS get elected.

That's a REALLY impressive accomplishment for anyone that's blind and easily impressed.

Meanwhile, while calling me pigheaded is factual...it's also irrelevant. Your homework was to provide a list of axioms from which you can derive the ideology of the LP. Given the current ideology of the LP, which is to stir things up, get donations from the gullible, have a party here and there and not worry about winning elections or, heaven forbid, DOING anything, you're not going to derive the LP's ideology from core axioms.

You're going to continue to take whacks at someone holding your feet to the fire.....and miss.




> Those who couldn't tolerate anything but their own viewpoint are mostly gone. The one's who insisted that the party would die if we didn't select Bob Barr as a candidate, and those who thought it ended with Bob Barr's nomination.


Win any elections that matter yet? 

How'd the LP notion of invading New Hamster and creating the Perfect LP State work out for y'all?

Isn't the purpose of a political party to establish clearly defined positions, campaign on those positions...and WIN ELECTIONS?

Nobody can say the LP has died. It's never lived. It's a joke, Bob Barr was the laughing stock. 




> On the contrary, there is a fair amount of gray area. 
> 
> Reason had an article on this and suggested 5 types of libertarianism:
> 
> * Cato-influenced
> * Rothbardian anarchism
> * Mises Institute nationalism
> * Jeff Friedman and Critical Review
> * Hayek libertarianism
> ...


There's ONE kind of liberttarianism. That which seeks to MAXIMIZE individual liberaty. 

Anarchy is not libetarianism, it's anarchy. Scratch Rothbard's misnomer.

The Cato-institute is a real-world CONSERVATIVE think tank with libertarian leanings.

Hayek libertarianism may be close toreality, it's been too long since I've read him to remember.

Rand believes that everyone should be objective about themselves, but it's okay for Howard Roark to rape whats-her-face, that's just an expression of his innate superiority, and the role of women is to be self-assured, self-confident, and wishing to be raped. Needless to say, libertarians who use Rand as their guru have a few overtorqued bolts with stripped threads.

The Austrian School preaches a good brand of free-market economics, I've never needed to delve into their social teachings.

Never heard of Friedman. Being perfect, its not necessary that I do so.

So.

What is your axiomatic basis?




> This is a complex question under natural rights and deserves to be treated similarly to other important questions: with logic and reason to determine what is the appropriate action under law. Unless you do so, I would question why you believe you can call anyone "devout" when it is apparent that you base your opinion on emotion and ingrained beliefs like any other progressive would.


Its not complex at all.

Don't kill babies.

That was SOOO hard. It completely violates EVERY human precept and thus it's completely foreign to our species because of our well defined evolutionary heritage.




> Even if we ignore the abortion question for the time being, we can still see that there are a wide number of libertarian viewpoints.


You can't ignore it. A man's position on that question defines his status as man or monster.

Men are free, monsters are not men, hence not free. 

The mind of the monster is prevented from growth, for it contains falsities it cannot reconcile with reality. Their failure to recognize reality prevents them from becoming men, and they cannot become men until they recognize the gordian knot in their ideation.




> With that, I would agree. I find it a highly hypocritical viewpoint for you, considering that in your last post to me you mentioned that you are quite willing to destroy entire populations of people in response to the crimes of a few.


There's this thing called "self-defense". You should learn about it some time. You should also learn about the arts and weapons of war.




> Indeed. Should Muslim children be "scorched from the Earth" for the "crime" of showing up at the exact scene of a crime?


Did they crawl up inside and murder the baby?

What crime and what scene? 

While not being the biggest fan of pre-emptive self-defense, I retain the maturity to recognize that it on occasion be the only option.




> So long as we have the NAP and require that candidates sign it, I'm satisfied that it is a party of libertarians, even though we share a wide array of viewpoints on the role of government and the use of political power.


The LP platform supports the murder of the unborn, and is hence not libertarian, your feelings to the matter notwithstanding.




> You are welcome to sit in stew in your little house and complain about not being validated by having everyone express an opinion that reflects yours.


I don't need to be validated, I don't park on the street.




> For me, it hastens the inevitable collapse of that government. Unlike you, I don't believe that the system will "work" if we just have enough faith and vote for the right people.


I'd love to see your factory some day. You should post some photos.




> The system works very well for those in power and it's not going to change until it's gone. So, that your faith is shaken because, god forbid, the libertarians aren't supporting the fascist, warfare/welfare-mongers of the Republican party, is your own problem.


Yeah, everyone can tell from MY posts that I"m a REAL McStain/Romney kind of libertarian alrighty.




> If that causes you to choose to not participate, you really won't be missed. I hear that the John Birch Society is still around; maybe you should join up with them.


Now you're bringing trees and GreanPeice into your arguments....




> Not all of us agree with you that it is "good" to have a Republican in power any more than it is a Democrat.


Depends on the Republican, always. I never voted for Barr, for example. He's a Republican.




> And I've got only one - all human beings are self owners and it is wrong to interfere with the peaceful exercise of all the rights that extend from that self-ownership. It can be phrased as the non-aggression principle, or natural rights, or what have you. I've mentioned it many times on this forum. As far as I know, you have never mentioned yours. What, are you afraid that it'll be torn down? Is it based on the idea that the Constitution is some powerful paper and evil spirits will fall on the people if it is not upheld in solemn ceremonies by men putting their hands on Bibles and swearing solemn oaths? Do tell!


So how is it that you can take the People Are Not Property Axiom and go so wrong? For some reason you're applying a non-existent corollary, People are Perfect, or something, and expect groups of people, even groups of people as small as a family, to operate on poorly defined...unwritten...codes of conduct.

You have forgotten completely that humans are evolved animals with instinctual motivations, glandular impulse responses to various situations, and THE MOST COMPLEX DEVICE in the known universe SELF-PROGRAMMED to both recognize the universe and respond to those environmental and hormonal triggers...and you expect each unit to respect every other unit and do so without friction or violence or violation.....ALL while there are NO RULES. 

That is, after all, what anarchy is. It's a society with no rules, which means it's a mob, not a society at all.




> And, yet, that is not the dictionary definition of fascism.


Of course it's not.



> The Webster's New Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language - Unabridged, The Publisher's Guild, Inc, New York, 1977
> 
> *fas.cism* 2. A system of government characeterized by rigid one-party dictatorship, forcible suppression of the opposition (unions, other, especially lefist, parties, minority groups, etc,) the retention of private ownership of the means of production under centralized government control, belligerent nationalism and racism, glorification of war, etc.


Who do I label "The Fascists"? The Rodents. 

How was MessiahCare passed? Rigid one-party dictatorship to enact a law that violates multiple sections of the Constitution.

What happened to the TEA Party's efforts to participate in the 2012 election cycle? Forcible suppression...by the Rodents and the government.

Who retained ownership of Government Motors? Private parties, to with, the goonions, ripped by FORCE from it's lawful owners, while the government appointed it's CEO.

Rodents have belligerenta anti-nationalism.

Rodents have overt and belligerent racism.

Rodents engage in war for political gain, witness the dictator's illegal war on Libya and his eagerness to prolong the clay-pigeon shoot in Trashcanistan for his own purposes.

Aslo, it's long be recognized that fascism is a LEFTIST ideology, claims to the contrary no being consistent with the realities of all fascist regimes. It merely matters how far around the circle of ideation someone it willing to go to define "right" and "left". All real libertarians know the linear view of the political spectrum is inadequate.

How did I define "fascism" in that off-the-cuff snippet?

Here's mine:

Fascist is a derivation of left-wing socialist dogma in which favored individuals connected to the governemnt are allowed to retain nominal control over "their" companies and thus the profits, while taking orders in a controlled economy from a central government.

and there's what Webters 20-lb dictionary said above...let's see....I got private ownership down, I got central government down, I used the word "control" in the right place, correctly modified with the word "nominal" which is used in it's sense of "in name only", not in it's aerospace sense of "working inside projected design parameters".

Yeah, for an off-the-cuff internet forum discussion definition, I say I had my framing hammer out and drove the nail through with just the one stroke.




> It's not even Mussolini's definition of fascism. Or is that creating an "unfair burden" to now hold you to the dictionary definition?


So you like to quibble when you have no arguments. 

Lots of lefties do that.




> And, yet, you ascribe properties to the Constitution that aren't real. Quite imaginary, in fact.


The Force is real.

Who are you kidding?




> Ah, for someone who gets all whiney over strawmen, you really aren't afraid to use them. I'll make it clear, I don't "despise" the Constitution, and especially not the Declaration of Independence. I just don't ascribe magical qualities to the former, and I don't believe that the latter was the be all and end all of libertarian thought. Again, when you call others "devout", I think you are simply reflecting your own devotions to documents and ideas without applying any critical thought to them. You're really are an anachronism and can't stand that others are having conversations and moving forward. It's why you live in your own little "house", more like a personal chapel, where you can do your devotions and fling spitballs at libertarians who are having a lot of fun discovering and furthering the principles of liberty.


You are going to make me chase down your embarassing quotes, aren't you? Meanwhile I have a bitch whining to go for a walk. Oh my god, you ever have an eighty pound dog with a history of biting put her big fluffy head on your leg just begging to be taken out for a walk? She's such a darling. She's WAY prettier and Obama's wife, I got to tell you.

Meanwhile, you're talking about supposed magical properties of a social contract. How strange.

Do tell, if people won't follow the Constitution, with all it's clearly defined protections of personal liberty, how are they going to make Anarchy Xanadu, in Paradise Lost Again, work? (I confess, I've never read Milton - really not planning on it either, Animal House said he's a bore...leave it for the English lit students.)

Oh.

Have you read the Oresteia yet? It's important!




> Yes, I get it, Hold the Constitution sacred. You're a devoted worshiper. I realize that there are a lot of libertarians who adore the Constitution and promote it endlessly. And I think that's fine becuase, like me, we agree on the many of the precepts. On the other hand, what if there were no Constitution, and the libertarian were put in the position of having to defend his rights? We must find another principle, and, since the Constitutuion was long ago abandoned by those in power, in fact, pretty much from day one, it behooves us to grasp those alternate principles in order to move forward. As I see it. And, whether you like it or not, whether you stew in your Constitution-as-Bible-Doctrine or not, those of us who adhere to the principles of liberty and natural rights will continue to call ourselves Libertarian and move together toward freedom.


So, what's your magical principle that won't be written down and won't transfer authority from the group to the central authority figures?

You do know why your Anarchy Xanadu scheme won't work don't you? The failure is obvious right there.

You are IGNORING YOUR OWN EVOLUTION. Primates are flatly NOT constructed to behave as independently co-equal units in the completely homogenized society of non-distinct yet somehow individual individuals. This is an axiom you've assumed without recognizing it.

No matter what your ideology is, if you ignore your inner monkey, and you have one as everyone does, don't take it personally, your scam can't work.

The Constitution worked when men defended it because even though the founders did not know the evolutionary heritage of Mankind, they understood MEN. Anarchy-fans do not. They fail to see how entropy always sorts order out of chaos, no matter how formless that chaos might seem to be at first.

Recognize this fact, if you refuse to confront the realities of human evolution. The magnificent structured universe you live in started out as the most uniformly homogeneous billion degree hot gas of elementary particles you can imagine, and ALL of hte structure you see, from galactic superclusters to the precise organization of the smallest virus....it all came about because of the tiniest unpredictable fluctuations at the quantum level of the smallest particles.

Anarchy can't fight the universe, entropy will ALWAYS force order onto matter, no matter how much you desire otherwise.

----------


## Devil505

> So, then, they can initiate violence against others to suit their agenda; we cannot.


No....they can (legally) initiate violence against others to suit *our* agenda as *we* (through our Congress) ordered them to do.
If they initiate violence against others to suit *their* agenda (illegally) they are subject to arrest just like the rest of us.






> We are not, therefore, equal under the law. You have created a special class, the government class, dominated by a privileged elite, and somehow believe that they are right to be so. Can you explain why it is legitimate for them to have that power?


Yes.....because *we* gave them that power in order to serve us better.
Indeed, to do what we want them to do they need those special privileges. My job in the government is even titled "*Special* Agent" because you paid me to do a job that required me to have special privileges. It's not all government employees that we give that power to btw. We even assign a number to the series of job with those special privileges & that # is 1811 series employees.

*Criminal Investigation Series, 1811*

*Individual Occupational Requirements*

*Medical Requirements*

The duties of positions in this series require moderate to arduous physical exertion involving walking and standing, use of firearms, and exposure to inclement weather. Manual dexterity with comparatively free motion of finger, wrist, elbow, shoulder, hip, and knee joints is required. Arms, hands, legs, and feet must be sufficiently intact and functioning in order that applicants may perform the duties satisfactorily. Sufficiently good vision in each eye, with or without correction, is required to perform the duties satisfactorily. Near vision, corrective lenses permitted, must be sufficient to read printed material the size of typewritten characters. Hearing loss, as measured by an audiometer, must not exceed 35 decibels at 1000, 2000, and 3000 Hz levels. Since the duties of these positions are exacting and responsible, and involve activities under trying conditions, applicants must possess emotional and mental stability. Any physical condition that would cause the applicant to be a hazard to himself/herself, or others is disqualifying.
http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-overs...n-series-1811/


CRIMINAL INVESTIGATING SERIES, GS-1811
This series includes positions that involve planning and conducting investigations relating toalleged or suspected violations of criminal laws. These positions require primarily a knowledgeof investigative techniques and a knowledge of the laws of evidence, the rules of criminalprocedure, and precedent court decisions concerning admissibility of evidence, constitutionalrights, search and seizure and related issues; the ability to recognize, develop and presentevidence that reconstructs events, sequences, and time elements, and establishes relationships,responsibilities, legal liabilities, conflicts of interest, in a manner that meets requirements forpresentation in various legal hearings and court proceedings; and skill in applying thetechniques required in performing such duties as maintaining surveillance, performingundercover work, and advising and assisting the U.S. Attorney in and out of court 
http://www.fwoa.org/1972%20Position%20Class%20GS%201811.pdf






I still don't understand what your problem is? If you don't want a cadre of public servants to protect you from the bad guys in our society, then take away those special privileges, buy a gun & it's everyone for themselves.

----------

Old Ridge Runner (06-07-2014)

----------


## Devil505

> Hmm...
> 
> ....someone needs to read Federalist 29 if he's going to say that The People don't have the authority to kill people in the street if doing so is made necessary by the people's need to protect their freedoms.
> 
> Oh, I forgot.
> 
> You don't understand the function of the Second Amdment.


Everyone has a right to defend themselves but we give cops more power to defend society than the rest of us have.

----------

Old Ridge Runner (06-07-2014)

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> In order for anyone to be tried for violating an unjust law, there must be an agency with the power to do violence against the person who violates that rule. Neither you, nor I, have the power to punish someone for violating those laws. For instance, the state can lock you in a cage for, say, selling raw milk to willing buyers, and in the course of it's evidence gathering it may raid your property, detain you and do violence against your person should you resist. Neither you, nor I, have the right to do that as private citizens.  So, the agents of the state have legal privileges that you and I do not. Therefore, you and I are unequal to those agents under the law.


Before an agency can do what you have stated you have to have broken a law/regulation, they can not just come into your house and accost you and throw you into prison, and yes if you resist the agent you are going to get your head thumped.  That agent is not going to risk getting hurt just because you do not want to be arrested.  A lot of what you do when caught determines how you are treated at the time you are caught and later.

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> So, voting means that you a) consent to whatever the government does to you and b) that you cannot ever withdraw your consent by not voting?


You never withdraw your consent by not voting, the way you withdraw your consent is to vote the person who committed the offensive action against you out of office.

----------

Devil505 (06-07-2014),Max Rockatansky (06-07-2014)

----------


## Devil505

> You never withdraw your consent by not voting, the way you withdraw your consent is to vote the person who committed the offensive action against you out of office.


Or leave the country.

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> Or leave the country.



That too, but I would say that is really over the top.

----------


## Devil505

> That too, but I would say that is really over the top.


Seems that many people bitch about how bad it is here that that would be their best alternative.....Cya!

----------

Old Ridge Runner (06-07-2014)

----------


## Longshot

> What you don't or can't see is that without laws you have no way to rein in those who would interfere with your rights.  So you side of the fence is full of nothing but weeds.


I don't think that @BleedingHeadKen is advocating that there be no law. He has already said he is for equality under the law.

----------


## Devil505

> I don't think that @BleedingHeadKen is advocating that there be no law. He has already said he is for equality under the law.


If you have laws then you need a group of people with special privileges/powers to enforce those laws.
The "Honor System" will not prevent bank robbers from robbing banks<G>.

----------

Old Ridge Runner (06-07-2014)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

I think any supporter of the Constitution of the United States should support the 14th Amendment equal protection clause.

The anarchists regularly accuse those who support the Constitution as being "statists".

----------


## Foghorn

We are supposed to be a nation of laws.

Anybody want to make the argument that statement is still true?

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> We are supposed to be a nation of laws.
> 
> Anybody want to make the argument that statement is still true?


We are.  The system is flawed, imperfect and full of assholes, but the statement is still true more often than not.  We've had a 100% peaceful succession of power since George Washington was President.  This record is unmatched throughout the world.  

The Lefties were predicting President Bush would declare martial law to prevent the President-elect from taking power.  No such thing happened.  Now Righties are predicting the same thing for 2016.  That won't happen either for the same reasons.  We are a nation of laws no matter how flawed we are in other respects.

----------

Devil505 (06-07-2014),Old Ridge Runner (06-07-2014)

----------


## Devil505

> We are.  The system is flawed, imperfect and full of assholes, but the statement is still true more often than not.  We've had a 100% peaceful succession of power since George Washington was President.  This record is unmatched throughout the world.  
> 
> The Lefties were predicting President Bush would declare martial law to prevent the President-elect from taking power.  No such thing happened.  Now Righties are predicting the same thing for 2016.  That won't happen either for the same reasons.  We are a nation of laws no matter how flawed we are in other respects.


Well said!

----------

Max Rockatansky (06-07-2014),Old Ridge Runner (06-07-2014)

----------


## Maximatic

> Magic, obviously.     The words serve as a focus for galactic dark matter and since our minds can channel galactic dark energy to harness the powers of dark matter, the Constitution serves as a locus of dark power.   Use the Force, Luke....
> 
> ....I am your father....
> 
> =============
> 
> The reality is the Constitution provides an agreed upon contract between the people defining what powers they are surrendering to the State to form a more...
> 
> ...shit, let me look it up...why quote from memory what the internet has on hand...the things I have to do to train people...
> ...


Is that really the nature of a contract, that it's binding on the party that didn't write it unless that party acts in a way that is consistent with its demands, or is that the most absurd transparent contrivance ever written?

In addition to it being so obviously idiotic, it is demonstrably false. You sat there with a straight face, didn't you, and wrote that every person inhabiting the space described by the constitutions of the states to ratify the constitution explicitly consented to be bound by it, or any of them, by not acting?

To leave the land, over which sovereignty was claimed by the constitution, would have been to cede what it demanded. Authority is not withheld by surrender.

You took issue with my reference to the authority of lawmakers as merely presumed. That is the only way such authority can exist.

If each man is the owner of his own body, he is the only one with authority over his body. For another to come onto possession of that authority, it must be transferred. For that to be possible, he must become indebted to another party. The only ways for him to incur a debt against his will are by causing damage to or bringing another party into being.

If authority is distinct from power, it cannot be obtained from one who does not have it. Those who give explicit consent to be bound by the constitution do not, by virtue of that consent, have authority over those who do not. The only reason any constitution has any power at all is because those who would give explicit consent to be bound by it, if asked, outnumber those who would not.

If all who do did not BELIEVE the constitution to be law, it would not be law. This is true by logical necessity: It carries the force of law because it is presumed to be law.

----------

BleedingHeadKen (06-08-2014)

----------


## Hansel

"If authority is distinct from power, it cannot be obtained from one who does not have it. Those who give explicit consent to be bound by the constitution do not, by virtue of that consent, have authority over those who do not. The only reason any constitution has any power at all is because those who would give explicit consent to be bound by it, if asked, outnumber those who would not."

_If  a person does not want to abide by the rule of  the majority then that person might as well leave.  Without a consensus that the majority will rule you have no chance of a common governance other than jungle law.

This philosophical masturbation gets old in  hurry._

----------


## Maximatic

> "If authority is distinct from power, it cannot be obtained from one who does not have it. Those who give explicit consent to be bound by the constitution do not, by virtue of that consent, have authority over those who do not. The only reason any constitution has any power at all is because those who would give explicit consent to be bound by it, if asked, outnumber those who would not."
> 
> _If  a person does not want to abide by the rule of  the majority then that person might as well leave.  Without a consensus that the majority will rule you have no chance of a common governance other than jungle law.
> 
> This philosophical masturbation gets old in  hurry._


Translation: "I don't like that, and now I'm mad."

Bullshit, substanceless responses stay old and never stop coming. Keep wallowing in shit.

----------

BleedingHeadKen (06-08-2014)

----------


## Longshot

> If you have laws then you need a group of people with special privileges/powers to enforce those laws.
> The "Honor System" will not prevent bank robbers from robbing banks<G>.


I don't agree that any special privilege or power is necessary for people to enforce the law. Ordinary citizens can be randomly selected to act as jurors to decide whether or not a person has violated the law. That judgement would then give the successful plaintiff (or his agent) the legal authority to enforce the jury's verdict. 

    @BleedingHeadKen is simply saying that the law ought not allow certain people to have the right to victimize others, to do things to others that would be against the law for an ordinary citizen to do.

----------


## Devil505

> I don't agree that any special privilege or power is necessary for people to enforce the law. Ordinary citizens can be randomly selected to act as jurors to decide whether or not a person has violated the law. That judgement would then give the successful plaintiff (or his agent) the legal authority to enforce the jury's verdict.


How about as the crime is being committed?
Can ordinary citizens stop armed bank robbers with no training or special skills?
Can ordinary citizens rescue hostages from a group of terrorists with no training or special skills?

----------

Old Ridge Runner (06-07-2014)

----------


## Longshot

> How about as the crime is being committed?
> Can ordinary citizens stop armed bank robbers with no training or special skills?
> Can ordinary citizens rescue hostages from a group of terrorists with no training or special skills?


No, but specialists could. Not every ordinary citizen can do every task. That is why the market relies upon specialization. 

However, please note that ordinary armed citizens do frequently stop crimes. When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

----------


## Devil505

> No, but specialists could. Not every ordinary citizen can do every task. That is why the market relies upon specialization.


Not sure I understand your argument then?
Aren't cops crime stopping/solving specialists?

----------


## Dan40

> That's interesting, because I consider myself to be a "big tent" libertarian. I've been in the party for a very long time and I work with a lot of different people with a lot of different viewpoints. While my views are toward the voluntaryist, I've even worked with Republicans in my area and very centrist Democrats. I've worked on various committees and I've always been in favor of the widest possible interpretation of the libertarian platform so as to involve as many people as possible in the party. 
> 
> Meanwhile, to you, anyone who doesn't agree with your exact views has "no idea" what libertarianism is and must be utterly wrong about everything else. Now, who is devout? I'm opinionated, to be sure, and I tolerate wide differences of opinion. Like the religiously devout, you get angry when anyone challenges your very narrow opinions and jump straight into the ad hominem with barely a lick of reason or logic to back it.
> 
> 
> 
> Since you are stuck on the dictionary definition of anarchy, let's use voluntaryism as that implies a system without anyone who rules over anyone else. Then your argument boils down to the notion that without an organization that has a monopoly on the use of force, there can be no governing body. That would be silly. There are many governing bodies without such a monopoly. A homeowner's association is a good example of a governing body that cannot initiate violence against those who are within the association.
> 
> 
> ...


What I THANKED, not liked, was Sled Dog explaining to people with ZERO practical knowledge of even day and night, that they have no knowledge.

Reading books is is not a source of knowledge.  Reading books is a source of opinions.  Knowledge comes when you critically analyze those opinions.

----------

Old Ridge Runner (06-07-2014)

----------


## Longshot

> Not sure I understand your argument then?
> Aren't cops crime stopping/solving specialists?


Yes they are specialists. However, they are also paid with stolen money. Under a legal system in which every person's rights are protected, there would be no such stolen money, since stealing would be illegal. Police would need to be paid or be volunteers.

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> I don't think that @BleedingHeadKen is advocating that there be no law. He has already said he is for equality under the law.


He does, he has equality under the law, it's all in the Constitution.  However, what @BleedingHeadKen wants is exemption from the law because he thinks that the law is not legal, even though the law was written and passed by a legitimate body of people elected for that task by their peers.

----------

Devil505 (06-07-2014),Max Rockatansky (06-07-2014)

----------


## Longshot

> He does, he has equality under the law, it's all in the Constitution.  However, what @BleedingHeadKen wants is exemption from the law because he thinks that the law is not legal, even though the law was written and passed by a legitimate body of people elected for that task by their peers.


Not really. Some people, under our current laws, have the right to, say, initiate violence against others because they possess a particular object.  If we were all equal under the law, no person would have the right to do anything that the rest of us could not do. You and I don't have a right to forbid our neighbor, under pain of punishment, from possessing any particular object.

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> I don't agree that any special privilege or power is necessary for people to enforce the law. Ordinary citizens can be randomly selected to act as jurors to decide whether or not a person has violated the law. That judgement would then give the successful plaintiff (or his agent) the legal authority to enforce the jury's verdict. 
> 
>     @BleedingHeadKen is simply saying that the law ought not allow certain people to have the right to victimize others, to do things to others that would be against the law for an ordinary citizen to do.


If @BleedingHeadKen or any one else breaks the law and are caught and remanded to custody and bound over for trial, they are not being victimized.

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> Yes they are specialists. However, they are also paid with stolen money. Under a legal system in which every person's rights are protected, there would be no such stolen money, since stealing would be illegal. Police would need to be paid or be volunteers.


What money was stolen?

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> Not really. Some people, under our current laws, have the right to, say, initiate violence against others because they possess a particular object.  If we were all equal under the law, no person would have the right to do anything that the rest of us could not do. You and I don't have a right to forbid our neighbor, under pain of punishment, from possessing any particular object.


What violence can certain people initiate against their fellow citizen because they possess a certain article, and what would that article be?  Yoe are correct in the fact that we as individuals have no right to forbid a person to possess anything.  This is one of the responsibilities of government to forbid the possession of certain things for the good of the whole.

----------


## protectionist

> The prisoner swap is a gamble no doubt but what was the alternative?....Let an American citizen be held in captivity & what do we do the the bad guys we held in Gitmo....shoot them? (we should have long ago tried them & executed those who deserved it. To late at this point)
> 
> Obama had no clear good decision & we don't know what's going on behind the scenes. 
> Time will tell if it was a good or bad decision but the Right's knee-jerk condemnation of anything Obama does is meaningless at this point. (If Obama personally discovered a cure for cancer..... the Right would argue that he just added to the world's starvation situation by keeping so many people alive!)


Why would it be too late ?   Never too late to make amends.  The Nazis who caused the deaths of many good people, were executed after the Nuremberg trials.  These 5 creepos should have got the same.  If there were no prisoners being held, the Taliban couldn't have bargained for them.  Maybe we could have given them all the mosques here in the US (brick by brick)

----------


## RMNIXON

This entire thread would make Alinsky proud.

I suggest some of you catch up on your reading.  :Geez:

----------


## Longshot

> If @BleedingHeadKen or any one else breaks the law and are caught and remanded to custody and bound over for trial, they are not being victimized.


Depending upon the law, they could be being victimized. They could be having their body or property violated even though they've acted peacefully.

----------

BleedingHeadKen (06-08-2014)

----------


## Longshot

> What violence can certain people initiate against their fellow citizen because they possess a certain article


An example would be attacking a person because he owned, say, a shotgun with a barrel length of less than 18 inches. That would be the sort of initiation of violence to which I am referring.

----------

BleedingHeadKen (06-08-2014)

----------


## Longshot

> What money was stolen?


Taxes.

----------


## Network

> Taxes.


Taxes and Brains

----------

BleedingHeadKen (06-08-2014),Longshot (06-07-2014)

----------


## Devil505

> An example would be attacking a person because he owned, say, a shotgun with a barrel length of less than 18 inches. That would be the sort of initiation of violence to which I am referring.


We (Congress) passed the NFA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act in 1934 to protect ourselves & shotguns being easily hidden in clothing is a danger to us all.
It passed both House, was signed into law by the President & has been upheld by the SCOTUS.

We have that collective power & a minority is simply overruled by the majority. (That's how democracy works)

----------


## Longshot

> We (Congress) passed the NFA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act in 1934 to protect ourselves & shotguns being easily hidden in clothing is a danger to us all.
> It passed both House, was signed into law by the President & has been upheld by the SCOTUS.
> 
> We have that collective power & a minority is simply overruled by the majority. (That's how democracy works)


Yes, that's the sort of initiation of violence to which I was referring.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Yes, that's the sort of initiation of violence to which I was referring.


And this is the point @Old Ridge Runner was referring.




> He does, he has equality under the law, it's all in the Constitution.  However, what @BleedingHeadKen wants is exemption from the law because he thinks that the law is not legal, even though the law was written and passed by a legitimate body of people elected for that task by their peers.

----------

Old Ridge Runner (06-08-2014)

----------


## Maximatic

Why do you guys just suppose that a majority vote makes something legitimate? If it can legitimize anything, in principle, it could, by that same principle, legitimize everything.

If it isn't the majority vote, itself, that imparts legitimacy, then legitimacy requires something else that hasn't been identified.

So, what is it? How do the commands of one person become the legal obligation of another?

----------

BleedingHeadKen (06-08-2014)

----------


## Devil505

> Why do you guys just suppose that a majority vote makes something legitimate? If it can legitimize anything, in principle, it could, by that same principle, legitimize everything.
> 
> If it isn't the majority vote, itself, that imparts legitimacy, then legitimacy requires something else that hasn't been identified.
> 
> So, what is it? How do the commands of one person become the legal obligation of another?


Let's cut to the chase here:
Seems to me we are arguing philosophy v s reality.
Philosophically, what 9 old men said in the Dred Scott decision was immoral & illegitimate.......but it was a still the supreme law of the land until it was overruled by a later SC decision & amendment.

If we are arguing philosophy, there are no right or wrong opinions.
If we are arguing what is law...there is only one correct answer.
"Legitimate" is in the eye of the beholder.

The law is whatever the SCOTUS says it is & that's the way it is in reality.

----------

Max Rockatansky (06-07-2014)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Let's cut to the chase here:
> Seems to me we are arguing philosophy v s reality.
> Philosophically, what 9 old men said in the Dred Scott decision was immoral & illegitimate.......but it was a still the supreme law of the land until it was overruled by a later SC decision & amendment.
> 
> If we are arguing philosophy, there are no right or wrong opinions.
> If we are arguing what is law...there is only one correct answer.
> 
> The law is whatever the SCOTUS says it is & that's the way it is in reality.


Agreed.   Idealism is nice, but reality is what it is.

----------

Devil505 (06-07-2014)

----------


## Sled Dog

> We (Congress) passed the NFA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act in 1934 to protect ourselves & shotguns being easily hidden in clothing is a danger to us all.
> It passed both House, was signed into law by the President & has been upheld by the SCOTUS.
> 
> We have that collective power & a minority is simply overruled by the majority. (That's how democracy works)


The NFA was based on the Miller Decision, in which an ignorant "Progressive" judge ruled that since sawed-off shotguns serve no military purpose, they were not protected under the Second Amendment, a ruling just like a later ruling from "the emanations from the penumbra of the Fourteenth Amendment" that has led to the murder of some 60,000,000 American babies since Roe v Wade.

The problem with that "Progressive" Judges ruling?

Sawed-off shotguns were the weapon of choice when jerry invaded your local section of the trenches in WWI.

Which means his politically motivated ruling had no basis in fact.  A routine thing for liberals.

----------


## Sled Dog

> We are supposed to be a nation of laws.
> 
> Anybody want to make the argument that statement is still true?


We got laws all over the damn place.   We're drowning in laws, we're suffocated by lawyers.

If the US isn't a nation of laws, no nation ever has been.

If you want to argue that we're a nation with laws that are enforced only when the elites want them to be, that's a different matter entirely, and few will argue with you.

What's funny is pointing out which laws the Rodents ignore and watching them freak out.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

The NFA had nothing to do with the Germans, WWI or our military.  It was about a Democratic attempt at gun control in an era of Prohibition and the subsequent rise of criminal bootlegging organizations.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...278_story.html

----------


## Devil505

> The NFA was based on the Miller Decision, in which an ignorant "Progressive" judge ruled that since sawed-off shotguns serve no military purpose, they were not protected under the Second Amendment, a ruling just like a later ruling from "the emanations from the penumbra of the Fourteenth Amendment" that has led to the murder of some 60,000,000 American babies since Roe v Wade.
> 
> The problem with that "Progressive" Judges ruling?
> 
> Sawed-off shotguns were the weapon of choice when jerry invaded your local section of the trenches in WWI.
> 
> Which means his politically motivated ruling had no basis in fact.  A routine thing for liberals.


Aren't you the guy that feels individual citizens should be able to own nuclear weapons?
Why should we listen to such drivel like you just posted?

----------


## Sled Dog

> Is that really the nature of a contract, that it's binding on the party that didn't write it unless that party acts in a way that is consistent with its demands, or is that the most absurd transparent contrivance ever written?


Oh, jesus save this athiest from the juvies.

No, I ain't going to bother explaining, again, that the Constitution is the framework of law the GOVERNMENT has to obey when it creates more law, and the Constitution embodies multiple ways THE PEOPLE can alter the Constitution when they desire.

Anarchists are so fucking ignorant.

----------


## Sled Dog

> "If authority is distinct from power, it cannot be obtained from one who does not have it. Those who give explicit consent to be bound by the constitution do not, by virtue of that consent, have authority over those who do not. The only reason any constitution has any power at all is because those who would give explicit consent to be bound by it, if asked, outnumber those who would not."
> 
> _If a person does not want to abide by the rule of the majority then that person might as well leave. Without a consensus that the majority will rule you have no chance of a common governance other than jungle law.
> 
> This philosophical masturbation gets old in hurry._



Soooo....oooo...yeah, let's put more ooooo's in there....soooo, when there's forty nine white guys in a room and one black guy, it's okay for the 49 to order the 1 to wait their tables, shine their shoes, wash their asses, then kiss them, because Majority Rules.

Great argument you have there.

"The problem with democracy is what happens when two wolves and one sheep vote on what to have for lunch." - Benjamin Franklin, a dead white guy who's thoughts mean nothing because he's dead and pale.

There's a REASON the Constitution was written as it was.   

There's a REASON anarchy always fails.

It's the SAME reason.

Have some more oooooooooo's.

----------


## Sled Dog

> How about as the crime is being committed?
> Can ordinary citizens stop armed bank robbers with no training or special skills?
> Can ordinary citizens rescue hostages from a group of terrorists with no training or special skills?



Obama managed the last and not only does he have no training or special skills, he isn't even a citizen.

Oh, wait.

He was just finding an excuse to the let the five worst terrorists in US custody go, so they can kill more Americans, and he made sure the US recieved nothing of value in exchange, just a deserter turncoat.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Everyone has a right to defend themselves but we give cops more power to defend society than the rest of us have.


Not relevant to the discussion, immaterial to the matter contained in Federalist 29.

----------


## Sled Dog

> What I THANKED, not liked, was Sled Dog explaining to people with ZERO practical knowledge of even day and night, that they have no knowledge.
> 
> Reading books is is not a source of knowledge. Reading books is a source of opinions. Knowledge comes when you critically analyze those opinions.


Really?

So when I read Roskam's Rainbow Set on Aircraft design, eight volumes, that wasn't the how I acquired the knowledge of aircraft design?

When I read Principles of Mass and Heat Transfer, there was no knowledge in that book, just opinions on how pin-fins work and the use of the finite-difference method of fluid flow?

My text book on thermodynamics is someone's OPINION of the mathematic expression of entropy?

When I read the Oresteia, I wasn't gaining knowledge of the Oresteia, I was getting an opinion of the Oresteia (in translation, of course)?

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Really?
> 
> So when I read Roskam's Rainbow Set on Aircraft design, eight volumes, that wasn't the how I acquired the knowledge of aircraft design?


Have you designed an airplane that has successfully flown?  Learning something is one thing, but to apply that knowledge is another.  Some people think they know, but until that knowledge is practically applied, how can they really know if they've learned?

----------


## hoytmonger

> Oh, jesus save this athiest from the juvies.
> 
> No, I ain't going to bother explaining, again, that the Constitution is the framework of law the GOVERNMENT has to obey when it creates more law, and the Constitution embodies multiple ways THE PEOPLE can alter the Constitution when they desire.
> 
> Anarchists are so fucking ignorant.


To the contrary, anarchists here are the only ones possessing common sense.

The Constitution was written in such a way that it could be subverted... and it has... almost from it's ratification. It's ignorant to think the Constitution is some kind of perfect document that controls the state... it's not and there's nothing 'THE PEOPLE' can do about it. Mark Levin's book 'The Liberty Amendments' is nonsense... the states have no sovereignty. The Federalists, the Whigs, the Republicans and then the Progressives have bastardized the Constitution... and the US... beyond any recognizable semblance of it's original intent.
What has been proven with the failed attempt at limited government is the fact that it's impossible to limit the size and scope of government... government provides no benefit for human society, therefore government should be abandoned altogether.

----------

BleedingHeadKen (06-08-2014)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> To the contrary, anarchists here are the only ones possessing common sense.


Disagreed, but people, especially the young, inexperienced and immature are free to believe as they like.  I encourage them to enjoy it for as long as it lasts since life is often a test.  The intelligent learn, adapt and move forward, the stupid simply become bitter and blame others for all of their own problems.

----------

OriginalCyn (06-08-2014)

----------


## Sled Dog

> The prisoner swap is a gamble no doubt but what was the alternative?....Let an American citizen be held in captivity & what do we do the the bad guys we held in Gitmo....shoot them? (we should have long ago tried them & executed those who deserved it. To late at this point)
> 
> Obama had no clear good decision & we don't know what's going on behind the scenes. 
> Time will tell if it was a good or bad decision but the Right's knee-jerk condemnation of anything Obama does is meaningless at this point. (If Obama personally discovered a cure for cancer..... the Right would argue that he just added to the world's starvation situation by keeping so many people alive!)


Utter nonsense.

King Obama WANTED to release those terrorists, and the Bergdahl brat wasn't a real prisoner, he IS a deserter.

What do we do with the terrorists in Gitmo?

We kill them.

What do we do when the terrorists threaten to kill a deserter turncoat they've "captured"?

We kill more terrorists in custody.

Why do terrorists kidnap people and use them for hostages?  Because the weak  West has allowed them to set the rules.   

What to do about "hostages" when national enemies take them?  Assume they're dead, kill the enemies.  When the enemies figure out that taking hostages is not only a waste of time but gets them killed, they stop.

ONLY if the enemies have agreed to act like human beings (something that cannot be said of muslim terrorists) and only if those enemies have agreed to rules of engagement that ensure prisoners they take are handled humanely, should we make any effort to treat those enemies as something of value.  In today's conflict with Obama's pals in al qeada, we should capture what terrorists we can, drain them of all information, and hang on to them, just in case we want ask some more questions, until some other terrorist demands their release.  Then we release them, as protein fodder at a pig farm.   The fact that they're terrorists is not in doubt.  The sentence for being a murdering terrorist should be death, of course, no rational alternative exists, and delaying their execution for our convenience is our privilege, not their right.

It ain't complicated if you don't like terrorists.

----------


## Sled Dog

> The NFA had nothing to do with the Germans, WWI or our military. It was about a Democratic attempt at gun control in an era of Prohibition and the subsequent rise of criminal bootlegging organizations.
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...278_story.html


BULL and SHIT




> The National Firearms Act, as applied to one indicted for transporting in interstate commerce a 12-gauge shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches long without having registered it and without having in his possession a stamp-affixed written order for it, as required by the Act, held:
> 1. Not unconstitutional as an invasion of the reserved powers of the States. Citing Sonzinsky v. United States, 300 U. S. 506, and Narcotic Act cases. P. 307 U. S. 177.
> 
> 2. Not violative of the Second Amendment of the Federal Constitution. P. 307 U. S. 178.
> *The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia*, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.


Since the sawed off shotgun WAS in fact a very useful weapon of war, it is indeed pertinent to the small arms inventory of any "well regulated militia".

So you're wrong, just like the court, and court itself introduced the usefulness of sawed off shotguns into it's decision, disregarding completely the effectiveness that weapon had in the very last war the nation had fought at that time.

----------


## hoytmonger

> Disagreed, but people, especially the young, inexperienced and immature are free to believe as they like.  I encourage them to enjoy it for as long as it lasts since life is often a test.  The intelligent learn, adapt and move forward, the stupid simply become bitter and blame others for all of their own problems.


You can disagree... as that is your right... but it doesn't make you correct.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> You can disagree... as that is your right... but it doesn't make you correct.


Agreed!  That applies to everyone, doesn't it?

----------


## hoytmonger

> Agreed!  That applies to everyone, doesn't it?


It sure does.

----------

Max Rockatansky (06-07-2014)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Since the sawed off shotgun WAS in fact a very useful weapon of war, it is indeed pertinent to the small arms inventory of any "well regulated militia".
> 
> So you're wrong, just like the court, and court itself introduced the usefulness of sawed off shotguns into it's decision, disregarding completely the effectiveness that weapon had in the very last war the nation had fought at that time.


Seriously dude?  You're going nuts over a sawed-off shotgun?  Are you telling me that if the SHTF, I'm stuck with my 28" barrel on my Mossberg 500 with absolutely no way to make it shorter?  

Geez, try to get out every once in awhile, okay?  Take a breather and clear your mind because it seems rather, ummm, cluttered.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Have you designed an airplane that has successfully flown?


Yes.


Gee, amazing, isn't it?

Knowledge comes from books as well as other sources.

What do you rely on for history knowledge, oral sources?

----------


## Sled Dog

> Seriously dude? You're going nuts over a sawed-off shotgun? Are you telling me that if the SHTF, I'm stuck with my 28" barrel on my Mossberg 500 with absolutely no way to make it shorter? 
> 
> Geez, try to get out every once in awhile, okay? Take a breather and clear your mind because it seems rather, ummm, cluttered.


No, I'm not some stupid gun grabbing Rodent.  I am perfectly aware that your right to own and carry firearms is unlimited.

If you can carry it, you have a right to it.

I was posting, for the fools and the liars who lie to them,  the factual error in the legal decision that made the gun grabbing fascists orgasmic for more than six decades.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Agreed! That applies to everyone, doesn't it?


Not to me.

----------


## Maximatic

> Let's cut to the chase here:
> Seems to me we are arguing philosophy v s reality.
> Philosophically, what 9 old men said in the Dred Scott decision was immoral & illegitimate.......but it was a still the supreme law of the land until it was overruled by a later SC decision & amendment.
> 
> If we are arguing philosophy, there are no right or wrong opinions.
> If we are arguing what is law...there is only one correct answer.
> "Legitimate" is in the eye of the beholder.
> 
> The law is whatever the SCOTUS says it is & that's the way it is in reality.


Philosophy is not the practice where all the rules are abandoned and anything goes, it's just the opposite. It's where we get the laws of logic and inference. If you commit to the discipline, and try to bind yourself to those laws and rules, it's much harder to get something right, than to get it wrong.

It looks to me like you, and others, bounce between making moral or normative claims, which are philosophical in nature, and falling back apparent nihilism once your philosophical claims seem to have been undermined.

Most of political discussion is about what ought to be. It's  trivially easy to look at the data and say "yup, that's the way it is",  but as soon as you begin to try to answer a question of what ought to  be, you're doing philosophy. At that point, your only tools are the laws  of logic, the rules of inference, and your capacity to understand the  concepts you work with, and, if you're gonna do something, you might as  well do it well.

Legitimacy is in the eye of the beholder, in that it is a value judgement, but that doesn't make it a meaningless or trivial concept any more than your OP is meaningless or trivial.

Given the current system, any bill that passes into law is law, and remains law unless  and until the SC says it aint, but many of us don't presuppose the necessity of the current system.

----------

BleedingHeadKen (06-08-2014)

----------


## Maximatic

It's funny how statists believe their circular and altogether ridiculous defenses of the necessity, virtue or legitimacy of their favorite government to amount to some kind of explanation.




> Oh, jesus save this athiest from the juvies.
> 
> No, I ain't going to bother explaining, again, that the Constitution is the framework of law the GOVERNMENT has to obey when it creates more law, and the Constitution embodies multiple ways THE PEOPLE can alter the Constitution when they desire.
> 
> Anarchists are so fucking ignorant.


Please don't bother trying to explain anything to anyone, ever again. You're not qualified.

----------

BleedingHeadKen (06-08-2014)

----------


## Devil505

> Philosophy is not the practice where all the rules are abandoned and anything goes, it's just the opposite. It's where we get the laws of logic and inference. If you commit to the discipline, and try to bind yourself to those laws and rules, it's much harder to get something right, than to get it wrong.
> 
> It looks to me like you, and others, bounce between making moral or normative claims, which are philosophical in nature, and falling back apparent nihilism once your philosophical claims seem to have been undermined.
> 
> Most of political discussion is about what ought to be. It's  trivially easy to look at the data and say "yup, that's the way it is",  but as soon as you begin to try to answer a question of what ought to  be, you're doing philosophy. At that point, your only tools are the laws  of logic, the rules of inference, and your capacity to understand the  concepts you work with, and, if you're gonna do something, you might as  well do it well.
> 
> Legitimacy is in the eye of the beholder, in that it is a value judgement, but that doesn't make it a meaningless or trivial concept any more than your OP is meaningless or trivial.
> 
> Given the current system, any bill that passes into law is law, and remains law unless  and until the SC says it aint, but many of us don't presuppose the necessity of the current system.


My college major was Political Science..... some schools have better title which they call  "Government"....but philosophy is not my main interest because most of it, as I see it....is pure opinion & much of it based on religious dogma which holds no interest for me.

Government  & law are pretty forthright & while maybe based on philosophy to an extent, are much easier to deal with because there are absolute answers.


Philosophy: "Should we all be good to each other".....has many interpretations & no real logical answer.
Law: "If you rob a bank you have violated criminal laws & are subject to arrest & prosecution."......period....no if's and's or but's about it.

The SCOTUS is often wrong & sometimes illogical but in law it is always the unappealable supreme law of the land no matter what. (whether one agrees with the SC or even denies its authority makes no difference at all. You must follow their "Opinions" (usually split 5 to 4 these days) or goto jail......it's a simple as that!

----------


## patrickt

> I keep hearing angry citizens decrying this creature they refer to as "The Government" as if it's some evil being that descended on earth from the far reaches of the universe.
> 
> Aren't "We the people" the government?
> Don't we hold elections at regular intervals to choose who we want to represent us?
> Don't we all share some responsibility for the laws *WE* write via our elected reps in Congress?
> 
> Yes our system has problems but we have created those problems & it's up to us to find a peaceful way to resolve them.
> (end of today's sermon)
> 
> What do you all think?


No, we the people are not "the government". The government is the tens of thousands of liberal bureaucrats that were never elected but regulate and persecute Americans. The government is that entity that can take a law the elected have passed and ignore it, change it, and/or rewrite it at will. The government are the people who can sit and plead the fifth to cover their crimes and get a pension for it.

Do we ever choose who we want to represent us? I can't remember ever voting for someone at any level above local, that I actually wanted in office. I voted for the one that was as bad, in my view, as the other guy. We have elected representatives who are incompetent, crooked, and some who are quite mad and they return to their position term after term after term.

We share no responsibility for the laws that are written. Hell, the politicians don't accept any responsibility for the laws that are written so why should we? We all know who's responsible. It's President Bush. We have a President to moved his career along by the inoffensive act of voting "present" whenever possible so he could avoid any possible responsibility. And, since becoming President he has occasionally blamed Americans for his failures.

Consider the federal department that has recently done away with performance reviews. Everyone is going to be a winner. Everyone is going to be outstanding. And it will cost millions more but who cares. And, the IRS gives bonuses to IRS agents who haven't paid their taxes and the elected politicians yawn. Who's in charge of the asylum? It certainly isn't the politicians.

As for your suggestions. Other than the first, they are what would be expected.
"1. Strict term limits for all elective offices.
2. No private funding allowed in elections. (everything paid for out of general revenue & rich candidates not allowed to "Buy" elections with their own family wealth.
3. End legalized bribery (Campaign Contributions). i.e. if you give money to a pol you & he/she should be arrested!"

Term limits are clearly appropriate. Political office was never meant to be a "career". What kind of pervert decides as a teenager to spend his life as a politician? That's bizarre but Sen. Kerry did and President Clinton did.  Imagine, a sixteen-year old whose dream is to be a politician. 

And, don't allow people to spend their own money. Lordy, no. Force them to spend taxpayer money like good politicians. They should pay for so much as a cup of coffee out of their own pocket. My god, what would happen if politicians had to pay for things. If we're concerned about people buying politicians, how about politicians buying votes. "Vote for me and I'll free you from the drudgery of working." "Vote for me and someone else will pay for your health care, house, food, children, vacation, whatever. For you it will be free because you voted for me."

And, absolutely, conservatives should not be allowed to have money donated to them. That's the essence of "getting money out of politics." And, their wife has a job being paid $100k and when hubby makes the senate the wife's salary jumps to $300k. Amazing that. Or, the politicians wife "invests" $1k and a few months later it miraculously becomes $100k. Wow, she's smart. And consider, only taxpayer money can be spent but 85% of the media is on the left. They do the advertising and promoting of socialists and communists for free. So, we stop the opposition from buying time to get their propaganda out. Fair that.

We've all heard of the "Economy of Size". Bigger is cheaper. Bullshit. We need to learn about the "Corruption of Size."

I agree term limits are desirable but a federal government is out of reach and out of control. Power needs to move for Washington to the states to the towns. Power needs to move from bureaucrats to local politicians and hopefully the people.

We need to government by the Constitution. It is supposed to be the people who control the government and not the government that controls the people.

But, I'll admit, it seems hopeless.

----------

BleedingHeadKen (06-08-2014)

----------


## Devil505

> No, we the people are not "the government". The government is the tens of thousands of liberal bureaucrats that were never elected but regulate and persecute Americans. The government is that entity that can take a law the elected have passed and ignore it, change it, and/or rewrite it at will. The government are the people who can sit and plead the fifth to cover their crimes and get a pension for it.
> 
> Do we ever choose who we want to represent us? I can't remember ever voting for someone at any level above local, that I actually wanted in office. I voted for the one that was as bad, in my view, as the other guy. We have elected representatives who are incompetent, crooked, and some who are quite mad and they return to their position term after term after term.
> 
> We share no responsibility for the laws that are written. Hell, the politicians don't accept any responsibility for the laws that are written so why should we? We all know who's responsible. It's President Bush. We have a President to moved his career along by the inoffensive act of voting "present" whenever possible so he could avoid any possible responsibility. And, since becoming President he has occasionally blamed Americans for his failures.
> 
> Consider the federal department that has recently done away with performance reviews. Everyone is going to be a winner. Everyone is going to be outstanding. And it will cost millions more but who cares. And, the IRS gives bonuses to IRS agents who haven't paid their taxes and the elected politicians yawn. Who's in charge of the asylum? It certainly isn't the politicians.
> 
> As for your suggestions. Other than the first, they are what would be expected.
> ...


I appreciate the time & effort you put into that post but I interpret it as pretty much a convenient denial of any responsibility on your part, a "Whoa is me" statement mixed in with a generous helping of RW Talking points & pie in the sky rhetoric..

Sorry.....that's what I see.

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> Depending upon the law, they could be being victimized. They could be having their body or property violated even though they've acted peacefully.


If you are violating the law, you are not acting peacefully.

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> An example would be attacking a person because he owned, say, a shotgun with a barrel length of less than 18 inches. That would be the sort of initiation of violence to which I am referring.


Is it against the law to own such a weapon?  In certain cities of this nation it was illegal to own a firearm until the last finding of the USSC.  So people in those cities could have faced the same thing if they were found with a firearm.

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> Taxes.


Taxes are the cost of supporting government functions, are you promoting doing away with government?  The only way taxes are stolen is if they are not used for what they are set aside for.

----------


## Hansel

> Philosophy is not the practice where all the rules are abandoned and anything goes, it's just the opposite. It's where we get the laws of logic and inference. If you commit to the discipline, and try to bind yourself to those laws and rules, it's much harder to get something right, than to get it wrong.
> 
> It looks to me like you, and others, bounce between making moral or normative claims, which are philosophical in nature, and falling back apparent nihilism once your philosophical claims seem to have been undermined.
> 
> Most of political discussion is about what ought to be. It's  trivially easy to look at the data and say "yup, that's the way it is",  but as soon as you begin to try to answer a question of what ought to  be, you're doing philosophy. At that point, your only tools are the laws  of logic, the rules of inference, and your capacity to understand the  concepts you work with, and, if you're gonna do something, you might as  well do it well.
> 
> Legitimacy is in the eye of the beholder, in that it is a value judgement, but that doesn't make it a meaningless or trivial concept any more than your OP is meaningless or trivial.
> 
> Given the current system, any bill that passes into law is law, and remains law unless  and until the SC says it aint, but many of us don't presuppose the necessity of the current system.


Reference this line from Devil's post: 
If we are arguing what is law...there is only one correct answer.

There may be cases where the law is not  a perfect fit for the issue at hand, and there can also be extenuating circumstances that temper the terms of the law.  For example,  mercy killing is not viewed in the same light that a heinous murder is.  One must also remember that laws must be interpreted by human beings in light of what they are being applied to.

It is one thing to say a law has been broken but another to apply an appropriate punishment.  I once sat on a jury whose task was to determine the sentence of a young man who had pled guilty to possession of marijuana.  The DA recommended a three year suspended sentence rather than hard time in the pen, the reasoning being that if he went to the pen he would learn from the pros. We took the advice of the DA and gave him the suspended sentence.

----------


## Devil505

> Reference this line from Devil's post: 
> If we are arguing what is law...there is only one correct answer.
> 
> There may be cases where the law is not  a perfect fit for the issue at hand, and there can also be extenuating circumstances that temper the terms of the law.  For example,  mercy killing is not viewed in the same light that a heinous murder is.



And those are all part of the law that a judge would make the jury aware of in his instructions to them.They are not outside the law...they are part of it & do allow for some built-in flexibility for the jury & judge.

I'll amend my above statement to say: " If we are arguing what is law...there is only one way for a jury or judge to decide a correct answer & that is to choose an option that is written in the law." (to early for me to be writing law books right now) lol

----------


## Longshot

> If you are violating the law, you are not acting peacefully.


False. A person who owns or sells an illegal product is still acting peacefully. He is victimizing no one.

----------

BleedingHeadKen (06-08-2014),Invayne (06-08-2014)

----------


## Longshot

> Is it against the law to own such a weapon?  In certain cities of this nation it was illegal to own a firearm until the last finding of the USSC.  So people in those cities could have faced the same thing if they were found with a firearm.


Yes, that would be another example of how certain people can initiate violence against others because they possess a particular object. If we were all equal under the law, no person would have the right to do anything that the rest of us could not do. You and I don't have a right to forbid our neighbor, under pain of punishment, from possessing any particular object.

----------

BleedingHeadKen (06-08-2014)

----------


## Longshot

> Taxes are the cost of supporting government functions, are you promoting doing away with government?


No, not doing away with government. Just doing away with taxes.

----------

BleedingHeadKen (06-08-2014)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> No, not doing away with government. Just doing away with taxes.


"I'm not committing murder, I'm only draining all of the blood out of his body".

----------


## Longshot

> "I'm not committing murder, I'm only draining all of the blood out of his body".


I am not for the elimination of a system of government. Just the elimination of taxes. The former does not require the existence of the latter.

----------

BleedingHeadKen (06-08-2014)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I am not for the elimination of a system of government. Just the elimination of taxes. The former does not require the existence of the latter.


How does one pay for government administration, the police, fire department, public works and the military?  Donations?

----------


## Longshot

> How does one pay for government administration, the police, fire department, public works and the military?  Donations?


The government would not run these sorts of businesses, so the government would not need taxes to operate them. The government would govern, which is to say that it would be the institution having the legal authority to settle disputes between citizens.

----------

BleedingHeadKen (06-08-2014)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> The government would not run these sorts of businesses, so the government would not need taxes to operate them. The government would govern, which is to say that it would be the institution having the legal authority to settle disputes between citizens.


Setting aside all of the inevitable problems associated with such an idea for a moment, who is going to pay for the judges and enforcement of such authority?

----------


## Longshot

> Setting aside all of the inevitable problems associated with such an idea for a moment, who is going to pay for the judges and enforcement of such authority?


Ordinary citizen volunteers could be randomly selected to act as jurors to settle the dispute. That judgement would then give the successful plaintiff (or his agent) the legal authority to enforce the jury's verdict.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Ordinary citizen volunteers could be randomly selected to act as jurors to settle the dispute. That judgement would then give the successful plaintiff (or his agent) the legal authority to enforce the jury's verdict.


Dude, it's difficult to get jurors now even when you pay them.  Asking them to take time off their jobs to sit for a day or weeks isn't going to work as shown by historical examples.

Give the successful plaintiff the authority?  So, if I win a judgment against you because you stole a lawn rake, I can kill you, your family and burn down your house then take your land?  If not, who's going to stop me?

The system of justice you are describing is not only highly idealistic, it's unworkable since it is so corruptible.  Justice would go to whomever had the best lawyers.  The poor would have little ability to enforce justice against the rich even if they won their case while the rich would handily enforce their justice against those poorer and weaker than themselves.

----------


## Longshot

> Dude, it's difficult to get jurors now even when you pay them.  Asking them to take time off their jobs to sit for a day or weeks isn't going to work as shown by historical examples.
> 
> Give the successful plaintiff the authority?  So, if I win a judgment against you because you stole a lawn rake, I can kill you, your family and burn down your house then take your land?


I don't anticipate that a jury would award you the the death of the defendant and the defendant's family in their judgement. They'd probably decide that the defendant owed you the value of a new rake plus the costs of you having to take him to court. 




> If not, who's going to stop me?


If you tried to invade his home to kill him and his family, I imagine that he would stop you himself, and that it would be perfectly within his legal rights to do so. 




> The system of justice you are describing is not only highly idealistic, it's unworkable since it is so corruptible.  Justice would go to whomever had the best lawyers.


Why would an impartial jury not render a just decision?




> The poor would have little ability to enforce justice against the rich even if they won their case while the rich would handily enforce their justice against those poorer and weaker than themselves.


Even a poor plaintiff, if successful, would have the legal authority to, either by himself or through his agent, carry out the judgement.

----------



----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I don't anticipate that a jury would award you the the death of the defendant and the defendant's family in their judgement. They'd probably decide that the defendant owed you the value of a new rake plus the costs of you having to take him to court.


How am I going to extract that payment?  What if they refuse or want to fight?  Will the court (which you still haven't explained how they will be paid) issue a strongly worded letter in my behalf?

----------


## Longshot

> How am I going to extract that payment?  What if they refuse or want to fight?  Will the court (which you still haven't explained how they will be paid) issue a strongly worded letter in my behalf?


No, the jury's task is done. They have judged the dispute and found in your favor. You, or more likely your agent, would extract the payment.

----------



----------


## Max Rockatansky

> No, the jury's task is done. They have judged the dispute and found in your favor. You, or more likely your agent, would extract the payment.


I was talking about the court system itself.  Who runs the judges, the guards, the courthouse itself?  Who pays for it?

----------


## Longshot

> I was talking about the court system itself.  Who runs the judges, the guards, the courthouse itself?  Who pays for it?


The jury could hear the case in any location. It would seem reasonable that it would be incumbent on the plaintiff to provide a location. Of course, telecommunications technology makes this less of a concern.

----------



----------


## Max Rockatansky

> The jury could hear the case in any location. It would seem reasonable that it would be incumbent on the plaintiff to provide a location. Of course, telecommunications technology makes this less of a concern.


Do you have any examples in history of this system functioning?  In a town or village it would be all they have, but such a system has no examples working on something the size of Texas.

----------


## Longshot

> Do you have any examples in history of this system functioning?  In a town or village it would be all they have, but such a system has no examples working on something the size of Texas.


No, I'm describing how it could be done, not how it has been done. And the population size has nothing to do with it, really. The dispute is always between to parties, the defendant and the plaintiff. It doesn't matter how many people live around them.

Edit:

Also keep in mind that a lot of disputes could be worked out without requiring a jury trial. Take your example of your neighbor stealing your rake. In that case, you could call your insurance company and file a claim: "My neighbor stole my rake."  The insurance company might send out an adjustor to collect some relevant details. Your insurance company would pay you for your loss. If you neighbor had the same insurer, then they would raise his premiums to cover their payout. If your neighbor had a different insurer, the two insurance companies would work it out between themselves, as they do now with automobile claims. 

There are many mechanisms to ensure that those who victimize others are held accountable for the damage they cause.

----------



----------


## Max Rockatansky

> No, I'm describing how it could be done, not how it has been done.


Which explains the difference between reality (history and the present) and idealism (dreams of the future).

Idealism can be a good thing, but it must be grounded in reality.  Expecting humans to be substantially different in the near future than they have in all of recorded history is unrealistic.  It's fantasy.

----------


## Longshot

> Which explains the difference between reality (history and the present) and idealism (dreams of the future).
> 
> Idealism can be a good thing, but it must be grounded in reality.  Expecting humans to be substantially different in the near future than they have in all of recorded history is unrealistic.  It's fantasy.


I don't expect humans to be any different. I simply advocate a legal system in which all people are forbidden from victimizing others. I don't think there out to be some who are allowed to commit acts that would put a normal citizen in jail.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I don't expect humans to be any different. *I simply advocate a legal system in which all people are forbidden from victimizing others.* I don't think there out to be some who are allowed to commit acts that would put a normal citizen in jail.


That system already exists.  The flaws in it would not by fixed by the anarchic system you envision.

----------


## Longshot

> That system already exists.  The flaws in it would not by fixed by the anarchic system you envision.


Right now, certain people may legally break into a person's home and assault him because they think they might possess a particular plant. If you or I did that, we would be breaking the law. The law is unequal.

----------

BleedingHeadKen (06-08-2014),Invayne (06-08-2014)

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> No....they can (legally) initiate violence against others to suit *our* agenda as *we* (through our Congress) ordered them to do.
> If they initiate violence against others to suit *their* agenda (illegally) they are subject to arrest just like the rest of us.


So you then accept responsibility for initiating violence against peaceful people? I don't, as I don't consent nor do I own the agenda and I don't own Congress or the government.
Consent of the governed is a farce, and always has been.




> Yes.....because *we* gave them that power in order to serve us better.


I don't recall giving anyone any power.




> I still don't understand what your problem is? If you don't want a cadre of public servants to protect you from the bad guys in our society, then take away those special privileges, buy a gun & it's everyone for themselves.


That's strange. i don't have to go hunt for myself, yet the government doesn't supply me with food. I don't have to write stories for myself, yet the government doesn't supply me with books. So why would have I have provide security for myself just because government doesn't provide security?  Aside from that, anyone who initiates aggression against a peaceful person is acting badly, and since most agents for the state do that regularly, they are often as criminal as the criminals they propose to protect me from. At least I know that if I contract with a private company for security, they won't throw me in a cage for violating some political dictate against undesirable behavior or interfering with the economic protection of some privileged corporation or industry.

In fact, why should any private citizen be paying for government to secure the economic privileges of industries or corporations? If the hairdressers in your community don't want anyone entering the field, they should contract their own security to prevent it. See how far that gets them. Put it under color of law, though, and you statists claims it's a moral obligation for all of us to protect the hairdressers from competition.

----------

Invayne (06-08-2014),Longshot (06-08-2014)

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Before an agency can do what you have stated you have to have broken a law/regulation, they can not just come into your house and accost you and throw you into prison, and yes if you resist the agent you are going to get your head thumped.  That agent is not going to risk getting hurt just because you do not want to be arrested.


And, if my neighbor is selling raw milk, the government has the privilege under the laws it makes to come in thump the heads of the raw milk seller. Or if a hairdresser sets up shop and does not have a cosmetologist license I cannot raid her office, take her things, and slap her with a fine. If I were to try to shut down either operation, it would be assault and battery and possibly theft and kidnapping. This means that agents of the state, and the political class, has privileges that I do not.

----------

Longshot (06-08-2014)

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Or leave the country.


That response is the common refuge of the statist. He conflates country with the government, and so anyone who opposes the government must not want to be in the country.  Then, when people do start leaving the country for better opportunities, he calls foul play and demands  that government strip those people of their assets, and sometimes their lives, for daring to leave his land of milk and honey.

----------

Invayne (06-08-2014)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Right now, certain people may legally break into a person's home and assault him because they think they might possess a particular plant. If you or I did that, we would be breaking the law. The law is unequal.


Who decides what is legal in your anarchist dream world?  While I agree that marijuana should be legal, what if I'm making a 1000 lb. fertilizer bomb in my house and several people know about it?  Is that a problem or not if your society came into existence?

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> If you are violating the law, you are not acting peacefully.


Violence presupposes that there is a victim. In the case of the owner of a shotgun with a barrel that is too short, who is the victim by virtue of his possessing of that weapon?  If there's no victim, or intended victim, then you cannot logically claim that he was anything but peaceful.

----------

Invayne (06-08-2014)

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> I don't anticipate that a jury would award you the the death of the defendant and the defendant's family in their judgement. They'd probably decide that the defendant owed you the value of a new rake plus the costs of you having to take him to court.


Typical restitution is three times damages, and may include indenturing the plaintiff until the restitution is paid.

----------

Longshot (06-08-2014)

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Even a poor plaintiff, if successful, would have the legal authority to, either by himself or through his agent, carry out the judgement.


And, he could sell the title to that judgment for his damages plus a small percentage, and the purchaser of the judgment would then go after the remaining amount.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Do you have any examples in history of this system functioning?  In a town or village it would be all they have, but such a system has no examples working on something the size of Texas.


Why is it that the unimaginative, when presented with a complex problem, believes that since he cannot imagine an answer, it can only be solved by political means? It's why we have leviathan today. Every problem must be solved by government and it's police powers, since too many people cannot imagine it being achieved by the market. It's one of the fundamental flaws of a democracy.

In 50 years, when all healthcare is nationalized, your kind will be wondering how the market could ever deliver healthcare services.

----------

Invayne (06-08-2014),Longshot (06-08-2014),Victory (06-09-2014)

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> There's ONE kind of liberttarianism. That which seeks to MAXIMIZE individual liberaty.


And liberty is maximized by recognizing the self-ownership of the individual.




> You can't ignore it. A man's position on that question defines his status as man or monster.


Unlike you, I'm not dogmatic. These are questions that should be approached with logic and reason when it comes to the use of law.  It's fine if you do not wish to engage in critical thinking, that's your prerogative.  You can even complain that others are acting juvenile while you hold to a juvenile dogmatism and puff up your chest with cartoon imagery. It doesn't change any facts to do so.




> You are IGNORING YOUR OWN EVOLUTION. Primates are flatly NOT constructed to behave as independently co-equal units in the completely homogenized society of non-distinct yet somehow individual individuals. This is an axiom you've assumed without recognizing it.


Strawman. No one here is arguing against hierarchy. That you conflate hierarchy with government, and declare government power legitimate because you want it to be is the basis of your entire argument.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Why is it that the unimaginative, when presented with a complex problem, believes that since he cannot imagine an answer, it can only be solved by political means?


Why do the ignorant fail to learn from history?  Why do the uneducated fail to learn about basic human behavior?  Why do the dreamers dream but cannot lift one finger to actually make a change to reality?

You ask questions and offer idealistic thoughts, but fail to say how this would be accomplished nor do you present any evidence on how these dreams and fantasies can be brought to reality. 

One thing you are good at is avoiding answering the question of historical examples of functional anarchism.  You and I both know you have to be because no examples exist.

----------


## Longshot

> Who decides what is legal in your anarchist dream world?


A jury would settle disputes between parties.

----------


## Longshot

> And, he could sell the title to that judgment for his damages plus a small percentage, and the purchaser of the judgment would then go after the remaining amount.


Yeah, that would work. Where there is a demand, supply will follow.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> A jury would settle disputes between parties.


What about those who disagree?  Wouldn't you be forcing that ruling down their throats? Against their will!!!!

----------


## Longshot

> What about those who disagree?  Wouldn't you be forcing that ruling down their throats? Against their will!!!!


The jury's judgement would carry the weight of law, and be legally enforceable by the successful plaintiff or his agent.

----------


## Devil505

> Violence presupposes that there is a victim. In the case of the owner of a shotgun with a barrel that is too short, who is the victim by virtue of his possessing of that weapon?  If there's no victim, or intended victim, then you cannot logically claim that he was anything but peaceful.


Should a law abiding citizen be able to buy hand grenades at Walmart?
How about mortars?

Who is the victim with such sales?

Society has the right to defend itself against obvious threats that have no lawful utility.
Grenades, mortars & sawed-off shotgun pose a danger to us all that is not outweighed by their lawful utitliy.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> The jury's judgement would carry the weight of law, and be legally enforceable by the successful plaintiff or his agent.


You mean like now?  Still, please answer my question.  Anarchists on this forum have bitched and moaned, whined and pleaded about how laws are jammed down their throats.  You just posted an identical system.  So why change from the status quo to this fantasy you describe?

----------


## patrickt

> I appreciate the time & effort you put into that post but I interpret it as pretty much a convenient denial of any responsibility on your part, a "Whoa is me" statement mixed in with a generous helping of RW Talking points & pie in the sky rhetoric..
> 
> Sorry.....that's what I see.


Thanks for your response but it's what I would expect from a leftist. The standard crap from left-wing talking points.

----------


## Sled Dog

> It's funny how statists believe their circular and altogether ridiculous defenses of the necessity, virtue or legitimacy of their favorite government to amount to some kind of explanation.
> 
> 
> 
> Please don't bother trying to explain anything to anyone, ever again. You're not qualified.


Which part of reality has got you fuddled this time?  Up, or down?

----------


## Sled Dog

> If you are violating the law, you are not acting peacefully.


Nonsense.

The "law" as extorted upon the states by unconstitutional actions of congress, is that I MUST wear a seatbelt.

Which is bullshit.   

My refusal to wear any such device does not make me a violent person, it makes the fascists commanding such laws to be what they are.

----------

Invayne (06-08-2014)

----------


## Sled Dog

> Taxes are the cost of supporting government functions, are you promoting doing away with government? The only way taxes are stolen is if they are not used for what they are set aside for.


Federal taxes are stolen funds if they are used to finance operations outside of those specifically delegated to Congress under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.   All other functions outside of those few are reserved to the States by the Tenth Amendment.

Examples of outlaw taxes:

Federal funding of public education.
Federal student loan guarantees and Pell Grants.
The Socialist Security Ponzi Scheme.
The Socialist Security Ponzi Scheme Administration's purchese of 400,000,000 rounds of ammunition.
Medicaid.
The DEA.
The Department of Health and Human Services.
ObamaCare.

etc, etc, etc.   All taxes for such scams are in violation of the Constituiton, and hence theft.

----------


## Sled Dog

> No, not doing away with government. Just doing away with taxes.


How does government function without funds?

----------


## Sled Dog

> I am not for the elimination of a system of government. Just the elimination of taxes. The former does not require the existence of the latter.


Actually, it does.

Put your cat's head in a plastic bag.

See how long it functions.

See how violent it gets, too.

----------


## Sled Dog

> The government would not run these sorts of businesses, so the government would not need taxes to operate them. The government would govern, which is to say that it would be the institution having the legal authority to settle disputes between citizens.


For free?

----------


## Devil505

> Thanks for your response but it's what I would expect from a leftist. The standard crap from left-wing talking points.


Thanks for your response but it's what I would expect from a member who thinks name-calling is a good substitute for actual debate. The standard crap from Right-wing talking points.

----------


## Sled Dog

> No, the jury's task is done. They have judged the dispute and found in your favor. You, or more likely your agent, would extract the payment.


How?

And you ignored the question about how the jury is supposed to determine what the award is in the verdict.

Given that you insist on no objective standards, since those can only be set by a government with LAWS, what's to stop one jury from ordering a rapist executed, and another jury ordering an equally violent rapist to pay the bitch her five dollars so the jury can go back about it's own business?

Where's the standards?

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Who decides what is legal in your anarchist dream world?  While I agree that marijuana should be legal, what if I'm making a 1000 lb. fertilizer bomb in my house and several people know about it?  Is that a problem or not if your society came into existence?


Bump for @Longshot.

We've already discussed how your forcing a law ruling on others is no different than the present system.  Did you miss this question to you?

How would you handle someone who is building a fertilizer bomb or other very dangerous device on their own property?  It hasn't harmed anyone, yet, but the danger is both real and potentially catastrophic.  What do you do?

----------


## Invayne

> Every problem must be solved by government and it's police powers, since too many people cannot imagine it being achieved by the market.


And Detroit, of all places, is proving that wrong. LOL!




http://thefreethoughtproject.com/police-them/

----------



----------


## Sled Dog

> The jury could hear the case in any location. It would seem reasonable that it would be incumbent on the plaintiff to provide a location. Of course, telecommunications technology makes this less of a concern.


So you're saying the exercise of "whatever it is don't call it law" is dependent upon the wealth of the victim?

Gee, where have we seen that in history before....?

You're another one that knows so much they don't have to read the Oresteia, aren't you?

----------


## Invayne

> Should a law abiding citizen be able to buy hand grenades at Walmart?
> How about mortars?


If Walmart sells them, then I assume the answer would be yes.  :Thumbsup20:

----------



----------


## Sled Dog

> Right now, certain people may legally break into a person's home and assault him because they think they might possess a particular plant. If you or I did that, we would be breaking the law. The law is unequal.


Laws are ALWAYS unequal.   It's so unfair that there are limits on what people can do.

It's unlawful for Alejandro Avilla to kidnap, rape and murder five-year old Samantha Runion, it's perfectly legal for the State to execute him for that crime.

Too bad they haven't done it yet.

----------


## Maximatic

> You mean like now?  Still, please answer  my question.  Anarchists on this forum have bitched and moaned, whined  and pleaded about how laws are jammed down their throats.  You just  posted an identical system.  So why change from the status quo to this  fantasy you describe?


You make it sound as if anarchists are the only ones complaining  about ridiculous laws. Do you like your government fighting a "war"  against a substance? Do you like the TSA, the Patriot Act? Do you like  alphabet agencies having the power to make and enforce law, ad lib, as  they go?

Everyone knows of law that shouldn't be. The difference  between us is that we focus on the cause of this, giving the power to  write law to the same flawed people you think you're protecting  yourselves from, while you still focus on the symptom, which of those  people to give it to.

Nobody has ever complained about laws  against theft. Everyone agrees that the implications of the  nonaggression principle should be law, you just want an exemption when it comes to government. If you ever find anyone who has,  or doesn't, you can demand that he answer that question.




> What about those who disagree?  Wouldn't you be forcing that ruling down their throats? Against their will!!!!


The assumption behind it, that requiring that people not steal from you or attack you is somehow comparable to the plethora of positive obligations imposed by fiat, is about as absurd a conflation as one could make.

----------

BleedingHeadKen (06-09-2014)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> You make it sound as if anarchists are the only ones complaining  about ridiculous laws.


No, but you're the only ones labeling anyone a "statist" who understands some laws need to be enforced.  The hypocrisy of the anarchists doing the same thing is amusing.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Typical restitution is three times damages, and may include indenturing the plaintiff until the restitution is paid.


What LAW defines that?

What LAW forbids a jury in your anarchy fantasyland from making it 100 times greater?

What LAW allows the defendant an appeal, and to whom can he make this appeal?

What OBJECTIVE STANDARDS are ENFORCED in your anarchy fantasyland?

----------


## Sled Dog

> Why is it that the unimaginative, when presented with a complex problem, believes that since he cannot imagine an answer, it can only be solved by political means? It's why we have leviathan today. Every problem must be solved by government and it's police powers, since too many people cannot imagine it being achieved by the market. It's one of the fundamental flaws of a democracy.
> 
> In 50 years, when all healthcare is nationalized, your kind will be wondering how the market could ever deliver healthcare services.


When any system of anarchy falls apart, as they all ALWAYS, eventually the reigning warlords discover that politics is cheaper than war, and they once again start seeking political answers to problems.

It's what people do.

It's human nature.

It ain't gonna be changing.

Why are you building a futurist fantasy on the backs of non-existent saints?  Aren't the elephants and the big turtle good enough for you people?

----------


## Longshot

> You mean like now?  Still, please answer my question.  Anarchists on this forum have bitched and moaned, whined and pleaded about how laws are jammed down their throats.  You just posted an identical system.  So why change from the status quo to this fantasy you describe?


Because under the status quo it is legal for someone to bust down your door and assault you if they think you are in possession of a particular plant.

----------


## Maximatic

> No, but you're the only ones labeling anyone a "statist" who understands some laws need to be enforced.  The hypocrisy of the anarchists doing the same thing is amusing.


It's a properly used label for anyone who thinks a state is the only way to enforce law. 

Notice that the hypocrisy charge only works if you state our position as something other than what it is? As many times as you've been corrected on that, I can't believe that you're not misrepresenting our position intentionally.

Change your ways; be honest.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Because under the status quo it is legal for someone to bust down your door and assault you if they think you are in possession of a particular plant.


That wasn't the question.  Nice dodge though.  Under your dream system of laws, what would be your solution?  Wait until I blew up myself and half the neighborhood before filing suit?  Then what?  I'd be gone along with all of my possessions.  Under your system it would simply be "too bad, so sad".  

In reality, under your system, the neighbors would take the law into their own hands for their own best interests.  That's how town laws start and, as a matter of evolution, county law, then state then nation.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> It's a properly used label for anyone who thinks a state is the only way to enforce law.


You said it's the only way, not me.

----------


## Sled Dog

> And liberty is maximized by recognizing the self-ownership of the individual.


Wrong.    The path to liberty is found by recognizing the impossibility of acquiring title to human beings.

Those people maximize their liberty when they grow up and recognize that rugged individualism is less wonderful than having the ability to buy an axe from someone who's selling them....and commerce is even better when they group together to protect themselves from thieves.

Just because you cannot draw a logical structure from the foundation of individual sovereignity does not imply that anarchy is the ideal society.  It means you lack the ability to think.  After all, thinking abilities are trained skills learned in societies willing to band together to protect the weak from the forceful.

You know, societies you claim are rigid and constrained and unfree.




> Unlike you, I'm not dogmatic.


You should learn what words mean.

Again.

Anarchist karma ALWAYS runs over, and kills, Anarchist dogma.

Every time you people attempt to re-invent the wheel, the wheel-shaped grindstone of histroy makes flour out of your bones.




> These are questions that should be approached with logic and reason when it comes to the use of law. It's fine if you do not wish to engage in critical thinking, that's your prerogative. You can even complain that others are acting juvenile while you hold to a juvenile dogmatism and puff up your chest with cartoon imagery. It doesn't change any facts to do so.


Logic has a WONDERFUL ASSISTANT, without which logic is nothing but empty words.

Welcome to REALITY, Logic's best friend.  Your ignorance of history will not make anarchy work any differently than the last ten thousand times it's been tried.

People seeking to pursue an ideal society aren't engaging in "critical thinking" when they ignore human history.   

Cite an era when anarchy did not turn into tyranny.  You can't because anarchy is the prospective tyrant's best buddy.




> Strawman. No one here is arguing against hierarchy. That you conflate hierarchy with government, and declare government power legitimate because you want it to be is the basis of your entire argument.


Yes, you are.

You are arguing FOR anarchy, which means you are arguing against a civil society that transfers it's authority to commit violence to an objective body that is elected to enforce all laws equally.

----------


## Longshot

> How does government function without funds?


Randomly selected volunteer jurors could resolve disputes between parties.

----------


## Longshot

> For free?


Randomly selected volunteer jurors could resolve disputes.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Should a law abiding citizen be able to buy hand grenades at Walmart?


Sure, why not?




> How about mortars?


Nope, their control of the target zone is unclear.




> Who is the victim with such sales?


There are no victims in mutually agreed upon commercial transactions, each party engages in the transaction believing that he recieved value for value given.




> Society has the right to defend itself against obvious threats that have no lawful utility.


You mean like when the cops can throw grenades in the faces of sleeping baby's then it's okay to throw grenades at the cops, if they're enforcing unlawful law.




> Grenades, mortars & sawed-off shotgun pose a danger to us all that is not outweighed by their lawful utitliy.


Sawed off shotguns present no greater danger to the general public than does a standard fourteen round magazine in sem-automatic pistol.  The judge that made that ruling was a dickless traitor commie in the Roosevelt Administration.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Randomly selected volunteer jurors could resolve disputes.


Again, what if they are too busy to serve?  The cows don't milk themselves you know.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Randomly selected volunteer jurors could resolve disputes.


Repition is the best evidence of failure to comprehend the internet has ever discovered.

You've repeated your answer.  Re-read the question and see if you can't answer the question instead.

If you can't answer the question, and your failure to do so is evidence of your present inability, then go ahead, play parrot again.

I've an Orange-Wing Amazon, I can have him peck at the keys if that's what you want.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Randomly selected volunteer jurors could resolve disputes.


Who enforces the resolution?

Who pays them?

From whence does their authority descend?

----------


## Maximatic

> You said it's the only way, not me.


Quote me.

You're making things up again.

----------


## Longshot

> How?


How would the successful plaintiff, or his agent, extract payment? Well, he might present the jury's judgement to the defendant's employer, or the defendant's bank and have the funds garnished. 




> And you ignored the question about how the jury is supposed to determine what the award is in the verdict.


The jury would base their award on the damage caused by the defendant. 




> Given that you insist on no objective standards, since those can only be set by a government with LAWS, what's to stop one jury from ordering a rapist executed, and another jury ordering an equally violent rapist to pay the bitch her five dollars so the jury can go back about it's own business?
> 
> Where's the standards?


The standard would be that the defendant is punished in proportion to the damage he inflicts on his victim.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Quote me.
> 
> You're making things up again.


Dude, you're the one who made up the accusation.  If I ever said such a thing, then you should quote me.  


> It's a properly used label for anyone who thinks a state is the only way to enforce law.


Start taking your own advice for a change: 


> Change your ways; be honest.

----------


## Longshot

> Bump for @Longshot.
> 
> We've already discussed how your forcing a law ruling on others is no different than the present system.  Did you miss this question to you?
> 
> How would you handle someone who is building a fertilizer bomb or other very dangerous device on their own property?  It hasn't harmed anyone, yet, but the danger is both real and potentially catastrophic.  What do you do?


A jury could decide if the defendant has assaulted any of his neighbors by his acts. Personally, I don't see how simply possessing a bomb harms anyone. The US army has many bombs.

----------


## Longshot

> So you're saying the exercise of "whatever it is don't call it law" is dependent upon the wealth of the victim?


No, I'm not saying that at all.

----------


## Longshot

> Laws are ALWAYS unequal.   It's so unfair that there are limits on what people can do.
> 
> It's unlawful for Alejandro Avilla to kidnap, rape and murder five-year old Samantha Runion, it's perfectly legal for the State to execute him for that crime.
> 
> Too bad they haven't done it yet.


I would suggest that it should be illegal for every citizen to murder people.

----------


## Longshot

> Again, what if they are too busy to serve?  The cows don't milk themselves you know.


Someone else will do it. There are many people who would be happy to volunteer to be jurors.

----------


## Longshot

> Who enforces the resolution?


The successful plaintiff, or his agent, would have the legal authority to enforce the jury's judgement. 




> Who pays them?


The successful plaintiff. 




> From whence does their authority descend?


The successful plaintiff, or his agent, would have legal authority to enforce the jury's judgement.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Someone else will do it. There are many people who would be happy to volunteer to be jurors.


There aren't now.  Why do you think more will surface in your utopian vision?

----------

Fisher (06-09-2014)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> A jury could decide if the defendant has assaulted any of his neighbors by his acts. Personally, I don't see how simply possessing a bomb harms anyone. The US army has many bombs.


So you wouldn't have a problem with me building a car-sized bomb in my yard next to your house?  Great.  You know if something goes wrong you are SOL...given you, your wife, kids or anyone else is still alive.

----------


## usfan

I am just looking forward to the day when the red, white, & blue will be added to this graphic..   Thanks to the statist left, we are getting closer every day!!     :Thumbsup20:  

 :Sad20:

----------


## Devil505

> I would suggest that it should be illegal for every citizen to murder people.


Murder is already unlawful killing by definition.
Are you saying that all killing should be unlawful? (how about in war?...self defense?)

----------


## Longshot

> There aren't now.  Why do you think more will surface in your utopian vision?


There are plenty of people who would volunteer to be jurors. 

And, as I said earlier, most disputes could easily be handled between insurance companies.

----------


## Longshot

> Murder is already unlawful killing by definition.
> Are you saying that all killing should be unlawful? (how about in war?...self defense?)


No. I'm saying that all initiation of aggression should be illegal.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> There are plenty of people who would volunteer to be jurors. 
> 
> And, as I said earlier, most disputes could easily be handled between insurance companies.


Again, who would enforce the law?  Do you expect insurance companies in the utopian anarchy would have their own hired guns to enforce the law?  What if the insurance companies don't want to pay out?  How would you, a lone citizen force them? With a piece of paper in your hand?  You don't quite get how this has worked throughout history.  In short, it doesn't.

----------


## Maximatic

> Dude, you're the one who made up the accusation.  If I ever said such a thing, then you should quote me.  
> 
> Start taking your own advice for a change:


In political science, *statism* is the belief that the state should control either economic or social policy, or both, _to some degree_.[1][2][3][4] Statism is effectively the opposite of anarchism.[1][2][3][4]

If you don't think a state is necessary to have and enforce law, then why are you trying to dispute Longshot? All he's saying is that it isn't.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> In political science, *statism* is the belief that the state should control either economic or social policy, or both, _to some degree_.[1][2][3][4] Statism is effectively the opposite of anarchism.[1][2][3][4]


"To some degree".  That includes Longshot's court scenario.

----------


## Devil505

> No. I'm saying that all initiation of aggression should be illegal.


How about in war?
Policework to apprehend a murderer?

----------


## Longshot

> Again, who would enforce the law?


The successful plaintiff would have the legal authority to enforce the jury's judgement.




> Do you expect insurance companies in the utopian anarchy would have their own hired guns to enforce the law?


To enforce a jury's judgement, yes. 




> What if the insurance companies don't want to pay out?


Then they would be in violation of their contract and could have charges brought against them.




> How would you, a lone citizen force them? With a piece of paper in your hand?  You don't quite get how this has worked throughout history.  In short, it doesn't.


I would find another, non-criminal, insurance company.

----------


## Maximatic

> Again, who would enforce the law?


I would, if you pay me.




> Do you  expect insurance companies in the utopian anarchy would have their own  hired guns to enforce the law?


Yes.




> What if the insurance companies don't  want to pay out?  How would you, a lone citizen force them? With a piece  of paper in your hand?  You don't quite get how this has worked  throughout history.  In short, it doesn't.


No, you don't get it. People regulate insurance companies the same way they regulate every other kind of company, by patronizing the ones that do business properly, and not patronizing the ones that don't. 

The most ironic thing about your claim about history is that a system of assurance and bonds is exactly how Ireland enforced judicial rulings before they had a state. When an individual could not pay a remedy, his Tuath paid it for him, which means that pressure to conform to law and comply with rulings came from one's own clan, membership in which was voluntary and required a fee. Tuatha were voluntary institutions for pooling risk, just like an insurance company.

What Longshot is describing_ is exactly how how it did play out, historically!_

----------


## Longshot

> How about in war?


Defensive violence is morally justifiable. Self-defense is a human right. 




> Policework to apprehend a murderer?


What?

----------


## JustPassinThru

> The successful plaintiff would have the legal authority to enforce the jury's judgement.


With WHAT?  With WHO?  What's the difference between "legal authority" and a lynch mob, in a society without laws, government or police?






> To enforce a jury's judgement, yes.


And once they have their own private army...do you think they're going to voluntarily limit themselves to what a bunch of sheeple on a jury says?  Or are they going to USE that army..."proactively"...?

Why would they pay a claim when there is no government to compel them to abide by the terms?  USE that expensive private army...to see that the claimant has a slightly-fatal "accident."






> Then they would be in violation of their contract and could have charges brought against them.


By whom?  There's no government, remember?  That means, no prosecutors.






> I would find another, non-criminal, insurance company.


First, you might well be RUINED if your loss was big enough...your house burned down, say.  Second...what makes you think other companies are going to be any-more eager to pay out when there's no compelling authority to do so?

Insurance, like money and eventually like business, would just disappear.  These cannot exist without a framework of laws and government.

----------


## Maximatic

> What?


He's confused about the initiation of force, or aggression, as you say.

----------


## Devil505

> Defensive violence is morally justifiable. Self-defense is a human right.


Non self-defense situation. (GI's ordered to capture an enemy hill)






> What?


Police spot a wanted murderer driving a car. Can they pursue & arrest him?

----------


## Sled Dog

> How would the successful plaintiff, or his agent, extract payment? Well, he might present the jury's judgement to the defendant's employer, or the defendant's bank and have the funds garnished.


What if the employer and the bank say it's bullshit, they're not doing anything?

They're not obligated to, there's no law.




> The jury would base their award on the damage caused by the defendant.


And what objective measure would they use to determine the value of the rape victim?

And in what way could one jury be compelled to assess the same value as another?

You don't like really answering the questions for some strange reason.




> The standard would be that the defendant is punished in proportion to the damage he inflicts on his victim.


In proportion.

3 is in proportion to 30, which is in proportion to 300.
3 is alsoin proportion to 3000, but not the same proportion as 3 is to 30. 

Who decides which proportion is just, and in which cases is the ratio of 10 applied, and in which cases are the ratios of 100 or 1000 applied?

By what objective standard are these awards made, and what is the value of a rape victim, anyway? Is that worth more or less than a dead baby?

If the bady is dead because it's only living relative got drunk and ran it over in the driveway, who sues on the behalf of the child? By who's authority?

These are specific questions requiring specifics in your response, not your vague generalities.

----------


## Sled Dog

> I would suggest that it should be illegal for every citizen to murder people.


What laws exist in anarchy?

----------

Devil505 (06-09-2014)

----------


## Sled Dog

> Again, who would enforce the law? Do you expect insurance companies in the utopian anarchy would have their own hired guns to enforce the law? What if the insurance companies don't want to pay out? How would you, a lone citizen force them? With a piece of paper in your hand? You don't quite get how this has worked throughout history. In short, it doesn't.


Insurance companies couldn't exist.

Without a government, without laws, who exists to compell the insurance company to pay out on claims?   What commercial contract would be obeyed without an objective body to enforce them?

----------


## Sled Dog

> I would, if you pay me.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> No, you don't get it. People regulate insurance companies the same way they regulate every other kind of company, by patronizing the ones that do business properly, and not patronizing the ones that don't.


Because in the real world there's contract law and commercial codes that enfoce contracts.

In Anarchy-Land, there's no such thing.




> The most ironic thing about your claim about history is that a system of assurance and bonds is exactly how Ireland enforced judicial rulings before they had a state. When an individual could not pay a remedy, his Tuath paid it for him, which means that pressure to conform to law and comply with rulings came from one's own clan, membership in which was voluntary and required a fee. Tuatha were voluntary institutions for pooling risk, just like an insurance company.
> 
> What Longshot is describing_ is exactly how how it did play out, historically!_


You mean Ireland had a system of government predating the later system of government.

----------


## Maximatic

> Because in the real world there's contract law and commercial codes that enfoce contracts.
> 
> In Anarchy-Land, there's no such thing.


Since you're so new to this, and haven't yet learned the basics, you should start with wikipedia.



*Common law* (also known as *case law* or *precedent*) is law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals, as opposed to statutes adopted through the legislative process or regulations issued by the executive branch.

*2. Common law legal systems as opposed to civil law legal systems*

Connotation 2 differentiates "common law" jurisdictions and legal systems from "civil law" or "code" jurisdictions.[12] Common law (connotation 2)  systems place great weight on court decisions, which are considered  "law" with the same force of law as statutesfor nearly a millennium,  common law (connotation 2)  courts have had the authority to make law where no legislative statute  exists, and statutes mean what courts interpret them to mean. By  contrast, in civil law jurisdictions (the legal tradition that prevails,  or is combined with common law, in Europe and most non-Islamic,  non-common law countries), courts lack authority to act where there is  no statute, and judicial precedent is given less interpretive weight  (which means that a judge deciding a given case has more freedom to  interpret the text of a statute independently, and less predictably),  and scholarly literature is given more.

_Lex mercatoria_ (from the Latin for "merchant law") is the body of commercial law used by merchants throughout Europe during the medieval period. It evolved similar to English common law  as a system of custom and best practice, which was enforced through a  system of merchant courts along the main trade routes. It functioned as  the international law of commerce.[1] It emphasised contractual freedom and alienability of property, while shunning legal technicalities and deciding cases _ex aequo et bono_.  A distinct feature was the reliance by merchants on a legal system  developed and administered by them. States or local authorities seldom  interfered, and did not interfere a lot in internal domestic trade.

The _lex mercatoria_ was the product of customs and practices  among traders, and could be enforced through the local courts. However,  the merchants needed to solve their disputes rapidly, sometimes on the  hour, with the least costs and by the most efficient means. Public  courts did not provide this. A trial before the courts would delay their  business, and that meant losing money. The _lex mercatoria_ provided quick and effective justice. This was possible through informal proceedings, with liberal procedural rules. The _lex mercatoria_ rendered proportionate judgements over the merchants disputes, in light of "fair price", good commerce, and equity.


 Judges were chosen according to their commercial background and  practical knowledge. Their reputation rested upon their perceived  expertise in merchant trade and their fair-mindedness. Gradually, a  professional judiciary developed through the merchant judges. Their  skills and reputation would however still rely upon practical knowledge  of merchant practice. These characteristics serve as important measures  in the appointment of international commercial arbitrators today.


 The _lex mercatoria_ owed its origin to the fact that the civil  law was not sufficiently responsive to the growing demands of commerce,  as well as to the fact that trade in pre-medieval times was practically  in the hands of those who might be termed cosmopolitan merchants, who  wanted a prompt and effective jurisdiction.




> You mean Ireland had a system of government predating the later system of government.


Call it what you want.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Insurance companies couldn't exist.
> 
> Without a government, without laws, who exists to compell the insurance company to pay out on claims?   What commercial contract would be obeyed without an objective body to enforce them?


A fact often lost on the anarchist crowd.

----------


## Longshot

> With WHAT?  With WHO?  What's the difference between "legal authority" and a lynch mob, in a society without laws, government or police?
> 
> And once they have their own private army...do you think they're going to voluntarily limit themselves to what a bunch of sheeple on a jury says?  Or are they going to USE that army..."proactively"...?
> 
> Why would they pay a claim when there is no government to compel them to abide by the terms?  USE that expensive private army...to see that the claimant has a slightly-fatal "accident."
> 
> By whom?  There's no government, remember?  That means, no prosecutors.
> 
> First, you might well be RUINED if your loss was big enough...your house burned down, say.  Second...what makes you think other companies are going to be any-more eager to pay out when there's no compelling authority to do so?
> ...


I am not describing a society without law or government. I am describing a society in which the initiation of violence is illegal and in which legal disputes between parties are settled by juries.

----------

BleedingHeadKen (06-09-2014)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I am not describing a society without law or government. I am describing a society in which the initiation of violence is illegal and in which legal disputes between parties are settled by juries.


All very nice, but do you have any working examples of such a system?

----------

Devil505 (06-09-2014),Fisher (06-09-2014)

----------


## Devil505

> All very nice, but do you have any working examples of such a system?


I think Longshot got the idea from this book:

----------


## Longshot

> What if the employer and the bank say it's bullshit, they're not doing anything?


You mean what if they said an official legal document is bullshit? I doubt they would do that.




> They're not obligated to, there's no law.


There is law. Remember we are talking about a society with law and government. The only difference is that the law applies equally to all citizens. 




> And what objective measure would they use to determine the value of the rape victim?


There is no objective measure. They would base their award on the severity of the crime and precedent.




> And in what way could one jury be compelled to assess the same value as another?


They could not be compelled, just like now. 




> You don't like really answering the questions for some strange reason.
> 
> In proportion.
> 
> 3 is in proportion to 30, which is in proportion to 300.
> 3 is alsoin proportion to 3000, but not the same proportion as 3 is to 30. 
> 
> Who decides which proportion is just, and in which cases is the ratio of 10 applied, and in which cases are the ratios of 100 or 1000 applied?
> 
> By what objective standard are these awards made, and what is the value of a rape victim, anyway? Is that worth more or less than a dead baby?


There is no objective standard. The jury uses its judgement, the plaintiff's claim of loss, and precedent do determine it's judgement. Like now. 




> If the bady is dead because it's only living relative got drunk and ran it over in the driveway, who sues on the behalf of the child? By who's authority?


I don't see why it could not be legal for any interested party to sue on behalf of the baby.

----------


## Longshot

> What laws exist in anarchy?


I haven't been describing anarchy. I have been describing a society in which the law applies to all equally and in which the law prohibits the initiation of aggression.

----------

BleedingHeadKen (06-09-2014)

----------


## Longshot

> All very nice, but do you have any working examples of such a system?


No. I'm describing how it could be done, not how it has been done.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> No. I'm describing how it could be done, not how it has been done.


Agreed.  IMHO, that's like describing how to built a rocket to Mars without having any evidence of how a rocket would work or having a working "proof of concept" model.  It's not smart to disassemble a present system and build a new system based solely on a pipe dream.

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> Federal taxes are stolen funds if they are used to finance operations outside of those specifically delegated to Congress under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.   All other functions outside of those few are reserved to the States by the Tenth Amendment.
> 
> Examples of outlaw taxes:
> 
> Federal funding of public education.
> Federal student loan guarantees and Pell Grants.
> The Socialist Security Ponzi Scheme.
> The Socialist Security Ponzi Scheme Administration's purchese of 400,000,000 rounds of ammunition.
> Medicaid.
> ...


I think that is whagt I said.

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> Nonsense.
> 
> The "law" as extorted upon the states by unconstitutional actions of congress, is that I MUST wear a seatbelt.
> 
> Which is bullshit.   
> 
> My refusal to wear any such device does not make me a violent person, it makes the fascists commanding such laws to be what they are.


i disagree, the Constitution give you a way to peacefully over turn (get rid) of an unconstitutional law.  The helmet law for bikers was over turned here in Pennsylvania and it was not done by ignoring the law.  If a person disregards the law, because they think it unfair, the potential is there for violence.

----------


## Longshot

> It's not smart to disassemble a present system and build a new system based solely on a pipe dream.


I'd start with repealing laws and eliminating federal and state departments. If we got to the point where we still had taxes but these simply paid for courts, police, and the military, that would be a major accomplishment. If we could go further and eliminate taxes altogether that would be great, but getting to courts, police, and military would be about 99% there anyway.

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> Violence presupposes that there is a victim. In the case of the owner of a shotgun with a barrel that is too short, who is the victim by virtue of his possessing of that weapon?  If there's no victim, or intended victim, then you cannot logically claim that he was anything but peaceful.


Using your logic, I should be able to own any kind of weapon up to and including a missile with a nuclear warhead , because as long as there is not a victim from my ownership or intended victim.

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> And, if my neighbor is selling raw milk, the government has the privilege under the laws it makes to come in thump the heads of the raw milk seller. Or if a hairdresser sets up shop and does not have a cosmetologist license I cannot raid her office, take her things, and slap her with a fine. If I were to try to shut down either operation, it would be assault and battery and possibly theft and kidnapping. This means that agents of the state, and the political class, has privileges that I do not.


The raw milk issue has happened.  An Amish farmer was selling raw milk to customers in Maryland where it was illegal to do so.  He was prosecuted in Pennsylvania because although it is legal to sell raw milk in PA., it is against the law to sell it across state lines.  Now before the government went after that farmer he was given several warnings and he did not heed them.

If you do not have the proper license, the government is not going to take your property, they are going to shut the business down until the owner gets the license.  The powers that be are not as ruthless as you would have people think they are.

----------


## Victory

> I keep hearing angry citizens decrying this creature they refer to as "The Government" as if it's some evil being that descended on earth from the far reaches of the universe.
> 
> Aren't "We the people" the government?
> Don't we hold elections at regular intervals to choose who we want to represent us?
> Don't we all share some responsibility for the laws *WE* write via our elected reps in Congress?
> 
> Yes our system has problems but we have created those problems & it's up to us to find a peaceful way to resolve them.
> (end of today's sermon)
> 
> What do you all think?


This is the Progressives' impression of what government is.  The only thing missing is "Don't we elect people to do what "We the People" want them to do?"  (No.  We should elect them to preserve our freedoms and nothing more.  We've fallen far from that original notion.)   The third question above almost gets there.

But this idea that "as long as we have elections we'll be free" is as dangerous as it is preposterous as it is Progressive.  The second bullet is basically saying, "We have elections, people vote, so we're still free."  But what if you could create the illusion of free elections without actually having free elections?  Here's a better set of questions:


Why does every presidential election over the last several decades seem to be a contest between two Progressives?Why is it that the only possible exception to that rule--Reagan--was immensely popular yet still seemed to fail fiscally and in other area?Why is it that in a complex modern superpower nation of over 300 million people we seem to be forever dissatisfied with our elected representatives?Have the oligopolies of energy, cars, communication, food, technology etc. preserved the impression that their competitors enjoy the same spirit of competition that made the oligarchs themselves billions?Is it a coincidence that the oligarchies of business seem to reflect the oligarchies of government or is there some kind of link between the two?If free enterprise were a reality, wouldn't we beg the government to free us from the burden of choice between hundreds of competitors in favor of just a handful?  Wouldn't we be thanking the government for freeing us from freedom of choice since we just don't have time to sift through hundreds of products and hundreds of candidates?What would it take to create the illusion of freedom of choice without actually advocating or providing freedom of choice?

And a related question. . .


Why do Ds and Rs fight over certain issues but the biggest issues like The Fed, the IMF, World Bank, American adventurism, national debt, border security, and others seem to march forward unaffected by the D or R of a given president in office?

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> No, not doing away with government. Just doing away with taxes.


If you do away with taxes than how is government to be supported?  Do you think that the people who do the work in government are going to do it out of the generosity of their hearts?

----------


## Longshot

> The raw milk issue has happened.  An Amish farmer was selling raw milk to customers in Maryland where it was illegal to do so.  He was prosecuted in Pennsylvania because although it is legal to sell raw milk in PA., it is against the law to sell it across state lines.  Now before the government went after that farmer he was given several warnings and he did not heed them.
> 
> If you do not have the proper license, the government is not going to take your property, they are going to shut the business down until the owner gets the license.  The powers that be are not as ruthless as you would have people think they are.


Repealing license laws would be a step in the right direction, towards liberty.

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> Yes, that would be another example of how certain people can initiate violence against others because they possess a particular object. If we were all equal under the law, no person would have the right to do anything that the rest of us could not do. You and I don't have a right to forbid our neighbor, under pain of punishment, from possessing any particular object.


So than you are for civilian ownership of full automatic weapons without a background check, it is ok with you that a person own a nuclear weapon, because you have no right to forbid your neighbor from possessing any particular object?

----------

Devil505 (06-09-2014)

----------


## Longshot

> If you do away with taxes than how is government to be supported?  Do you think that the people who do the work in government are going to do it out of the generosity of their hearts?


I'd like to see people governing themselves without resorting to taxes. Can that be done? I think so, but many say it's impossible. I'd start by repealing laws and eliminating departments until we were down to courts, police, and the military. That would be a huge step in the right direction.

----------

Victory (06-09-2014)

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> False. A person who owns or sells an illegal product is still acting peacefully. He is victimizing no one.


If he is doing something illegal he is victimizing the person he is selling to because he does not know if that person has an allergy to the illegal substance that might place his customer's life in jeopardy.

----------


## Longshot

> So than you are for civilian ownership of full automatic weapons without a background check, it is ok with you that a person own a nuclear weapon, because you have no right to forbid your neighbor from possessing any particular object?


Yeah, pretty much.

----------


## Longshot

> If he is doing something illegal he is victimizing the person he is selling to because he does not know if that person has an allergy to the illegal substance that might place his customer's life in jeopardy.


You could say the same about any legal seller as well. A grocer doesn't know whether his customer has a peanut allergy that would place the customer's life in jeopardy. He is not victimizing anyone by selling peanuts.

----------

Invayne (06-09-2014)

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> I'd like to see people governing themselves without resorting to taxes. Can that be done? I think so, but many say it's impossible. I'd start by repealing laws and eliminating departments until we were down to courts, police, and the military. That would be a huge step in the right direction.


You still need the taxes to support that.  It is either that or we revert to the way it was Europeans first started coming to this continent, you and you tribe have you territory and you defend it against all interlopers.

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> Repealing license laws would be a step in the right direction, towards liberty.


How do licensing laws take away your liberty?

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> How do licensing laws take away your liberty?


It intrudes on their freedom to pirate movies, tv shows, music and books so they don't have to pay for them.

----------

JustPassinThru (06-09-2014),Old Ridge Runner (06-09-2014)

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> You could say the same about any legal seller as well. A grocer doesn't know whether his customer has a peanut allergy that would place the customer's life in jeopardy. He is not victimizing anyone by selling peanuts.


The grocers customer knows that they are or their children are allergic to peanuts.  The customer of a person selling an illegal substance deos not know what the seller has put into his product other than what the seller says he did.

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> Yeah, pretty much.


Well I will say this, with the exception of a nuclear weapon I am 100% with you.

----------


## Longshot

> You still need the taxes to support that.  It is either that or we revert to the way it was Europeans first started coming to this continent, you and you tribe have you territory and you defend it against all interlopers.


Yeah, as I said, I'd start by eliminating everything and pare it down to the courts, police, and military. If we could eventually eliminate taxes altogether, that would be great.

----------


## Longshot

> How do licensing laws take away your liberty?


It prevents you from doing what you would otherwise be free to do.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Yeah, as I said, I'd start by eliminating everything and pare it down to the courts, police, and military. If we could eventually eliminate taxes altogether, that would be great.


How do you plan on funding "the courts, police, and military" without taxes?  Donations?

----------


## Longshot

> The grocers customer knows that they are or their children are allergic to peanuts.  The customer of a person selling an illegal substance deos not know what the seller has put into his product other than what the seller says he did.


The grocer's customers don't know what he has put in or on the peanuts either, other than what the grocer says he did.

----------


## Longshot

> How do you plan on funding "the courts, police, and military" without taxes?  Donations?


I said I'd start by repealing laws and eliminating departments until all that we were paying taxes for would be the courts, police, and military. I personally think we could go further and figure out a way to completely eliminate taxes, but getting to the point where we only have tax funded courts, police, and military would be a huge step in the right direction.

----------

Invayne (06-09-2014),Victory (06-09-2014)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I said I'd start by repealing laws and eliminating departments until all that we were paying taxes for would be the courts, police, and military. I personally think we could go further and figure out a way to completely eliminate taxes, but getting to the point where we only have tax funded courts, police, and military would be a huge step in the right direction.


Certainly eliminating schools, assistance to the poor, infrastructure such as bridges and roads, groups like the CDC and the Department of Health would all cut down on taxes.  Still, you should consider the cost of staffing a police force and a military defense force before tearing it all down.

----------


## Longshot

> Certainly eliminating schools, assistance to the poor, infrastructure such as bridges and roads, groups like the CDC and the Department of Health would all cut down on taxes.  Still, you should consider the cost of staffing a police force and a military defense force before tearing it all down.


As I said, while I would like it if we could eliminate taxes altogether, I think only collecting taxes to support courts, police, and military would be a huge step in the right direction.  I wouldn't propose any law that eliminated the things you listed. I would just not have those businesses run by the government.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> As I said, while I would like it if we could eliminate taxes altogether, I think only collecting taxes to support courts, police, and military would be a huge step in the right direction.*  I wouldn't propose any law that eliminated the things you listed.* I would just not have those businesses run by the government.


Dude, if there is no money to support such programs, they won't exist.  Same goes for the military, police, etc.  While I certainly believe we can cut taxes by reducing programs, including reducing the amount of assistance given to schools, the poor and the unemployed, I fail to see how they can be eliminated completely.

----------


## Longshot

> Dude, if there is no money to support such programs, they won't exist.


Schools, roads, and charitable organizations can and would exist if the government didn't provide them.

----------


## Devil505

> Yeah, pretty much.





> It prevents you from doing what you would otherwise be free to do.


Sounds like Somalia would be the perfect country for you then.

----------


## Victory

> I said I'd start by repealing laws and eliminating departments until *all that we were paying taxes for would be the courts, police, and military.* I personally think we could go further and figure out a way to completely eliminate taxes, but getting to the point where we only have tax funded courts, police, and military would be a huge step in the right direction.


If we did that, we could certainly repeal the 16th Amendment and end the Progressive Income Tax.  I think whatever the FEDERAL government needs in terms of revenue once the unconstitutional programs from the NSA to the FDA, USDA, NASA, SS, Medicare, and Medicaid are terminated an external national sales tax would be more than adequate, very visible, and ultimately fair.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> The _lex mercatoria_ owed its origin to the fact that the civil  law was not sufficiently responsive to the growing demands of commerce,  as well as to the fact that trade in pre-medieval times was practically  in the hands of those who might be termed cosmopolitan merchants, who  wanted a prompt and effective jurisdiction.


Civil law is still unresponsive, and very expensive. However, leviathan government will brook no competition, and the progressives believe that any system of arbitration not controlled and licensed by the state is evil.

----------

Longshot (06-09-2014)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Schools, roads, and charitable organizations can and would exist if the government didn't provide them.


You might want to read up on your history.  Sure, some semblance of some schools would exist, mostly parochial schools, seminaries and convents and such.

Roads?  Mostly dirt, gravel.  A big business owner such as a logger or oil field might build one down to the river, but who's going to pay for an Interstate highway system or a transcontinental railroad? 

Obviously charitable organizations would exist.  Haven't you ever read the history of the Catholic church in Europe or the Muslims in North Africa/Middle East?

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> How am I going to extract that payment?  What if they refuse or want to fight?  Will the court (which you still haven't explained how they will be paid) issue a strongly worded letter in my behalf?


How would you do it today? Usually with a lien on real property and hiring a collection agency to get it by other means.

----------

Longshot (06-09-2014)

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Why do the dreamers dream but cannot lift one finger to actually make a change to reality?


Probably because some regulation would prevent them from doing so or punish them for being successful. 




> You ask questions and offer idealistic thoughts, but fail to say how this would be accomplished nor do you present any evidence on how these dreams and fantasies can be brought to reality.


Since I do not have a solution to every perceivable problem, your default is to rely on government, and it's police powers, for the solution. Then, when you get a leviathan that takes over everything, you complain that it's doing too much, or spending too much, or intrudes too deeply into your life. Next time I see you complain about something government does, I expect you to have a easily digestible, no more than 3-point solution to the problem. 

If government were the sole provider of shoes and suddenly stopped making them you'd complain that we libertarians want you to go barefoot since we don't have an immediate plan to create Nike Airs.

Humanity is infinitely creative and brings that creativity to the market, where consumers determine what works best for them, and the best rises to the top. Government stifles creativity and favors bureaucracy far more than it does innovation, yet you would rely on government rather than human ingenuity to solve problems Perhaps because it's "safe" or has a historical precedent.




> One thing you are good at is avoiding answering the question of historical examples of functional anarchism.  You and I both know you have to be because no examples exist.


That's a red herring. Why does there need to be historical examples for something in order for it to work? There's no historical example of a war on drugs, yet most here are fully behind the one we have today. There was no historical example of a classless society with a republican form of government, yet, somehow, some people managed to implement one and run it reasonably well for a while.  Prior to the scientific method, there was no historical example of a system for examining nature, yet it turned out to be a pretty good system, don't you think?

And, anyway, the question I posed, which you have avoided answering, is what makes the state legitimate? So far, your answers run the gamut of an appeal to history, an appeal to the bandwagon, and an appeal to the consequences of the belief. No logic, just fallacies.

----------

Longshot (06-09-2014)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Probably because some regulation would prevent them from doing so or punish them for being successful.


That's an excuse and you should know better.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> What OBJECTIVE STANDARDS are ENFORCED in your anarchy fantasyland?


Considering that you believe that a document contains magical powers (was it in the ink?) to determine what is or is not theft, I wouldn't expect much objectivity from you.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Just because you cannot draw a logical structure from the foundation of individual sovereignity does not imply that anarchy is the ideal society.


Finally, I get what you are saying. If you believe that something is ideal for society, then it is moral and good. Since you think a document which magically transforms theft into non-theft is ideal for society, then it objectively good. The problem with your sort of thinking is that many believe that their views are ideal for society, thus Obamacare is moral and good to the liberal progressive and  war-to-instill-democracy is moral and good to the conservative progressive. The Nazi's believed that an ideal society was one free of Jews and other undesirables. Since you believe that morality is determined by what one deems to be an "ideal society", then you can't call the Nazi's immoral; you can only objectively claim that their idealism does not reflect yours. In the end, for you, only might is right.

What you miss in your little rant is that I've never said that "anarchy" is the ideal society.

Never. Not once.

Non-aggression against peaceful people is the only moral proposition. If it's right to aggress against peaceful people in order to get what you want, then it's right for anyone else to get what they want. There is no objective level of violence against peaceful people that is morally allowable. Everyone's idea of an ideal society is different, and mine certainly isn't what I'd expect to get in a society in which the individual is entirely free from an legal infringements on his natural rights. But I'm not after my ideal society, I'm after one in which the individual is free. It's up to me to surround myself with the sort of people that make life ideal, just as it's up to me to obtain wealth by earning, saving and investing. 

Like most statists, you want government to create your ideal for you.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Logic has a WONDERFUL ASSISTANT, without which logic is nothing but empty words.
> 
> Welcome to REALITY, Logic's best friend.  Your ignorance of history will not make anarchy work any differently than the last ten thousand times it's been tried.


I have asked you to define what makes law legitimate. failing to do so, you rely on multiple fallacies in order to pretend as if your case is proven. Like so many others, you rely on appeal to authority (the authors of the Constitution, apparently, define morality by scribbles on paper), or appeal to consequences of belief (it's not reality and what you believe means people might get hurt!)  and appeal to bandwagon (nobody else is doing it!). 

So, yes, logic and reason are wonderful things. You should try them some time. The reality is that you really don't know how.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Using your logic, I should be able to own any kind of weapon up to and including a missile with a nuclear warhead , because as long as there is not a victim from my ownership or intended victim.


Well, how would we go about determining what is safe or not to own?

Let's start with the proposition that it's wrong to initiate aggression. Is this something that you are in favor of, or do you believe that it's sometimes right to initiate aggression in order to get your agenda fulfilled? If you believe the latter, I'd invite you to tell us when it's right or wrong to initiate aggression, perhaps a simple principle by which we can determine this right or wrong. It could even be "government says so, so that's the way it is" which is the principle of "might is right." If the NAP is your thing, then we can work on what a person can do in society without legal restraint.

Can a person own a handgun or a shotgun or a long rifle without initiating aggression against others? I think he certainly can. If you don't think so, explain why. However, the mere possession of these things does not constitute a threat against others. Pointing them at others would be a different story.

Similarly, possessing a tank, or, say, a stinger missile would be the same. Either of these things can be possessed without threat to anyone else.

A nuclear warhead? I propose that would be a different matter. Since a nuclear warhead cannot be aimed. The use of it *will* destroy property and lives of people who are of no threat to you, thus it cannot be used in self-defense. To even own such a thing would be an imminent threat to neighbors because it could never be used without become a threat. It would, in essence, be like pointing a gun at everyone within a range of several miles, or even hundreds of miles.  Therefore, if someone in my vicinity were in possession of a nuclear warhead, I would consider that person a threat and it would be within my rights and the rights of everyone else nearby to put a stop to that possession, and I believe it would hold up in a court.

Now here's a question for you: if we all are equal under the law, why can the government own these things and not private individuals?

----------

Longshot (06-09-2014)

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> The raw milk issue has happened.  An Amish farmer was selling raw milk to customers in Maryland where it was illegal to do so.  He was prosecuted in Pennsylvania because although it is legal to sell raw milk in PA., it is against the law to sell it across state lines.  Now before the government went after that farmer he was given several warnings and he did not heed them.


He did nothing wrong, so perhaps he didn't feel the need to heed them. Maybe he wanted to provoke the government into doing wrong. Which is exactly what happened. He was wronged.




> If you do not have the proper license, the government is not going to take your property, they are going to shut the business down until the owner gets the license.  The powers that be are not as ruthless as you would have people think they are.


You mean an armed raid on a peaceful farmer is not ruthless? Sure, it may not be as ruthless as killing him, or locking him up and shooting his family, but it's still ruthless. Particularly because he committed no crime.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> I'd like to see people governing themselves without resorting to taxes. Can that be done? I think so, but many say it's impossible. I'd start by repealing laws and eliminating departments until we were down to courts, police, and the military. That would be a huge step in the right direction.


Bake sales, alumni associations, and fundraising dinners. Really, most security services should be private; all that's needed is a bailiff and a few assistance, and a few courts to ensure that rights are not aggressed against in private courts. Well, and courts to try government violators of government rules. 

Harry Browne believed that a 3% tariff across the board on imported goods would be enough to fund a Constitutional Federal Government. While I don't believe that a) that such a government is entirely in keeping with the NAP and b) that we'll ever see such a thing again merely by wishing for it as many conservatives believe, I surely wouldn't complain if that's all that we had.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Bake sales, alumni associations, and fundraising dinners. Really,* most security services should be private*;


I'm positive that's exactly how an anarchy would turn out; "private security services".  Except back in the day we called them "private armies".  They'd annex all the territories within their reach and, upon encountering an opposing army have a "meeting of the minds"; either a truce, alliance or war.  It'd be much like a feudal state.

----------

Sled Dog (06-10-2014)

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> You might want to read up on your history.  Sure, some semblance of some schools would exist, mostly parochial schools, seminaries and convents and such.


So you have read up on the history of government-run public education? Then, surely, you must be able to point some evidence that the government-run system exists because of a lack of resources. There were many people who were advocating for government schooling in the 19th century, and yet I have not found a single one who said that the poor and rising middle class could not adequately educate their children. But, as you say, you are read up on your history, so you must know of some sources where I could find those arguments.

Oh, and contrary to what you say, there were a lot of schools popping up in the early 19th century, and literacy was rapidly rising.




> Roads?  Mostly dirt, gravel.  A big business owner such as a logger or oil field might build one down to the river, but who's going to pay for an Interstate highway system or a transcontinental railroad?


You think such a thing is not profitable?

It's interesting, though, that you mention interstate highway systems. They are lovely things, but have you ever considered the cost of them to the environment and to communities? A company like Walmart could not exist to nearly the scale that it is today without the enormous subsidy provided by the interstate highway system. You pay the taxes, and they get to centralize the system, thus producing goods outside the country and storing them far away from where they are finally sold. Outsourcing and centralizing operations far from the consumers who buy goods is the result of the interstate highway system.

Anyway, the interstate highway system is entirely maintained by user fees. Part of that is gas taxes. So why couldn't private organizations fund them through user fees? Are companies not as smart as the government? If anything, the highways might become safer. If a company allowed as many customers to be killed on their property as government allows to be killed on its highways, the public would be in an uproar.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> I'm positive that's exactly how an anarchy would turn out; "private security services".  Except back in the day we called them "private armies".


Back in what day?

And, is a private army really worse than a government army? At least with the former, one has an opportunity to pitch in for defense; against the latter, one always faces the real possibility that what one likes will be turned into a crime and thus a matter for the government security "army" to put one in a cage.




> They'd annex all the territories within their reach and, upon encountering an opposing army have a "meeting of the minds"; either a truce, alliance or war.  It'd be much like a feudal state.


Have you ever tried to annex a territory? You make it sound so easy. A feudal state is one in which the serf owes his life and his privileges to his master; much like the state you believe cares for you today.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Back in what day?
> 
> And, is a private army really worse than a government army?


Read more history and you'll find out.

The short answer is that a "government" army swears loyalty to the country.  I and all other veterans swore to no man, but to the Constitution of the United States.

A private army swears loyalty to a man, or at least a pay check.  They're mercenaries.  Killers and enforcers for hire.

http://www.military.com/join-armed-f...y-service.html
_"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the _____ (Military Branch) of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."_

----------

Devil505 (06-09-2014),usfan (06-09-2014)

----------


## Longshot

> You might want to read up on your history.  Sure, some semblance of some schools would exist, mostly parochial schools, seminaries and convents and such.


Yes, I agree. Schools would exist. That seems a no-brainer. 




> Roads?  Mostly dirt, gravel.  A big business owner such as a logger or oil field might build one down to the river, but who's going to pay for an Interstate highway system or a transcontinental railroad?


Customers who want to use them. 




> Obviously charitable organizations would exist.  Haven't you ever read the history of the Catholic church in Europe or the Muslims in North Africa/Middle East?


I agree that charitable organizations would exist.

----------


## Sheldonna

> I haven't been describing anarchy. I have been describing a society in which the law applies to all equally and *in which the law prohibits the initiation of aggression*.


And if there are no other witnesses, how do you prove which person "initiated" the aggression....and ergo, which one broke the law (first)?  

The Zimmerman trial was a prime example of that principle.  No witnesses to the "initial" argument or words that began the physical altercation.  Only a witness to Trayvon being on top of Zimmerman beating him senseless after the verbal altercation.  It's always going to be one person's word over another unless there are witnesses....and even then sometimes the political correctness of the crime could trump any "presumed innocence".

----------


## Devil505

> Read more history and you'll find out.
> 
> The short answer is that a "government" army swears loyalty to the country.  I and all other veterans swore to no man, but to the Constitution of the United States.
> 
> A private army swears loyalty to a man, or at least a pay check.  They're mercenaries.  Killers and enforcers for hire.
> 
> http://www.military.com/join-armed-f...y-service.html
> _"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the _____ (Military Branch) of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."_


Pretty much the same oath federal agents swear to when they get their commission.

----------


## JustPassinThru

American armed servicemen swear allegiance to the UNITED STATES and to the CONSTITUTION - not to a king, warlord, paymaster or corporation that's hiring them.

Of course, the Left is trying to change that - with a covertly-funded OFA army with allegiance to 0bombah.

----------

Sled Dog (06-09-2014)

----------


## Sled Dog

> Since you're so new to this, and haven't yet learned the basics, you should start with wikipedia.


Let's cut to the chase, since you're so new to reality.

Name a nation that had no government that didn't dissolve into civil war and minimal personal liberty in less than a year.

----------


## Sled Dog

> I am not describing a society without law or government.


Sure you are.




> I am describing a society in which the initiation of violence is illegal and in which legal disputes between parties are settled by juries.


You haven't described where these imaginary juries draw their authority.

You haven't described how those rulings are enforced.

You haven't described how and to whom the victim of these juries may appeal the ruling.

You haven't described how the appellate system derives power superior to the jury in the first place.

You haven't done squat to make any sense.

It's about time you started working on that.

----------


## Sled Dog

> You mean what if they said an official legal document is bullshit? I doubt they would do that.


What official signed it.

What does the word "official" mean, how is it "official" in your example?




> There is law. Remember we are talking about a society with law and government. The only difference is that the law applies equally to all citizens.


No, we're not.  We're talking about whatever anarchy-land it is you have devised, and you've stated nothing about law and, since it's anarchy-land, there is no government.




> There is no objective measure. They would base their award on the severity of the crime and precedent.


Precedent is an objective measure...IF AND ONLY IF it's regulated by law.

How does a collection of random volunteer "jurors" know what the objective standards are, since the definition of such requires special training.




> They could not be compelled, just like now.


Meaning, of course, the so-called jury's verdict means nothing.




> There is no objective standard. The jury uses its judgement, the plaintiff's claim of loss, and precedent do determine it's judgement. Like now.


Just like now where?  Not in the US, where, for example, the traffic code is pretty much evenly applied across a state, because the state has...umm....LAW.




> I don't see why it could not be legal for any interested party to sue on behalf of the baby.


The word "interested" has specific legal meaning.   The situation I established eliminated all interested parties except the culprit.

Looks like correction your ignorance of the law should be your first goal before attempting to establish Anarchy-Land, or you're going to be in for a BIG surprise.

----------


## Sled Dog

> I haven't been describing anarchy. I have been describing a society in which the law applies to all equally and in which the law prohibits the initiation of aggression.


No you haven't, since you've steadfastly refused to answer any questions regarding the actual functioning of the system.

"Jury-fairies" aren't cutting it.

----------


## Sled Dog

> i disagree, the Constitution give you a way to peacefully over turn (get rid) of an unconstitutional law. The helmet law for bikers was over turned here in Pennsylvania and it was not done by ignoring the law. If a person disregards the law, because they think it unfair, the potential is there for violence.


The potential is there for the STATE to commit violence.

Do try to be precise.

The citizen is under ZERO obligation to obey a law that infringes on his liberty but does nothing to protect the liberty of others.

Seat belt laws, bicycle and motorcycle helmet laws, drug laws, prostitution laws and other  ObamaCare-like laws are all examples of libertary violating busybody laws.

----------

Invayne (06-10-2014)

----------


## Sled Dog

> The raw milk issue has happened. An Amish farmer was selling raw milk to customers in Maryland where it was illegal to do so. He was prosecuted in Pennsylvania because although it is legal to sell raw milk in PA., it is against the law to sell it across state lines. Now before the government went after that farmer he was given several warnings and he did not heed them.
> 
> If you do not have the proper license, the government is not going to take your property, they are going to shut the business down until the owner gets the license. The powers that be are not as ruthless as you would have people think they are.


Refresh the public memory.

Did the Amish farmer transport the raw milk across state lines, or did the Marylander purchase the product in PA and transport his property home himself?

The seller is not responsible for the origin of the customer. If the sale was inside PA, then the invocation of the Commerce Clase was illegal and unconstitutional, since interstate commerce did not occur, since the "trade" (money for milk) happened inside the boundary of a single state.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Why does every presidential election over the last several decades seem to be a contest between two Progressives?


Because the medea and the Establish (Rodents and RINOs) collude to prevent the election of another American, and have done so ever since they made what they all believe is a horrible mistake with Reagan.




> Why is it that the only possible exception to that rule--Reagan--was immensely popular yet still seemed to fail fiscally and in other area?


Because Reagan didn't "fail fiscally".  Your use of the word "seemed" is accurate, the "failure" didn't happen.  For money spent, we got the destruction of the Liberal Heaven, the USSR.   No nation ever did such a thing cheaper.

The cause of the appaernt "failure" was in Rodent Tip O'Neill, Drunkard, who bargained to cut unconstitutional socialist programs two dollars for ever dollar in taxes cut.  Because he was a Rodent, he was also a liar, and domestic unconstituitonal spending rose for no reason at all, since the economy under Reagan was eventually creating a million jobs a month.

Real jobs.  In a process that didn't end until the Rodents forced the Crash of '08 on the nation.




> Why is it that in a complex modern superpower nation of over 300 million people we seem to be forever dissatisfied with our elected representatives?


Rodent infestations in government, public schools, news medea, the air itself.




> Have the oligopolies of energy, cars, communication, food, technology etc. preserved the impression that their competitors enjoy the same spirit of competition that made the oligarchs themselves billions?


Who knows?   Can't figure out what the hell that question means.




> is it a coincidence that the oligarchies of business seem to reflect the oligarchies of government or is there some kind of link between the two?


Perhaps if you learned to use "oligarchy" correctly in sentences people could figure out what you're asking?

Are you saying to the aristocrats and elites always seek to use the mindless masses to undermine a republic that limits them?

The answer is yes.

This is what happens when the sodden masses decide to give the government power it's not authorized to have to fix problems that don't exist.   What did those stupid people think was going to happen when they gave government the unconstitutional power to regulate and control businesses?   Naturally their victims were going to say "thank you" and finish the job the stupid people started of corrupting the government and take it away from them.

And now they're complaining either that the big government they wanted is taking their freedoms away, or they're complaining they still have too much freedom.   Stupid people.

Big surprise there...for everyone too lazy to pay attention to history, anyway.




> If free enterprise were a reality, wouldn't we beg the government to free us from the burden of choice between hundreds of competitors in favor of just a handful?


That's what those people did who were all upset at a little profit.   Coercive monopolies only exist with coercive governments.

That's why you NOW write "if free enterprise were a reality"....because it was once a reality, when we had a weaker government.

----------


## Sled Dog

> So than you are for civilian ownership of full automatic weapons without a background check, it is ok with you that a person own a nuclear weapon, because you have no right to forbid your neighbor from possessing any particular object?


Can you explain why it is that people who do not understand the Constitution and sit in wilful ignorance the Second Amendment always manage to pretend fully automatic weapons are the equivalent of thermo-nuclear weapons?

We Americans would be grateful if you could explain such a huge mistake.

----------


## Sled Dog

> I'd like to see people governing themselves without resorting to taxes. Can that be done?


No.  Of course not.

Study thermodynamics.  Pay careful attention to the Second Law:   A robot must obey the orders of any human unless doing so would violate the First Law.

....oh....wait a minute... 




> I think so, but many say it's impossible.


It's an amazing thing, but real people need to eat, need to provide home for themselves and their families, need doctors, dentists, manicurists, that kind of thing, and in any government it's real people providing the services of governnance, no matter how minimal.  Because they're real people, they don't thrive well on Universe Juice.

So it won't be done for free.

Real people aren't like that.

If you found real people willing to do it for free, ask yourself what they plan on getting in return.

Why is Hairy "No Discernible Negro Dialect" a multi-millionaire after a lifetime on a Congressthing's/Senator's salary?

----------


## Sled Dog

> It intrudes on their freedom to pirate movies, tv shows, music and books so they don't have to pay for them.


It limits their ability to drive on sidewalks and through the Daley Office Plaza also.

----------

Max Rockatansky (06-10-2014)

----------


## Sled Dog

> Considering that you believe that a document contains magical powers (was it in the ink?) to determine what is or is not theft, I wouldn't expect much objectivity from you.


Your REFUSAL to identify the objective standards in your presumed Anarchy-Fantasy Fairy Land is noted.

Your other comments are regarded properly once their source is considered.   Their source is considered to be incapable of desrcibing the objective basis for his fantasy land and is thus striking out blindly.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Finally, I get what you are saying. If you believe that something is ideal for society, then it is moral and good.


Nope.  Sled Dogs are predators that hunt and eat meat.   Moral and good do not enter their thoughts.  They just pull, since someone else pays them to pull with food.


Nor is a real libertarian excessively obsessed with moral issues, since in almost all cases the moral issue is the issue that maximizes individual liberty without trampling anyone else's.

Naturally, you needed to have that explained to you.

 If you're incapable of accurately stating the position of your betters, stand informed that your betters' capacity of tolerance for your strawman is quite limited and that capacity, having been reached, leads me to stop reading your posts when your rant quota is exceeded.

In other words, you are at the point where if you can't make a coherent point quickly, your post isn't going to be read.

----------


## Sled Dog

> I have asked you to define what makes law legitimate.


You have been answered, repeatedly.

It's your job to read carefully, and, if you've missed the post, to read carefully again.

It's no longer my job to repeat endlessly.

YOU have failed to identify the working architecture of Anarchy Fantasy Fairy Land, and since it's historical fact that no land in anarchy protects human liberty, it' is incumbent upon you to describe how your Anarchy Fantasy Fairy Land would work, just as any scientist would be required to explain how his theory would work once he admits it violates the Second Law.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Now here's a question for you: if we all are equal under the law, why can the government own these things and not private individuals?


Because "we" and "the government" are not co-equal.

You said "we are all equal under the law", the word we refers to PEOPLE, not the legal framework making the law itself with the people's consent.

The people forming the "we" establish a legal framework above the people to perform those tasks individuals are not trusted to do acting independently.

Such as declaring war, providing for the national defense, coining money, and everything else that requires an independent and objective viewpoint.

Semantics....it means things.

----------


## Sled Dog

> Back in what day?


Back in Al Capone's day, for one example.

In Chicago, today, and Detroit, too.




> And, is a private army really worse than a government army?


Hmmmmm United States Army under the UCMJ, punishing rogue officers and troops...or al qeada kidnapping girls in Africa...

....no, I really can't see any difference between the two...can you?

Well, actually, I can.   Why can't you?




> At least with the former, one has an opportunity to pitch in for defense; against the latter, one always faces the real possibility that what one likes will be turned into a crime and thus a matter for the government security "army" to put one in a cage.


So you really do prefer al qeada to the United States military.




> Have you ever tried to annex a territory? You make it sound so easy. A feudal state is one in which the serf owes his life and his privileges to his master; much like the state you believe cares for you today.


And you don't want to admit how it is a feudal state comes into being.

Max understands.

----------

Max Rockatansky (06-10-2014)

----------


## Sled Dog

> Pretty much the same oath federal agents swear to when they get their commission.


But DEA Agents start out immediately violating the Constitution, from the very first day.

----------


## Devil505

> But DEA Agents start out immediately violating the Constitution, from the very first day.


Total BS as usual from you.
Slashing & burning is not debating......it's no more than a temper tantrum.

Here's what I hear with each of your posts:

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> It prevents you from doing what you would otherwise be free to do.


It guarantees that the people doing the work has the knowledge to do that work.  When I worked for NASA, I had to take a certification test every year to certify that I had the knowledge and the skills needed to do the job that I was doing, what is the difference.?

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> The grocer's customers don't know what he has put in or on the peanuts either, other than what the grocer says he did.


The peanut butter is labeled by law, the grocer and the customer don't have to worry about what is in the peanut butter or any other packages product that the grocer sells.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> It limits their ability to drive on sidewalks and through the Daley Office Plaza also.


Agreed.

----------

usfan (06-10-2014)

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> Well, how would we go about determining what is safe or not to own?
> 
> Let's start with the proposition that it's wrong to initiate aggression. Is this something that you are in favor of, or do you believe that it's sometimes right to initiate aggression in order to get your agenda fulfilled? If you believe the latter, I'd invite you to tell us when it's right or wrong to initiate aggression, perhaps a simple principle by which we can determine this right or wrong. It could even be "government says so, so that's the way it is" which is the principle of "might is right." If the NAP is your thing, then we can work on what a person can do in society without legal restraint.
> 
> Can a person own a handgun or a shotgun or a long rifle without initiating aggression against others? I think he certainly can. If you don't think so, explain why. However, the mere possession of these things does not constitute a threat against others. Pointing them at others would be a different story.
> 
> Similarly, possessing a tank, or, say, a stinger missile would be the same. Either of these things can be possessed without threat to anyone else.
> 
> A nuclear warhead? I propose that would be a different matter. Since a nuclear warhead cannot be aimed. The use of it *will* destroy property and lives of people who are of no threat to you, thus it cannot be used in self-defense. To even own such a thing would be an imminent threat to neighbors because it could never be used without become a threat. It would, in essence, be like pointing a gun at everyone within a range of several miles, or even hundreds of miles.  Therefore, if someone in my vicinity were in possession of a nuclear warhead, I would consider that person a threat and it would be within my rights and the rights of everyone else nearby to put a stop to that possession, and I believe it would hold up in a court.
> ...


A nuclear warhead can't be aimed, if they can not be aimed than how can we target several cities at one time with a missile that has multiple warheads on them?  A tank, stinger missile and even an assault weapon can destroy a house and kill people within.  In fact all of the weapons that have been mentioned can be used to kill and destroy, and who is to say who is or is not a threat to me, is it me, you, who?  So you would consider a person with a nuclear weapon, even though that person has never exhibited a threat to his neighbor a threat just because he owned a nuclear weapon and therefore you would not allow him to possess that weapon.  So you are for limiting things that you feel are a threat, but those things that you want to possess or use are permissible, is that right?

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> He did nothing wrong, so perhaps he didn't feel the need to heed them. Maybe he wanted to provoke the government into doing wrong. Which is exactly what happened. He was wronged.


He did nothing wrong, do you know why they pasteurize milk? Or perhaps he was thinking more of the money he was making over the consequences his customers might suffer.  You don't know the Amish, they don't provoke anyone.  He was not wronged, he could legally sell his product (raw milk) in Pennsylvania.  All he had to do was tell his customers in Maryland that they would have to come to his farm in Pennsylvania to buy the milk.





> You mean an armed raid on a peaceful farmer is not ruthless? Sure, it may not be as ruthless as killing him, or locking him up and shooting his family, but it's still ruthless. Particularly because he committed no crime.


That was wrong, it was a rouge regime run by a rouge president and that could have happened even in the kind of nation you want.  Teh President instead of enforcing the law (which is his prime responsibility) chose to go after a citizen who was not bothering anyone.

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> The potential is there for the STATE to commit violence.
> 
> Do try to be precise.
> 
> The citizen is under ZERO obligation to obey a law that infringes on his liberty but does nothing to protect the liberty of others.
> 
> Seat belt laws, bicycle and motorcycle helmet laws, drug laws, prostitution laws and other  ObamaCare-like laws are all examples of libertary violating busybody laws.


I disagree with the statement that it is potential ofr the STATE to commit violence.  The only way the state is going to do that is if the citizen goes off on a LEO who would stop him for the violation.  I do agree that the laws you mentioned should be repealed, but if you ignore them you ignore them at your own peril.

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> Refresh the public memory.
> 
> Did the Amish farmer transport the raw milk across state lines, or did the Marylander purchase the product in PA and transport his property home himself?
> 
> The seller is not responsible for the origin of the customer. If the sale was inside PA, then the invocation of the Commerce Clase was illegal and unconstitutional, since interstate commerce did not occur, since the "trade" (money for milk) happened inside the boundary of a single state.


The farmer lived close to the Maryland/Pennsylvania line and was delivering the milk to his Maryland customers.

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> Can you explain why it is that people who do not understand the Constitution and sit in wilful ignorance the Second Amendment always manage to pretend fully automatic weapons are the equivalent of thermo-nuclear weapons?
> 
> We Americans would be grateful if you could explain such a huge mistake.


I am for fully automatic weapons owned by private citizens.  I am not for the current background system because it doesn't prevent those from obtaining firearms that should not have them.  As far as those who do not understand the Constitution considering fully automatic weapons the same as a thermo-nuclear weapon, you would have to ask someone on the left.  As far as I am concerned a private citizen should have access to any weapon that the military has without a special permit from the BATFE.

----------

Invayne (06-10-2014),Max Rockatansky (06-10-2014)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I am for fully automatic weapons owned by private citizens.*  I am not for the current background system because it doesn't prevent those from obtaining firearms that should not have them*.....


Agreed.  I don't know all the legal ins and outs, but every time a cop stops a car, they run the license plate.  Given it's clean, the police officer then goes about the issue of why the car was stopped.  If the driver isn't cited, that's it.  AFAIK, no record is kept of the incident.

IMO, a weapons background check should be the same.  If a person is on a list for being ineligible to own a firearm, then that should show up in a database.  If not, then the citizen should be able to purchase their firearm without a record of them having the weapon (i.e. no registration of firearms).  

The database of those who are ineligible should be amendable.  If a person is mentally ill and then successfully treated, their name should be removed.  If they were a criminal on parole and are now off parole, they're Constitutional rights should be returned.

----------


## Maximatic

> And you don't want to admit how it is a feudal state comes into being.
> 
> Max understands.


Is that something you can explain in a logical progression, or is it another one of those burnings in your bosom that only people who have the holy spirit can understand?

----------


## Maximatic

> Agreed.


Anarchists are not the ones who systematically use violence to impose their will on others.

That's you.

----------

BleedingHeadKen (06-10-2014),Longshot (06-11-2014)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Is that something you can explain in a logical progression, or is it another one of those burnings in your bosom that only people who have the holy spirit can understand?


Any person studies history and human psychology can learn these facts.  

Feudal states existed, and still exist, in several parts of the world.  It's a level of civilized development.  

Aren't you curious, @Axiomatic, on why your utopian dream of an anarchist society can't exist beyond a tribal level?  That it only works for small groups which makes it vulnerable to larger groups?  History is replete with examples of small societies being overrun by larger societies.   

One doesn't have to believe in magic or the supernatural to understand these facts.  One simply has to be able to read and have access to a library.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Anarchists are not the ones who systematically use violence to impose their will on others.
> 
> That's you.


Who have I used violence to impose my will upon, @Axiomatic?

----------


## usfan

> Any person studies history and human psychology can learn these facts.  
> Feudal states existed, and still exist, in several parts of the world.  It's a level of civilized development.  
> Aren't you curious, @Axiomatic, on why your utopian dream of an anarchist society can't exist beyond a tribal level?  That it only works for small groups which makes it vulnerable to larger groups?  History is replete with examples of small societies being overrun by larger societies.   
> One doesn't have to believe in magic or the supernatural to understand these facts.  One simply has to be able to read and have access to a library.


Nice nutshell rebuttal of anarchism, rocky.  I get the draw.. peace, harmony, equality.. all those wonderful sentiments & slogans that every revolution uses to justify anarchy!   :Big Grin: 

The whole concept is so anti human.. they do not have a realistic view of humanity.  We don't do that shit.  Peace?  Non aggression?  We're talking humans here, right?  We are warlike, brutal, & animalistic.. a lot more than we like to admit.  The whole reason we have organized ourselves into regional governments is to protect us, collectively, from other brutal, aggressive humans, & their collectives.  The entire history of mankind is one story after another of this aggression.  So they can drone on about some utopian 'non aggression principle', but NO human throughout history has been able to live in that kind of state.  There ALWAYS has to be a deterrence for any society to live in peace.

That is why i see the major flaw at the root of this ideology, & addressed it in the 'new man' thread.  It is an idealistic, unrealistic dream of humanity, that ignores our basic nature.  IF you could change the human animal, you might be able to make us into peaceful, harmonious beings.  But we are predators.  Humans have few natural enemies in the wild, but other humans have always been the most deadly ones.  It is like caribou deciding that they are going to live in peace with the wolves.  They can decide that all they want, or eloquently describe their perfect world, where caribou & wolves live together in peace.  But it won't work, because the wolves are still wolves.  They might nod in agreement, at first, but they will NOT keep the pact, & they will begin to kill & eat the caribou.  So the caribou better use what they have evolved as defense mechanisms for this kind of natural behavior, or they will go extinct.

It is the same with people.  If there are some altruistic humans out there, they are dependent on other more violent defenders to keep their personal peace.  The quakers & amish come to mind.  They cannot live under brutal totalitarian rule, but must flee it.

Some of my wife's ancestors were from the border of germany & france, during the reformation.  They were palatinates, from that region in s. germany.  They were persecuted, along with the french huguenots.  They fled to holland, england, ireland, & eventually, america.  Mostly PA.  They would have preferred to live in peace & harmony, but Louis 14th would not let them.  He didn't care about their peaceful ways or desires.  So they needed the protection & sympathy of reformers who had equally sharp swords, to defend them from religious annihilation.

That is what the history of man is.. one man's or group's aggression toward another.. for whatever reason.  We cannot just 'declare' that nature to be null & void, & say, 'why can't we all just get along?'  There is only one way to live in peace:  Strength.  There is only one solution for human aggression: deterrence.  We can speak softly, but we better carry that big stick.

----------

Max Rockatansky (06-10-2014)

----------


## Maximatic

> Any person studies history and human psychology can learn these facts.  
> Feudal states existed, and still exist, in several parts of the world.  It's a level of civilized development.


Mentioning the names of fields of study and a system of granting land rights does not amount to a logical progression showing how feudal states come into being.




> Aren't you curious, @Axiomatic,  on why your utopian dream of an anarchist society can't exist beyond a  tribal level?  That it only works for small groups which makes it  vulnerable to larger groups?  History is replete with examples of small  societies being overrun by larger societies.


No, but I'm curious as to why you believe it. Do you ever plan to articulate that?

 Smaller societies being, typically, weaker than larger ones does nothing to prove that voluntary societies are limited to any particular scale.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Mentioning the names of fields of study and a system of granting land rights does not amount to a logical progression showing how feudal states come into being.


Correct, but if you think you can obtain the knowledge of several college-level courses in various political states throughout history through a few posts, you are mistaken.

This is just a start:  

http://oyc.yale.edu/history/hist-210

http://12byzantinerulers.com/

http://www.ushistory.org/civ/10c.asp


Our own recent history in the colonizing the Americas is a good example of anarchy evolving into towns, then states and finally part of a nation.  Chaos is at the low end of the scale and people will naturally gravitate toward order since it improves their chances of survival.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Read more history and you'll find out.
> 
> The short answer is that a "government" army swears loyalty to the country.  I and all other veterans swore to no man, but to the Constitution of the United States.


Oh? Was it the Constitution that punished you if you decided that you no longer wanted to serve? 




> A private army swears loyalty to a man, or at least a pay check.  They're mercenaries.  Killers and enforcers for hire.


And which of these two types of groups have killed more people in the past 100 years? The state-run forces which punish those who resist and reward zeal, or those security forces hired to protect life and property?

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Nor is a real libertarian excessively obsessed with moral issues, since in almost all cases the moral issue is the issue that maximizes individual liberty without trampling anyone else's.


That's right. We are concerned with the morality of law. You are concerned with is written in a document. You're a constitutionalist, not a libertarian.

----------

Longshot (06-11-2014)

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Because "we" and "the government" are not co-equal.
> 
> You said "we are all equal under the law", the word we refers to PEOPLE, not the legal framework making the law itself with the people's consent.
> 
> The people forming the "we" establish a legal framework above the people to perform those tasks individuals are not trusted to do acting independently.
> 
> Such as declaring war, providing for the national defense, coining money, and everything else that requires an independent and objective viewpoint.
> 
> Semantics....it means things.


Yes, semantics means a lot. Like the fairy-tale fiction of "We The People" making law or establishing the legal framework which our rulers presume to place over us. It is a fairy-tale in which you so devoutly believe but is which is so obviously absurd.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Back in Al Capone's day, for one example.


Why did Al Capone need an army? Oh yeah, because the government declared some goods, which many people wanted, to be illegal. He had no recourse to use courts, because those were denied to him and others like him in the pursuit of his business. Such ruthless men rise to the top in an environment where the law of contracts can't be pursued any other way. If we look at what happens when the state does not deny the law of contracts nor gets in the way of business pursuits, we find that it is generally peaceful businessmen who create wealth for those all around such as happend with the Lex Mercatoria, and in the early days of the American frontier.

Compare the two armies, Al Capone's and the State's. Which one killed, kidnapped and ruined the lives of more people during that period?

The state and it's laws created Al Capone, so you really argue on behalf of more violence by ruthless men, in the fanciful hope that someday you'll elect just the right people to government to be your rulers.




> And you don't want to admit how it is a feudal state comes into being.


You mean, such as the fall of the Roman empire, a time in which taxes were so high and were multi-generational, such that the people sought the protection of their lords from those taxes? Yes, they became serfs. Government creates feudalism by taxing people into poverty and preventing them from rising again. It's the system you prefer.




> Max understands.


Max is stuck with a schoolboy's view of government and history, though I'd put him at least a grade or three higher than you.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Agreed.



That looks more like the actions of someone you would vote for, in fear of people being free or *gasp* having to assemble resources without the benevolent oversight of a bureaucrat. Freedom-loving libertarians understand the purpose of morality and rules when utilized in wise ways. You mark a box on a ballot and imagine that the winner of the popularity contest then writes wise rules which you follow like a sheep.

----------



----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> A nuclear warhead can't be aimed, if they can not be aimed than how can we target several cities at one time with a missile that has multiple warheads on them?  A tank, stinger missile and even an assault weapon can destroy a house and kill people within.  In fact all of the weapons that have been mentioned can be used to kill and destroy, and who is to say who is or is not a threat to me, is it me, you, who?  So you would consider a person with a nuclear weapon, even though that person has never exhibited a threat to his neighbor a threat just because he owned a nuclear weapon and therefore you would not allow him to possess that weapon.  So you are for limiting things that you feel are a threat, but those things that you want to possess or use are permissible, is that right?


Yes, I would consider him a threat because there is no purpose to own such a thing except either in defense or offense, and neither situation can be used in a manner that does not threaten every single living being, and their property, for hundreds of miles in every direction.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Oh? Was it the Constitution that punished you if you decided that you no longer wanted to serve?


I took an oath.  There are consequences to our actions as all mature adults understand.  No one forced me to take that oath nor to sign a contract of enlistment.  Those contracts aren't for life.  They come in four or more year blocks.  Mine was seven years.  An obligation I took, as the oath states, _freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion._I also swore to_ well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter,_as does everyone else who enters the military.  

For you to say or imply otherwise shows you have no clue about this.  That's to be understood from someone who thinks copyright licensing laws are an infringement of their right to mooch off the work of others.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> He did nothing wrong, do you know why they pasteurize milk? Or perhaps he was thinking more of the money he was making over the consequences his customers might suffer.


His customers were aware of what consequences they might suffer. They were willing buyers, seeking a product they knew to be more risky than what they buy at the supermarket.




> You don't know the Amish, they don't provoke anyone.  He was not wronged, he could legally sell his product (raw milk) in Pennsylvania.  All he had to do was tell his customers in Maryland that they would have to come to his farm in Pennsylvania to buy the milk.


Unlike Sled Dog, I do not worship the Constitution, so I don't hold the Commerce Clause in high regard. The Amish farmer did nothing wrong, as there were no victims of his alleged crime. If there is no victim, there is no crime. 

You might claim it is immoral to sell raw milk, just as others claim that adultery is wrong, or lying is immoral. However, none of those things are crimes (except where lying rises to the level of fraud) and therefore not something for the government to prohibit or punish. The government, nor any other human being, has no right to interfere with the transactions between willing buyers and willing sellers, even if they cross some imaginary line on a map.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Nice nutshell rebuttal of anarchism, rocky.  I get the draw.. peace, harmony, equality.. all those wonderful sentiments & slogans that every revolution uses to justify anarchy!  
> 
> The whole concept is so anti human.. they do not have a realistic view of humanity.  We don't do that shit.  Peace?  Non aggression?  We're talking humans here, right?  We are warlike, brutal, & animalistic.. a lot more than we like to admit.  The whole reason we have organized ourselves into regional governments is to protect us, collectively, from other brutal, aggressive humans, & their collectives.  The entire history of mankind is one story after another of this aggression.  So they can drone on about some utopian 'non aggression principle', but NO human throughout history has been able to live in that kind of state.  There ALWAYS has to be a deterrence for any society to live in peace.


And that's why we need to have an elite privileged class that loves power and has the right to do violence to everyone else! Except, maybe, if we can just vote for the right people we'll get it right some time! Don't blame me! I didn't vote for Obama, I voted for the other guy who would have done exactly the same things but with a different letter by his name!

----------

Invayne (06-10-2014)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> That looks more like the actions of someone you would vote for


Not at all.  OTOH, I have no doubt you'd cheer a fucking asshole like that for "standing up for his rights".

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> I took an oath.  There are consequences to our actions as all mature adults understand.


Despite your snitty little ad hominem, I won't let you off the hook that easy. I asked you, who enforced those consequences? It wasn't the document that ordered you about and claimed jurisdiction over your life for whatever number of years it decided to take from you. 

You swore an oath to the state, and you obeyed it and defended it. Claim all you want that because you let someone else think for you for 7 years that this makes you "mature" and a "man". You were a pawn. You think of the state in worshipful terms, and you act as if it's heretical, blasphemous even, to speak against it.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Not at all.  OTOH, I have no doubt you'd cheer a fucking asshole like that for "standing up for his rights".


Unlike you, I understand what rights are. You believe that they are privileges and orders from the state. Written on paper and magically transformed into morality by the pen of the executive or the chief bureaucrat of some agency.   I get it: to you, anyone who does not want to be ordered about by bureaucrats acting as surrogates for mommy and daddy must not want to follow any rules at all.

----------

Longshot (06-11-2014)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Despite your snitty little ad hominem, I won't let you off the hook that easy.


Your "hook" is as fanciful as your idea anarchism is a viable social solution to billions of human beings.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Unlike you, I understand what rights are. You believe that they are privileges and orders from the state.


Wrong again, but being wrong is becoming as bad a habit for you as smoking meth was for the Millers.

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> Agreed.  I don't know all the legal ins and outs, but every time a cop stops a car, they run the license plate.  Given it's clean, the police officer then goes about the issue of why the car was stopped.  If the driver isn't cited, that's it.  AFAIK, no record is kept of the incident.
> 
> IMO, a weapons background check should be the same.  If a person is on a list for being ineligible to own a firearm, then that should show up in a database.  If not, then the citizen should be able to purchase their firearm without a record of them having the weapon (i.e. no registration of firearms).  
> 
> The database of those who are ineligible should be amendable.  If a person is mentally ill and then *successfully treated*, their name should be removed.  If they were a criminal on parole and are now off parole, they're Constitutional rights should be returned.


What do you mean by successfully treated and what if they relapse?

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> Yes, I would consider him a threat because there is no purpose to own such a thing except either in defense or offense, and neither situation can be used in a manner that does not threaten every single living being, and their property, for hundreds of miles in every direction.


So than you want controls for other people that you consider may be dangerous but you want no restraints on you as long as you are not.  Even though that person you consider may be dangerous has shown no aggression against anyone.

----------

Sheldonna (06-11-2014)

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> His customers were aware of what consequences they might suffer. They were willing buyers, seeking a product they knew to be more risky than what they buy at the supermarket.
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike Sled Dog, I do not worship the Constitution, so I don't hold the Commerce Clause in high regard. The Amish farmer did nothing wrong, as there were no victims of his alleged crime. If there is no victim, there is no crime. 
> 
> You might claim it is immoral to sell raw milk, just as others claim that adultery is wrong, or lying is immoral. However, none of those things are crimes (except where lying rises to the level of fraud) and therefore not something for the government to prohibit or punish. The government, nor any other human being, has no right to interfere with the transactions between willing buyers and willing sellers, even if they cross some imaginary line on a map.


The government doe have the right to interfere if there is a preconceived danger.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> What do you mean by successfully treated and what if they relapse?


It depends on the nature of their condition.  Some are permanent or dependent upon medication. Severe schizophrenia for example.  Some are temporary such as depression brought on by the loss of a spouse or child. 

A team of doctors would have to make the determination and some sort of appeal process must exist.  Something a lot better than the current "No Fly" list.

----------

Old Ridge Runner (06-12-2014)

----------


## usfan

> And that's why we need to have an elite privileged class that loves power and has the right to do violence to everyone else! Except, maybe, if we can just vote for the right people we'll get it right some time! Don't blame me! I didn't vote for Obama, I voted for the other guy who would have done exactly the same things but with a different letter by his name!


Need?  No, we don't' 'need' them, we just always have them.  That is the nature of human beings.  Reviling them does not make them go away.  You won't hurt their feelings, or shame them into being altruistic.  They will still lust for power & try to rule over you.  ONLY the civilized, altruistic, freedom loving people can restrain them, & only with strength & deterrence.

..and yes, 'voting' is the power we need to accomplish this.  It is a much better, more humane way of keeping aggressive power mongers at bay.  Oh, i know we can stage a revolution every few years, drag out the guillotines & purge them every so often, but usually at the cost of many lives.  Better to keep them restrained by the chains of the constitution.

*"All [reforms] can be... [achieved] peaceably by the people confining their choice of Representatives and Senators to persons attached to republican government and the principles of 1776; not office-hunters, but farmers whose interests are entirely agricultural. Such men are the true representatives of the great American interest and are alone to be relied on for expressing the proper American sentiments."  ~Thomas Jefferson

In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution. ~Thomas Jefferson

"He therefore is the truest friend to the liberty of this country who tries most to promote its virtue, and who, so far as his power and influence extend, will not suffer a man to be chosen into any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man." ~Samuel Adams 

"If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." ~Samuel Adams* 

We the people have been lax in out govt.  It is supposed to be us, but WE have let 'vain & aspiring men' possess the highest seats of power.  They have done violence to the constitution, wasted the labors of the people in unconstitutional wars, social engineering programs, foreign aid, & too many immoral, unconstitutional overreaches to mention.

We can descend to anarchy, or allow a state centered, authoritarian system to take over.  But a govt 'of, by, & for' the people needs the people's attention, input, & oversight.  We have not done that, so we deserve what we have gotten.  Anarchy is never a solution.  That is just a lead in for despotism.

The anarchist/libertarians are growing, hoping for an altruistic breed of humans to voluntarily live in harmony with no effort spent on deterrence or protection.  The progressive/socialists are also growing, hoping for an altruistic govt to make everything fair & rosy.  Both of them want to toss aside the ONLY practical system of human governance in the history of mankind that has worked to provide the most freedom, opportunity, & prosperity to the people.  Destroy america & all we have are more statist systems, sometimes benevolently dribbling a few rights to the people, sometimes not.

----------


## Maximatic

> Correct, but if you think you can obtain the knowledge of several college-level courses in various political states throughout history through a few posts, you are mistaken.
> 
> This is just a start:  
> 
> http://oyc.yale.edu/history/hist-210
> 
> http://12byzantinerulers.com/
> 
> http://www.ushistory.org/civ/10c.asp
> ...


All of this is correct, and this




> Our own recent history in the colonizing the Americas is a good example  of anarchy evolving into towns, then states and finally part of a  nation.  Chaos is at the low end of the scale and people will naturally  gravitate toward order since it improves their chances of survival.


is exactly what I've been saying since I joined this forum. Only I don't think the tendency toward certain behavior can be explained in terms of what is ultimately better for people. If it could, we shouldn't see people backing the building of giant welfare/warfare states, guaranteed to collapse under their own weight. What we can know is that people respond to incentives. If, at the time of action, a person had a stronger incentive to do something other than what he did, he would not have done what he did.

We learn, from the settlement of the Americas, that people prefer order to chaos, and that the incentives present in a null state of affairs, to build institutions to preserve order resolve disputes are strong enough to leave us with no knowledge of any states of chaos to speak of.

Despotic governments are more likely, and seem to come first, because they provide something immediate and tangible to satiate the desire for order. A constitutional government, which consists, not of an individual, immediately present, serving as a locus of power, but of an abstraction, a set of laws and rules according to which it must be promulgated, by them, is more difficult. But they did it. And, once people had seen it done, the establishment of new constitutional democracies was that much easier and more likely.

All the voluntarists are proposing is that we take it one step further, and found the society only on an initial set of laws. And, given that the prevailing incentives in a market economy, which is the null state of affairs, are sufficient to affect constructive action, on net, the mechanisms by which that law is enforced will emerge, spontaneously.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> All the voluntarists are proposing is that we take it one step further, and found the society only on an initial set of laws. And, given that the prevailing incentives in a market economy, which is the null state of affairs, are sufficient to affect constructive action, on net, the mechanisms by which that law is enforced will emerge, spontaneously.


"Voluntarists" = Idealists.  A nice thought, but what you are proposing doesn't work because of the variety of people.  Example, there's a reason why 100 is the _average_ IQ.  Unfortunately, many of our rules, laws and other social agreements are due to the lowest common denominator, i.e. the people on the low end of the IQ scale plus a few, like Bernie Madoff and Ken Lay, who are on the higher end.

----------


## Maximatic

> "Voluntarists" = Idealists.  A nice thought, but what you are proposing doesn't work because of the variety of people.  Example, there's a reason why 100 is the _average_ IQ.  Unfortunately, many of our rules, laws and other social agreements are due to the lowest common denominator, i.e. the people on the low end of the IQ scale plus a few, like Bernie Madoff and Ken Lay, who are on the higher end.


You need to flesh that out. I have no idea what you want to say. What does "work" mean? How do stupid people and a couple of smart people prevent it from doing so?

----------


## Swedgin

These guys have it all figured out:

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> You need to flesh that out. I have no idea what you want to say.* What does "work" mean?* How do stupid people and a couple of smart people prevent it from doing so?


Function.  Survive as a viable system.   Like life in general, social systems evolve.  Let's say, miracle of miracles, one day every human being on Earth decides to do it your way.  How long would that last?  How long be a natural disaster, famine or some some upppity assholes forces some people to war on another people.  Who's to stop it?  Not you.  Either distance or inability would prevent you from "their" problem(s). 

Over time, kingdoms or fiefdoms will form and their small armies will take from the weak and kill all those who oppose them.  It's the way of chaos that some will thrive and some will die.

----------


## Longshot

> It guarantees that the people doing the work has the knowledge to do that work.


If you want someone to do work for you, and you want a guarantee that the person doing the work has the necessary knowledge, you can require that he be certified to your liking prior to engaging him to do the work.

----------


## Longshot

> The peanut butter is labeled by law, the grocer and the customer don't have to worry about what is in the peanut butter or any other packages product that the grocer sells.


As long as they believe that the label is accurate.

----------


## Longshot

> Need?  No, we don't' 'need' them, we just always have them.  That is the nature of human beings.


And we just always have rapists and murderers. That doesn't make them desirable or acceptable.

----------


## Maximatic

> Function.  Survive as a viable system.   Like life in general, social systems evolve.  Let's say, miracle of miracles, one day every human being on Earth decides to do it your way.  How long would that last?  How long be a natural disaster, famine or some some upppity assholes forces some people to war on another people.  Who's to stop it?  Not you.  Either distance or inability would prevent you from "their" problem(s). 
> 
> Over time, kingdoms or fiefdoms will form and their small armies will take from the weak and kill all those who oppose them.  It's the way of chaos that some will thrive and some will die.


I guess it would last about a thousand years like it did last time. What's wrong with a fief?

----------


## Maximatic

> If you want someone to do work for you, and you want a guarantee that the person doing the work has the necessary knowledge, you can require that he be certified to your liking prior to engaging him to do the work.


Or you could just check his references, or angieslist, or retain the right to fire him if he turns out to have been lying.

----------

Longshot (06-11-2014)

----------


## Longshot

> Or you could just check his references, or angieslist, or retain the right to fire him if he turns out to have been lying.


Yup. There are many ways in which people could work that problem out without initiating violence.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I guess it would last about a thousand years like it did last time. What's wrong with a fief?


Nothing if you're the one running it.  Not so good for the serfs.

----------


## Longshot

> "Voluntarists" = Idealists.  A nice thought, but what you are proposing doesn't work because of the variety of people.  Example, there's a reason why 100 is the _average_ IQ.  Unfortunately, many of our rules, laws and other social agreements are due to the lowest common denominator, i.e. the people on the low end of the IQ scale plus a few, like Bernie Madoff and Ken Lay, who are on the higher end.


Voluntaryists hold that the initiation of aggression is wrong. Evidently you don't think a society could work without some people initiating aggression against others. So, let's say we were trying to keep the initiation of aggression by the state to the bare minimum. What functions do you consider absolutely essential and indispensable?

----------


## Maximatic

> And we just always have rapists and murderers. That doesn't make them desirable or acceptable.


Slavery, cast systems, institutionalized racial segregation,  compulsory religion...

And then there are the things that just went obsolete, like this:



this:

this:



this:

 

and soon:

----------

Longshot (06-11-2014)

----------


## Longshot

> Slavery, cast systems, institutionalized racial segregation,  compulsory religion...
> 
> And then there are the things that just went obsolete, like this:


But without leeches, who would heal the diseases???

----------



----------


## Maximatic

> Nothing if you're the one running it.  Not so good for the serfs.


I think it would depend on what they agree to.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I think it would depend on what they agree to.


Serfs have little say in the fiefdom.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

People are people.  Human nature hasn't changed much in the last few hundred thousand years.

----------


## Longshot

> People are people.  Human nature hasn't changed much in the last few hundred thousand years.


And what about human nature requires a state with the authority to initiate aggression against the citizen?

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> And what about human nature requires a state with the authority to initiate aggression against the citizen?


Natural human desire to control their environment.

----------


## Longshot

> Natural human desire to control their environment.


So you disagree with the voluntaryists who say that society can organize itself in such a way that no person has the right to violate the body or property of another. So what would you consider to be the absolute minimum government that a society might require? Military? Police? Legal system? Anything else?

----------


## Maximatic

> Serfs have little say in the fiefdom.


They have as much as they negotiate.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> They have as much as they negotiate.


Serfs aren't allowed to negotiate.  They either do as told or will be struck down where they stand.  

The best way to maintain control in such a situation is education such military training and learning to read.  It would be reserved for those in charge.

----------


## usfan

> And we just always have rapists and murderers. That doesn't make them desirable or acceptable.


That is all you got from my post?  I think you missed the point.  You end up defending my point, that aggressive people are not there by our 'need', but because of human nature.  They are not 'desirable or acceptable', but like rapists & murderers, they are there, waiting to take control & rule over you, if you do not have the ability to deter them.

----------


## Longshot

> That is all you got from my post?  I think you missed the point.  You end up defending my point, that aggressive people are not there by our 'need', but because of human nature.  They are not 'desirable or acceptable', but like rapists & murderers, they are there, waiting to take control & rule over you, if you do not have the ability to deter them.


Only liberty loving people can stop these wanna-be tyrants. That is why voluntaryists promote the idea of liberty and the rights to person and property.

----------


## Maximatic

> Serfs aren't allowed to negotiate.  They either do as told or will be struck down where they stand.  
> 
> The best way to maintain control in such a situation is education such military training and learning to read.  It would be reserved for those in charge.


Now you're just describing chattel slavery. Where did that come from? The only reason I didn't prompt you to defend your assertions in the previous post is because a fief is part of a voluntary contract, and, as such, would be legal in a voluntary society. But now you're just blatantly asserting a situation where one person has, by default, absolute power over another.

How do you get from a society where the initiation of force is unlawful, to this?

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Now you're just describing chattel slavery.


In a feudal state, what would the slaves, serfs, peasants do about it?  Write a strongly worded letter of protest?

----------


## Maximatic

> In a feudal state, what would the slaves, serfs, peasants do about it?  Write a strongly worded letter of protest?


Shoot the lord. What is with this persistent assumption of yours that, without the righteous indignation of fiat law, the rich would have _more_ power over the poor than they have with it? And what is with this other persistent assumption of yours that the unruly would have more power than those who want the law to be enforced?

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Shoot the lord. What is with this persistent assumption of yours that, without the righteous indignation of fiat law, the rich would have _more_ power over the poor than they have with it? And what is with this other persistent assumption of yours that the unruly would have more power than those who want the law to be enforced?


If I was "the lord", confiscating all of the guns would be my first act.  

Which is more powerful:  A mob of 100 leaderless, uncoordinated farmers or a well-trained squad (13) of soldiers?

----------


## Maximatic

> If I was "the lord", confiscating all of the guns would be my first act.  
> 
> Which is more powerful:  A mob of 100 leaderless, uncoordinated farmers or a well-trained squad (13) of soldiers?


Whichever party the other million people in society would side with. You still haven't begun to answer those questions.

Why do you assume that, without the righteous indignation of fiat law, the rich would have _more_ power  over the poor than they have with it? 

And why do you assume that the unruly would have more power  than those who want the law to be enforced? 						

By the way, those are at least the third or fourth assertion of yours that  I've asked you to give a defense of. You still haven't defended any of  them, you just keep making more assertions.

It looks to me like you have this strong feeling that you're right about this, but you just can't put your finger on what it is.

----------


## Longshot

> If I was "the lord", confiscating all of the guns would be my first act.  
> 
> Which is more powerful:  A mob of 100 leaderless, uncoordinated farmers or a well-trained squad (13) of soldiers?


Not quite sure what you're advocating here. You are arguing against the voluntaryism, I think. But you also seem to be arguing against the government (the lord).

Why do you claim that voluntaryism cannot "work"? What would a voluntaryist society be unable to do?

----------


## usfan

> Shoot the lord. What is with this persistent assumption of yours that, without the righteous indignation of fiat law, the rich would have _more_ power over the poor than they have with it? And what is with this other persistent assumption of yours that the unruly would have more power than those who want the law to be enforced?


shoot the lord?  Isn't that 'initiation of aggression?'  One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.  the big problem you have is with definitions, dealing with humans.  They can justify anything, & use violence to do it.  Hitler always had justification for all his heinous acts.. it was never his fault, it was the other guy.

Anarchy just won't work.  It never has.  It never will.  It is a lovely concept, with all of us living in peace & harmony, no crime, no aggressive people, no need for govt or taxes, we all share our toys & have all things in common.  It is a fools paradise, & appeals to tender hearted people.  I get that.  But all it does in our current situation is hand over the reins of power to the progressive statists, by default.  You hope for a utopian voluntarist society to rise from the ashes of america, with NO govt, & the progressives hope for a socialist utopia, with a perfect state centered govt to mandate social & economic equality.  The one thing you have in common is the ashes of america.  Both of you need it destroyed, for your utopian paradise to work.  So even though you preach love & non aggression, the end result of your ideology is despotism.. either by socialism, or dictatorship.  The concept of individual liberty, citizen representatives, checks & balances, & separation of powers in a people's govt is gone.. perhaps forever.

----------


## usfan

> Whichever party the other million people in society would side with. You still haven't begun to answer those questions.
> 
> Why do you assume that, without the righteous indignation of fiat law, the rich would have _more_ power  over the poor than they have with it? 
> 
> And why do you assume that the unruly would have more power  than those who want the law to be enforced?                         
> 
> By the way, those are at least the third or fourth assertion of yours that  I've asked you to give a defense of. You still haven't defended any of  them, you just keep making more assertions.
> 
> It looks to me like you have this strong feeling that you're right about this, but you just can't put your finger on what it is.


I can.  I'm sure max can, too.  Your 'million' people will not choose one party.  They never do.  They will pick various factions, & they will all fight each other, initiate aggression, make alliances, jockey for position & power.  All of humanity is not an altruistic lump, longing for peace & harmony.  Together, humans are worse than they are individually.  They form a mob.  They initiate violence, for no reason.  They are irrational, murderous, & selfish.  That is the observable reality of humanity in almost every revolution or overthrow of any despot.  Only in the american system did 'the people' form a rational govt, that took into account the passions & aggressions of men.  It was a balance of power, limited govt, & had little room for vain & aspiring men.. oh they still rose to power, & many have tried over the centuries to build more power, & take the reins of power from the people.  They are doing that, now, & may very well succeed, this time.

_"If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." ~Samuel Adams_

----------

Max Rockatansky (06-12-2014)

----------


## Maximatic

> shoot the lord?  Isn't that 'initiation of aggression?'  One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.  the big problem you have is with definitions, dealing with humans.  They can justify anything, & use violence to do it.  Hitler always had justification for all his heinous acts.. it was never his fault, it was the other guy.
> 
> Anarchy just won't work.  It never has.  It never will.  It is a lovely concept, with all of us living in peace & harmony, no crime, no aggressive people, no need for govt or taxes, we all share our toys & have all things in common.  It is a fools paradise, & appeals to tender hearted people.  I get that.  But all it does in our current situation is hand over the reins of power to the progressive statists, by default.  You hope for a utopian voluntarist society to rise from the ashes of america, with NO govt, & the progressives hope for a socialist utopia, with a perfect state centered govt to mandate social & economic equality.  The one thing you have in common is the ashes of america.  Both of you need it destroyed, for your utopian paradise to work.  So even though you preach love & non aggression, the end result of your ideology is despotism.. either by socialism, or dictatorship.  The concept of individual liberty, citizen representatives, checks & balances, & separation of powers in a people's govt is gone.. perhaps forever.


The lord already threatened their lives.




> Serfs aren't allowed to negotiate.  They  either do as told or will be struck down where they stand.


Maybe, if you guys put your heads together, you can come up with a sound argument leading to the conclusion that at least one of your assertions is true.

----------


## Maximatic

> I can.  I'm sure max can, too.  Your 'million' people will not choose one party.  They never do.  They will pick various factions, & they will all fight each other, initiate aggression, make alliances, jockey for position & power.  All of humanity is not an altruistic lump, longing for peace & harmony.  Together, humans are worse than they are individually.  They form a mob.  They initiate violence, for no reason.  They are irrational, murderous, & selfish.  That is the observable reality of humanity in almost every revolution or overthrow of any despot.  Only in the american system did 'the people' form a rational govt, that took into account the passions & aggressions of men.  It was a balance of power, limited govt, & had little room for vain & aspiring men.. oh they still rose to power, & many have tried over the centuries to build more power, & take the reins of power from the people.  They are doing that, now, & may very well succeed, this time.
> 
> _"If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." ~Samuel Adams_


We rarely see that kind of behavior between groups of people other than states.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Maybe, if you guys put your heads together, you can come up with a sound argument leading to the conclusion that at least one of your assertions is true.


Not necessary.  Reality is all the evidence I need.  You are free to postulate your fantasy world, but unless _you_ can provide evidence it would work, there is not sense in me being sucked into your dreamworld.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I can.  I'm sure max can, too.  Your 'million' people will not choose one party.  They never do.  They will pick various factions, & they will all fight each other, initiate aggression, make alliances, jockey for position & power.  All of humanity is not an altruistic lump, longing for peace & harmony.  Together, humans are worse than they are individually.  They form a mob.  They initiate violence, for no reason.  They are irrational, murderous, & selfish.  That is the observable reality of humanity in almost every revolution or overthrow of any despot.  *Only in the american system did 'the people' form a rational govt, that took into account the passions & aggressions of men.  It was a balance of power, limited govt, & had little room for vain & aspiring men.*. oh they still rose to power, & many have tried over the centuries to build more power, & take the reins of power from the people.  They are doing that, now, & may very well succeed, this time.
> 
> _"If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." ~Samuel Adams_


In some respects, we were lucky.  Not just in winning the revolution, but that our government took the form it did.  Post-revolution societies are often chaotic.  The French and Russian ones being more typical examples.

----------


## Invayne

> All of humanity is not an altruistic lump, longing for peace & harmony.  Together, humans are worse than they are individually.  They form a mob.  They initiate violence, for no reason.  They are irrational, murderous, & selfish.  That is the observable reality of humanity in almost every revolution or overthrow of any despot.








> Only in the american system did 'the people' form a rational govt, that took into account the passions & aggressions of men.  It was a balance of power, limited govt, & had little room for vain & aspiring men.. oh they still rose to power, & many have tried over the centuries to build more power, & take the reins of power from the people.  They are doing that, now, & may very well succeed, this time.


 *“If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not  safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these  organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed  agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they  themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?”*  ―     Frédéric Bastiat,     _ The Law_  




Just sayin....... :Thinking:

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> *“If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not  safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these  organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed  agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they  themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?”*
> 
> 
>   ―     Frédéric Bastiat,     _ The Law_  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just sayin.......


Are you an anarchist too @Invayne?  Equating the US and Britain with the USSR and the PRC isn't a "fair and balanced" argument.

----------


## Maximatic

> Reality is all the evidence I need.


That is a meaningless statement. Can you begin to describe the evidence. Can you just begin to articulate what reality has taught you? Can you give some semblance of an explanation of how that leads you to the conclusion that giving the power to crate law by fiat to flawed people is the only way to protect yourself from them?

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> That is a meaningless statement.


Reality is meaningless to you?  That's a shocker! /sarcasm

I have history, you have a dream.  Yet you expect me to prove to you why your dream won't work.  

Sorry dude, but it's up to you to prove why your dream would work.  Why we should all switch over to this fantastical system you are postulating.

----------


## usfan

> In some respects, we were lucky.  Not just in winning the revolution, but that our government took the form it did.  Post-revolution societies are often chaotic.  The French and Russian ones being more typical examples.


IMO, it was the truly altruistic 'founders' who wanted to make an experiment in self rule that NO ONE thought would work.  Usually revolutions are chaotic, bloody, & destructive, not just to the ruling class in power, but to everyone.

I started a thread about a year ago on this subject.. it was short, but covered some of the history.
http://thepoliticsforums.com/threads...g-from-history

----------

Max Rockatansky (06-12-2014)

----------


## Maximatic



----------

Invayne (06-12-2014)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> 



Nice pictures, but stating that circular arguments are circular does not provide one iota of evidence that your fantasy world can become a reality.

----------


## usfan

> We rarely see that kind of behavior between groups of people other than states.


I don't know what lens you view humanity through.. i ALWAYS see that kind of behavior, from all people in all of history.  It does not matter if they are in govt groups, tribal groups, family groups, or individuals.  Some believe the 'great fiction', others see opportunity for selfish gratification.  But just like america can't work unless there is a majority of assertive, altruistic citizens watching over our freedoms, anarchy will not work, either.  Actually, all america needs is a determined minority.. you will need a vast majority to be altruistic & committed to the nap.  You need a new man.. but you are stuck with the old one.

----------


## usfan

Govt = people  That is the major flaw in the anarchist ideology.  You think govt is some nebulous force that we only need to defeat.  But it is not.  It is us.  We cannot defeat our own nature, but only restrain it with the chains of law.

----------


## usfan

> *If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not  safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these  organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed  agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they  themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?*
> ―     Frédéric Bastiat,     _ The Law_  
> Just sayin.......


No one quotes bastiat around here more than me!   :Headbang:   He's one of my favorite political philosophers.  I have his musings in almost every thread i start, especially anything related to human governance.

There is no conflict with bastiat about human nature.. he recognized it, & saw the 'great fiction' was people wanting govt to provide for them.. they saw govt as a way to live off the labors of others.  That is the typical pattern of govt, that humans take.  It is the question for the ages.. how to keep a few from saying to many, 'you make bread, & we will eat it'.

I see little difference in the base motivations in your chart.  One is a collective venture of basic human nature, the other is an individual one.  Both show the violent, murderous nature of man, & both show the impossibility of the 'non aggression principle.'  Humans ARE aggressive.. that is their nature.

_Men naturally rebel against the injustice of which they are victims. Thus, when plunder is organized by law for the profit of those who make the law, all the plundered classes try somehow to enter -- by peaceful or revolutionary means -- into the making of laws. According to their degree of enlightenment, these plundered classes may propose one of two entirely different purposes when they attempt to attain political power: Either they may wish to stop lawful plunder, or they may wish to share in it. ~Frederic Bastiat_

----------


## Maximatic

> Reality is meaningless to you?  That's a shocker! /sarcasm
> 
> I have history, you have a dream.  Yet you expect me to prove to you why your dream won't work.  
> 
> Sorry dude, but it's up to you to prove why your dream would work.  Why we should all switch over to this fantastical system you are postulating.


No, you're statement, "reality is all the evidence I need", is meaningless to everyone. Another way to word it is "I only need real evidence". It's so completely useless as to be meaningless.

I know you need evidence. That's what I asked you for. Any positive claim carries a burden of proof. Not only are you making a positive claim, you're making  a stronger claim than I am. You're saying that what I propose is impossible. I'm only saying that it, or some variation of it is possible. You're also making predictions about how people would behave under certain circumstances. Those predictions are also contrary to experience. You're saying that, in the kind of society that I propose, people would behave differently than the way we see them behaving in all the other societies we look at, where the overt, trouble making law breakers are the minority. You're saying the overt, trouble making law breakers would be the majority, a situation we've never seen before.

You definitely have a heavy burden of proof. And I have already given defenses of my position. I haven't asked you for anything that I don't require of myself.

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> If you want someone to do work for you, and you want a guarantee that the person doing the work has the necessary knowledge, you can require that he be certified to your liking prior to engaging him to do the work.


And that is what the state does with the licensing of certain businesses, the licensing of the people certifies that they have the knowledge to cut, color, whatever.

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> As long as they believe that the label is accurate.


It the label is not accurate that would be the problem of the manufacturer, not the grocer, unless the grocer is making and sell his own brand.

----------


## Fisher

> You're saying that, in the kind of society that I propose, people would behave differently than the way we see them behaving in all the other societies we look at, where the overt, trouble making law breakers are the minority. You're saying the overt, trouble making law breakers would be the majority, a situation we've never seen before.


That's not what he's saying. He's saying that people will take a mile if you give them an inch and that we have always been that way. He's saying that the overt, trouble making law breakers would not have any checks against them without some sort of collective power exercised against them and that your system lacks that necessary power, not that they would be in the majority.

----------


## Longshot

> That's not what he's saying. He's saying that people will take a mile if you give them an inch and that we have always been that way. He's saying that the overt, trouble making law breakers would not have any checks against them without some sort of collective power exercised against them and that your system lacks that necessary power, not that they would be in the majority.


So the ability to apply collective power to stop those who wish to harm others. That's the one thing voluntarism lacks that makes it unviable? So an almost voluntarist system that had such a collective power would be viable?  Military, courts, police?

----------


## Longshot

> The grocers customer knows that they are or their children are allergic to peanuts.  The customer of a person selling an illegal substance deos not know what the seller has put into his product other than what the seller says he did.


Labeling is not the seller's problem. It's the manufacturer's problem.

----------


## Longshot

> And that is what the state does with the licensing of certain businesses, the licensing of the people certifies that they have the knowledge to cut, color, whatever.


Yes, that's what it's trying to do. But the state doesn't need to do that, so it is an unnecessary initiation of (potential) aggression.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> No, you're statement, "reality is all the evidence I need", is meaningless to everyone. Another way to word it is "I only need real evidence". It's so completely useless as to be meaningless.


Now you're just quibbling like a first year social studies student.  History is real.  The present system of governments around the world are real.  Your dream of an anarchic planet with everyone living in peace and harmony is a fantasy.  Pure fantasy since such a thing not only doesn't exist, it has never existed on a large scale.  

You keep tossing out the "Irish example" and I keep pointing out what happened to them.  What happened to the Native American tribes?  The African tribes?  The South American tribes?  All were taken down by more organized groups of people.  What you refuse to recognize is that your fantasy system cannot exist because human nature will eventually take it down just as it always has.

----------

Devil505 (06-12-2014)

----------


## Maximatic

> Now you're just quibbling like a first year social studies student.  History is real.  The present system of governments around the world are real.  Your dream of an anarchic planet with everyone living in peace and harmony is a fantasy.  Pure fantasy since such a thing not only doesn't exist, it has never existed on a large scale.  
> 
> You keep tossing out the "Irish example" and I keep pointing out what happened to them.  What happened to the Native American tribes?  The African tribes?  The South American tribes?  All were taken down by more organized groups of people.  What you refuse to recognize is that your fantasy system cannot exist because human nature will eventually take it down just as it always has.



Every single response you've given to me in this thread has been a red herring. Did I mention Ireland in my previous post? Have I mentioned it in this thread? Have I ever brought it up as anything other than a refutation of the assertion that there has never been a voluntary system of governance? And, the response is always the same, to shift from the claim that it is impossible to the claim that it couldn't provide for large scale defense. That's what you've done, here, with every single post, you've shifted from one claim to another. And all it took to get you to make that shift, every single time, was to request that you defend your assertions.

There is nothing that I refuse to recognize. The reason I don't change my mind, and go back to believing what you believe, is because I no longer believe it to be true, and I have yet to find a convincing case in favor of it. And you don't know of any such case, either. If you did, you would have proudly presented it, instead of shifting ground every time I ask for it.

Why can't you decide what your claim is gonna be, and then just stick to defending that claim? The claim you started with, the one you're back to making right now, is probably the most tenable position you could take. But you need to recognize and admit that the claim that no voluntary society could ever provide for large scale defense is a different question from whether or not one has in the past. And it would be nice if you would show enough respect for your own intellect to actually make a case. If you don't like being on defense, and shouldering your own burden of proof, then put me on the defensive, by going to my thread called "Law", and refuting everything I say.

----------


## Invayne

> Are you an anarchist too @Invayne?  Equating the US and Britain with the USSR and the PRC isn't a "fair and balanced" argument.


That's a problem right there...Americans think that their government can do no wrong, because WE IS SPECIAL. Well, bullshit. Don't think it can't happen here...these fuckers are killing innocent people all over the world. It's just a matter of time they're coming for their "own". The NDAA gives them that privilege.

Thank God my life is almost over. I feel sorry for kids today...I would not want to be young in this day and age.

----------


## Invayne

> Govt = people  That is the major flaw in the anarchist ideology.  You think govt is some nebulous force that we only need to defeat.  But it is not.  It is us.  We cannot defeat our own nature, but only restrain it with the chains of law.


If WE are government, then why are WE so miserable with ourselves?  :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------


## Invayne

> No one quotes bastiat around here more than me!    He's one of my favorite political philosophers.  I have his musings in almost every thread i start, especially anything related to human governance.
> 
> There is no conflict with bastiat about human nature.. he recognized it, & saw the 'great fiction' was people wanting govt to provide for them.. they saw govt as a way to live off the labors of others.  That is the typical pattern of govt, that humans take.  It is the question for the ages.. how to keep a few from saying to many, 'you make bread, & we will eat it'.
> 
> I see little difference in the base motivations in your chart.  One is a collective venture of basic human nature, the other is an individual one.  Both show the violent, murderous nature of man, & both show the impossibility of the 'non aggression principle.'  Humans ARE aggressive.. that is their nature.
> 
> _Men naturally rebel against the injustice of which they are victims. Thus, when plunder is organized by law for the profit of those who make the law, all the plundered classes try somehow to enter -- by peaceful or revolutionary means -- into the making of laws. According to their degree of enlightenment, these plundered classes may propose one of two entirely different purposes when they attempt to attain political power: Either they may wish to stop lawful plunder, or they may wish to share in it. ~Frederic Bastiat_


I don't know...that is the question, I suppose: Is man inherently good or evil? There's a whole lot of evil out there, and I get sick of hearing about it. The evil gets all of the publicity. But there's a whole lot MORE good out there...most people just want to live in peace and be left alone.

----------


## usfan

> If WE are government, then why are WE so miserable with ourselves?


..always been that way.. i don't know why..   :Dontknow: 




> I don't know...that is the question, I suppose: Is man inherently good or evil? There's a whole lot of evil out there, and I get sick of hearing about it. The evil gets all of the publicity. But there's a whole lot MORE good out there...most people just want to live in peace and be left alone.


The answer to the question is, Yes.  Man is inherently good or evil.   :Laughing7:   Obviously the problem of good & evil has been around for as long as man.. maybe longer.  I agree about 'most' people.  the problem is, there are aggressive, violent people out there who won't let us, so we have to deter them with law & violence...   :Tongue20:

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> Yes, that's what it's trying to do. But the state doesn't need to do that, so it is an unnecessary initiation of (potential) aggression.


And if the government doesn't require certain skills be met in a trade than anything goes, including the quality.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> That's a problem right there...Americans think that their government can do no wrong, because WE IS SPECIAL. Well, bullshit. Don't think it can't happen here...these fuckers are killing innocent people all over the world. It's just a matter of time they're coming for their "own". The NDAA gives them that privilege.


Agreed too many Americans think they are "special", but national pride is pretty common across the planet.  What is not as common across the planet is the ability to kill anyone we like and take down entire nations. 

As the only 400 lb Gorilla in the room, we do have a habit of throwing our weight around.  Even though we shouldn't be engaging in stupid foreign adventures, we do have the right of self-defense.  This includes protection trade routes, alliances and attacks on our citizens and their property.

----------


## Longshot

> And if the government doesn't require certain skills be met in a trade than anything goes, including the quality.


The buyer can set whatever requirements he wishes to ensure whatever quality he desires. There's no need for the government to impose (with the threat of aggression) any requirements.

----------


## Devil505

> The buyer can set whatever requirements he wishes to ensure whatever quality he desires. There's no need for the government to impose (with the threat of aggression) any requirements.


So we should take the umpires out of all games?
Why have rules?
Let each team make their own rules as they go along?

----------

Old Ridge Runner (06-14-2014)

----------


## Maximatic

> That's not what he's saying. He's saying that people will take a mile if you give them an inch and that we have always been that way. He's saying that the overt, trouble making law breakers would not have any checks against them without some sort of collective power exercised against them and that your system lacks that necessary power, not that they would be in the majority.


Okay, and I'm saying that there _are_ mechanisms by which law is enforced in a voluntary society, and that they would be more efficient and effective than those provided by a state, the reason being that, without security and arbitration services being monopolized by a state, the providers of those services have their competition as incentive to provide the best service possible, at the best possible price.

The assumption is not that people are so pious that they can be trusted to treat each other right, but that people are self-interested, and can be expected to act accordingly, and that that which is in the best interest of each actor is also, on net, beneficial to others.

If an area has a problem with crime, there will be a corresponding demand for law enforcement, which means that someone has an opportunity to enrich himself by providing the security service that people in that area need.

----------


## Devil505

> Okay, and I'm saying that there _are_ mechanisms by which law is enforced in a voluntary society, and that they would be more efficient and effective than those provided by a state, the reason being that, without security and arbitration .....


Can you point out such a voluntary society that has ever existed in reality?

----------


## Maximatic

> So we should take the umpires out of all games?
> Why have rules?
> Let each team make their own rules as they go along?


Why? Both teams have agreed that they will respect the calls of the umpires, and play accordingly. It's an entirely voluntary arrangement.

If you want to make a sport like a state, you would have the fans hold regular popularity contests, and nominate one of their own, a fan of one of the teams, who gets to modify the rules however he likes. Then you could watch the rules constantly change in a way that enhances the advantage of the elected fan's team.

----------


## Devil505

> Why? Both teams have agreed that they will respect the calls of the umpires, and play accordingly.


The umpires have nothing to back up their decisions.
IRL an umpire can throw you out of a game if you break the rules.
In your voluntary world players can just stick their tongue out at him.

----------

Old Ridge Runner (06-14-2014)

----------


## Maximatic

> Can you point out such a voluntary society that has ever existed in reality?


I can point out two of them. They were different from one another, and neither were exactly what I would want if I had my say. One had the seed of statism sown in from the beginning. It would have eventually evolved into a state, had it not been subverted. The other was subjugated by England, after a run of at least 1000 years.

Iceland and Ireland

----------


## Devil505

> I can point out two of them. They were different from one another, and neither were exactly what I would want if I had my say. One had the seed of statism sown in from the beginning. It would have eventually evolved into a state, had it not been subverted. The other was subjugated by England, after a run of at least 1000 years.
> 
> Iceland and Ireland


*Icelandic police shoot, kill armed man*http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/icelandic-police-kill-time-article-1.1535309



*Met Police shooting of unarmed man was ‘lawful’, inquest finds**Mark Duggan did not have gun in his hand when he was shot dead*http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/met-police-shooting-of-unarmed-man-was-lawful-inquest-finds-1.1648595

----------


## Longshot

> So we should take the umpires out of all games?
> Why have rules?
> Let each team make their own rules as they go along?



Nope. The government just needs to enforce whatever contractual terms were established between they buyer and the seller. But it shouldn't impose (with the threat of aggression) any requirements.

----------


## Maximatic

> *Icelandic police shoot, kill armed man*
> 
> http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crim...icle-1.1535309
> 
> 
> 
> *Met Police shooting of unarmed man was ‘lawful’, inquest finds*
> 
> *Mark Duggan did not have gun in his hand when he was shot dead*
> ...


What must I have been thinking? I could have sworn that those two places had voluntary systems of governance. Oh well, I guess I was wrong. I'll now become a statist.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> What must I have been thinking? I could have sworn that those two places had voluntary systems of governance. Oh well, I guess I was wrong. *I'll now become a statist.*


There's a reasonable middle ground between the extremes of stateless and worshiping the state as a god.  You might consider that first.

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> The buyer can set whatever requirements he wishes to ensure whatever quality he desires. There's no need for the government to impose (with the threat of aggression) any requirements.


I remember when I was a kid, my father bought a hair cutting kit to cut mine and my brothers hair to save money (hair cuts back than were 25 cents).  My brother Phil was the first guinea pig, when my father was finished Phil had bald spots all over his head that my dad had gouged out while trying to cut his hair.  Needless to say my dad never got his hands on my age.  This is the kind of thing that licensing prevents.

----------


## usfan

> There's a reasonable middle ground between the extremes of stateless and worshiping the state as a god.  You might consider that first.


Not to the binary thinkers.  There are no nuances, or shades of gray.  Everything is black & white.  You either are want total freedom, or you're an authoritarian.  From the left, you're either a bomb throwing anarchist, or 'all govt is good'.  Neither of these sides seem to be able to grasp the idea of limited govt.. one that preserves the freedoms of the people using the collective force of govt, while keeping it in check.

----------


## Longshot

> I remember when I was a kid, my father bought a hair cutting kit to cut mine and my brothers hair to save money (hair cuts back than were 25 cents).  My brother Phil was the first guinea pig, when my father was finished Phil had bald spots all over his head that my dad had gouged out while trying to cut his hair.  Needless to say my dad never got his hands on my age.  This is the kind of thing that licensing prevents.


It's also the kind of thing that basic common sense prevents. Who would go patronize a barber who had no training, experience, or reputation? There is no need for the government to impose (with the threat of aggression) any requirements.

----------



----------


## Longshot

> I see little difference in the base motivations in your chart.  One is a collective venture of basic human nature, the other is an individual one.  Both show the violent, murderous nature of man, & both show the impossibility of the 'non aggression principle.'  Humans ARE aggressive.. that is their nature.


Do you think that the law ought to forbid aggression, or should murder, rape, assault, etc be legal?

----------


## Devil505

> It's also the kind of thing that basic common sense prevents. Who would go patronize a barber who had no training, experience, or reputation? There is no need for the government to impose (with the threat of aggression) any requirements.


Why require doctors to be licensed then.
Let anyone who wants hang a sign & kill a number of people, right?

How about airline pilots?

----------


## Longshot

> Why require doctors to be licensed then.
> Let anyone who wants hang a sign & kill a number of people, right?
> 
> How about airline pilots?


There's no need for socialized certification. What does the government know about doctoring anyway? A buyer can demand any certification he wishes before he does business with a seller. Would you go to a doctor who never went to medical school?

----------


## Devil505

> There's no need for socialized certification. What does the government know about doctoring anyway? A buyer can demand any certification he wishes before he does business with a seller. Would you go to a doctor who never went to medical school?


No but I don't have the time to personally check out every doctor's, airline pilot's or policeman's bona fides either.

----------


## Longshot

> No but I don't have the time to personally check out every doctor's, airline pilot's or policeman's bona fides either.


You don't have to check every doctor, just your doctor. You don't have to check every pilot. Just patronize an airline with certified pilots.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Why require doctors to be licensed then.
> Let anyone who wants hang a sign & kill a number of people, right?
> 
> How about airline pilots?


Without government, there'd be no one to license.  Doctors, be they physicians or witchdoctors, would go simply by reputation.  You wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a competent potion and snake oil except by the results or word of mouth reputation.

Same goes for pilots, as if there'd be airline transportation in a global anarchy.

----------

Devil505 (06-14-2014)

----------


## Invayne

> Without government, there'd be no one to license.  Doctors, be they physicians or witchdoctors, would go simply by reputation.  You wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a competent potion and snake oil except by the results or word of mouth reputation.
> 
> Same goes for pilots, as if there'd be airline transportation in a global anarchy.


So you're saying the only experts in doctoring and piloting are government bureaucrats? :Dontknow:

----------

Longshot (06-14-2014)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> So you're saying the only experts in doctoring and piloting are government bureaucrats?


Not at all.

----------


## Longshot

> Without government, there'd be no one to license.


duplicate post

----------


## Longshot

> Without government, there'd be no one to license.


Is the government the best authority to certify whether a doctor is qualified?

----------


## usfan

'govt' is (or should be, in the american theater) merely a collective entity that WE set up to accomplish useful services FOR ourselves.  We want to be sure people who have obligations for the public welfare, like pilots or doctors, are certified, so we appoint bureaucrats, set standards, & provide a process to insure a minimum standard for these types of jobs.  It is not a perfect guarantee of competence, but it is better than anything else we've come up with.  If the collective wishes to set these standards, & impose them upon all of society, that is their prerogative.  IMO, there should be MORE liberty in some of these areas.. broader certification for medical practice, to encourage competition, & lessen the monopoly that the AMA has on american healthcare.  But that is another topic.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Is the government the best authority to certify whether a doctor is qualified?


What authority do you desire?  A board of doctors?  That's how it done now, champ.

----------


## Maximatic

Wait. The institution best known for corruption, incompetence, and laziness, _that_ is the institution you trust to determine quality standards. lofnl

----------

Invayne (06-14-2014)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Wait. The institution best known for corruption, incompetence, and laziness, _that_ is the institution you trust to determine quality standards. lofnl


What institution?  The AMA?  A check airman?  Passing the bar?  It's not like Congress determines who can be doctors, lawyers and pilots.  Like the "Bureau of weights and measures", it just sanctions the recommendations of the experts for standardization.

No matter what system you and your anarchist friends describe, it's either going to be "anyone can call themselves a doctor.  Let recommendations determine who is best" or it's some form of board of experts.....like we have now. 

My Senator and/or Congressman didn't make me a pilot.  Passing the required training and qualifications is what made me a pilot.  It's the same for doctors and lawyers.   Under the current system.  What system do you recommend @Axiomatic or do you just like sitting back and throwing spitballs?

----------


## Sled Dog

> It's also the kind of thing that basic common sense prevents. Who would go patronize a barber who had no training, experience, or reputation? There is no need for the government to impose (with the threat of aggression) any requirements.


That's not strictly true.

A licensed barber is licensed not because his hair-cutting technique meets approval, but because he may be asked to use a straight razor, and there's a huge difference between badly cut hair and a badly cut throat.

There's also certain minimum cleanliness requirements a barbershop should maintain.

However, anyone that stops to consider the fact that the states, all of them, license so-called doctors to murder babies, and the rationale for so-called "licensing" to protect the public health begins to seem as nothing but a transparent excuse for pointless control.

----------


## Sled Dog

> What institution? The AMA? A check airman? Passing the bar? It's not like Congress determines who can be doctors, lawyers and pilots. Like the "Bureau of weights and measures", it just sanctions the recommendations of the experts for standardization.
> 
> No matter what system you and your anarchist friends describe, it's either going to be "anyone can call themselves a doctor. Let recommendations determine who is best" or it's some form of board of experts.....like we have now. 
> 
> My Senator and/or Congressman didn't make me a pilot. Passing the required training and qualifications is what made me a pilot. It's the same for doctors and lawyers. Under the current system. What system do you recommend @Axiomatic or do you just like sitting back and throwing spitballs?


There's the possibilty of fraud, of course, and all lawful governments have an obligation to protect the people and their property from intentional harm by others and theft.

So there is an interest in maintaining a standard of excellence.  It's all well and good to say the medical industry can police itself.   The so-called "medical profession" clearly has no interest in abandoning the multi-billion dollar industrial murder of babies and the victimization of women the abortion industry entails.   The so-called doctors have even perverted the Hippocratic Oath, removing the line that forbids them from giving abortion "medicine".

Have you ever noticed how well the legal profession polices itself? 

When there's money involved, chances are PERFECT that neither the government nor the so-called "professional" organizations are going to step up and do the right thing to protect the people.

----------


## Longshot

> What authority do you desire?  A board of doctors?  That's how it done now, champ.


 Exactly. The government is not qualified to certify whether a doctor is qualified.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Exactly. The government is not qualified to certify whether a doctor is qualified.


Agreed.  Which is why it doesn't.  It merely issues the license for qualified doctors.

So where's your ideas of a better system?  @Longshot?

----------


## Longshot

> Agreed.  Which is why it doesn't.  It merely issues the license for qualified doctors.
> 
> So where's your ideas of a better system?  @Longshot?


My idea of a better system is one in which the government does not engage in the license racket. Medical schools should certify that a doctor is qualified, not a government bureaucrat.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> My idea of a better system is one in which the government does not engage in the license racket. Medical schools should certify that a doctor is qualified, not a government bureaucrat.


Dude, they already do.  The "license bracket" you are complaining about is just being moved from the medical schools doing the licensing with government oversight to the medical schools still doing the licensing but with no oversight.  I think it's naive to think such a system as yours would end up being an improvement.

----------


## Maximatic

> What institution?  The AMA?  A check airman?  Passing the bar?  It's not like Congress determines who can be doctors, lawyers and pilots.  Like the "Bureau of weights and measures", it just sanctions the recommendations of the experts for standardization.
> 
> No matter what system you and your anarchist friends describe, it's either going to be "anyone can call themselves a doctor.  Let recommendations determine who is best" or it's some form of board of experts.....like we have now. 
> 
> My Senator and/or Congressman didn't make me a pilot.  Passing the required training and qualifications is what made me a pilot.  It's the same for doctors and lawyers.   Under the current system.  What system do you recommend @Axiomatic or do you just like sitting back and throwing spitballs?



Demanding an alternative system, after we say that we don't think economic decisions like that should be monopolized by a central bureaucracy, betrays an unlibertarian mind set. If libertarians didn't think those kinds of decisions were best left to the individuals involved in the actual exchanges, we wouldn't make the utilitarian economic argument against fiat market regulation.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Demanding an alternative system, after we say that we don't think economic decisions like that should be monopolized by a central bureaucracy, betrays an unlibertarian mind set. If libertarians didn't think those kinds of decisions were best left to the individuals involved in the actual exchanges, we would make the utilitarian economic argument against fiat market regulation.


Nice accusation.  Still, after several days of this, I fail to see where any one of you has clearly laid out both the concept and the proof-of-concept on you're Utopia.  Thanks for playing.

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> It's also the kind of thing that basic common sense prevents. Who would go patronize a barber who had no training, experience, or reputation? There is no need for the government to impose (with the threat of aggression) any requirements.


But without the licensing, which says this person has set basic skills, how do you know what training, experience or reputation a person has?  The licensing would not do anything for the reputation, but it would serve to the issue of training and experience.

----------

Max Rockatansky (06-15-2014)

----------


## Hansel

> Nice accusation.  Still, after several days of this, I fail to see where any one of you has clearly laid out both the concept and the proof-of-concept on you're Utopia.  Thanks for playing.


Don't hold your breath waiting because libbies tend to  live in la la land. That is why they are a fringe element.

----------


## Longshot

> But without the licensing, which says this person has set basic skills, how do you know what training, experience or reputation a person has?


The same way the government knows. The government doesn't train people. Schools train people. So instead of looking for a license, the customer can just look for a degree. That way they'll know the person is trained.

----------


## Longshot

> Nice accusation.  Still, after several days of this, I fail to see where any one of you has clearly laid out both the concept and the proof-of-concept on you're Utopia.  Thanks for playing.


The concept is that malum prohibitum laws be eliminated, since these represent (potential) initiations of aggression against people who have harmed no one. Two specific examples have been provided: drug decriminalization and elimination of government licensing restrictions.

----------


## Mgunner

> I keep hearing angry citizens decrying this creature they refer to as "The Government" as if it's some evil being that descended on earth from the far reaches of the universe.
> 
> Aren't "We the people" the government?
> Don't we hold elections at regular intervals to choose who we want to represent us?
> Don't we all share some responsibility for the laws *WE* write via our elected reps in Congress?
> 
> Yes our system has problems but we have created those problems & it's up to us to find a peaceful way to resolve them.
> (end of today's sermon)
> 
> What do you all think?


I think that was the original intent of the founders but since the beginning nanny state big government progressives have constantly eroded the Constitution. Just look at progressives today and we see a group that would exchange our rights for some faux sense of security where the government dictates what we can eat, who we can associate with, what we can drive, who we hire, what we produce. It's tyranny and it is out of control. I don't believe the damage can be reversed. I also don't believe that a ratio of 1 Rep to every 750k citizens is a representative government. It's time to get the States to take another look at how this country is structured so that the States have the power to govern themselves within a loose federation. The federal government is no longer as necessary as it was 200 plus years ago. Just my opinion.

----------


## Mgunner

I think going back to letting the States elect Senators would go along way towards getting the Fed back in line. I also think that the States should be able to nullify laws if there is a majority of State legislatures that vote to reverse. Leaving the SCOTUS to legislate from the bench is part of what got us where we are today. Just look back into history and you can see how the big government supporters paged the way to where we are today.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> The concept is that malum prohibitum laws be eliminated, since these represent (potential) initiations of aggression against people who have harmed no one. Two specific examples have been provided: drug decriminalization and elimination of government licensing restrictions.


Requiring a doctor to have a license to practice medicine and an airline pilot a license to fly paying passengers doesn't seem to be  malum prohibitum law.  Laws against drugs, prostitution and killing a person who did me wrong would be under that type of law.

----------


## Longshot

> Requiring a doctor to have a license to practice medicine and an airline pilot a license to fly paying passengers doesn't seem to be  malum prohibitum law.  Laws against drugs, prostitution and killing a person who did me wrong would be under that type of law.


A law criminalizing the practice of medicine without government permission is indeed a malum prohibitum law. It prohibits a behavior that harms no one. 

Killing a person who did you wrong would be malum in se. You are violating the person or property of another. 

Libertarians are in favor of the repeal of malum prohibitum laws, since the enforcement of such laws require violating the person or property of a person who has harmed no one.

----------

fyrenza (06-15-2014)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> A law criminalizing the practice of medicine without government permission is indeed a malum prohibitum law. It prohibits a behavior that harms no one.


So you don't wouldn't mind me advertising myself as a skilled surgeon and performing life-saving surgery on you or one of your family?  What is the recourse if you or they die? Which would probably happen since I know very little about surgery except how to cut people open.  Would you file a letter of protest?  Get my brother, the "lawyer", to file suit.

----------


## Longshot

> So you don't wouldn't mind me advertising myself as a skilled surgeon and performing life-saving surgery on you or one of your family?


Have you gone to medical school?




> What is the recourse if you or they die? Which would probably happen since I know very little about surgery except how to cut people open.  Would you file a letter of protest?


Same as any  time a doctor harms someone through incompetence. Lawsuit.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Have you gone to medical school?


Yes. I even have a medical certificate to prove it:

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Same as any  time a doctor harms someone through incompetence. Lawsuit.


Then you'll want to be talking to my brother Bernie Rockatansky, Esq.   Do you want to see his certificate too?

----------


## Longshot

> Yes. I even have a medical certificate to prove it:


Sorry, I just checked Harvard's website. They have no record of you.

----------


## Longshot

> Then you'll want to be talking to my brother Bernie Rockatansky, Esq.   Do you want to see his certificate too?


Sure, what school granted him is law degree? I'll check their website.

----------


## fyrenza

@Max Rockatansky ~

It's the law of Supply and Demand :

If you're a "quack," and most of your patients die,
how many new patients do you suppose you'd be taking on?
Your "Doctorin' Days" would be numbered, and short.

There does need to be a set of Standards,
but ytf does it need to be the GOV that sets them?
Wouldn't it be more appropriate for those Standards to be Peer Reviewed?

----------

Invayne (06-15-2014)

----------


## fyrenza

> Sorry, I just checked Harvard's website. They have no record of you.


and BLAM!

Let The Buyer Beware.

Why can't folks do their OWN research regarding the people they choose to hire?

And ^THAT's^ what makes libertarians say that you are depending upon a NANNY to Take Care Of You,
like you were some child,
unable to reasonably make decisions for yourself,
or too lazy to care about your own best interests.

----------


## fyrenza

Has all of the licensing of health care professionals stopped ANY malpractice?

Has licensing drivers stopped ANY negligent accidents?

What, exactly, 
do the fines paid by corporations that have been found "guilty" of harming the public actually GO for?

I smoke cigs.
The tobacco companies have paid BILLIONS of dollars in fines,
to supposedly "foot the bill" for any health problems I have due to their products.

WTF is that money, now???

YTF do I have to pay MORE for health insurance?!?

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> @Max Rockatansky ~
> 
> It's the law of Supply and Demand :
> 
> If you're a "quack," and most of your patients die,
> how many new patients do you suppose you'd be taking on?
> Your "Doctorin' Days" would be numbered, and short.


One mistake the Anarchists makes is to assume their State-less Utopia would be exactly like our current society except without the government.  That's just ignorance on their part.  It's like saying a car will still be a car without the motor, the wheels or some other integral part of the whole.    It won't be.  Look at anarchist societies of the past for an example of how our's would devolve.

As for the point of reputation, I agree.  How long could I get away with medical incompetence before I move on to the next town?  I could be a "traveling doctor" moving from village to village in a trip around all of North America.  It would take a life time to make the circuit and I'd be rich!  Who's to stop me? 





> There does need to be a set of Standards,
> but ytf does it need to be the GOV that sets them?
> Wouldn't it be more appropriate for those Standards to be Peer Reviewed?


Those standards are peer reviewed now.  All State or Federal government does is oversee the fairness of those standards and coordinate interstate regulation of those standards.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> Sorry, I just checked Harvard's website. They have no record of you.


They're government regulated.  Don't trust them.  Trust me.

----------


## East of the Beast

*John Adams* in a speech to the military in 1798 warned his fellow countrymen stating, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." _John Adams_ _is a signer of the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and our second President.


_

----------

fyrenza (06-15-2014)

----------


## Longshot

> They're government regulated.  Don't trust them.  Trust me.


Why should I trust you when you claimed you have a degree from Harvard but they have no record of you?

----------


## Longshot

> As for the point of reputation, I agree.  How long could I get away with medical incompetence before I move on to the next town?  I could be a "traveling doctor" moving from village to village in a trip around all of North America.  It would take a life time to make the circuit and I'd be rich!  Who's to stop me?


People who check out whether or not you actually have an MD.

----------


## fyrenza

What no one seems to understand about anarchists is this :

It isn't that they're even thinking about a society,
from the Top, Down ~

they see the absolute reality of it being JUST THEMSELVES,
with NO ONE else to depend upon for ANYTHING ~

so any "society" is built FROM the least common denominator.

So, okay, a group of these anarchists form a "town,"
which we'll call "The World," okay?

Mr. China, who is willing to use substandard materials to build his products
ends up killing some of the "town."
Gee ... wEnder if the rest of the town will take notice?
wEnder if they'll avoid Mr. China's products?
wEnder if they'll feel any sympathy for Mr. China ending up starving to death,
because he KILLED the very folks that wanted his products?

If I want "customers," for whatever service I provide,
I want to provide The Very BEST that I can,
NOT just meet some rule of law that only concerns itself with the LEAST I could do.

You, and many on this site, should be thanking your God/s that there ARE anarchists,
that would strive to make life better,
for themselves, first and foremost,
but are the motivating factor behind the EXCELLENCE
that makes life better for ALL of us.

----------

Invayne (06-15-2014)

----------


## Longshot

> One mistake the Anarchists makes is to assume their State-less Utopia would be exactly like our current society except without the government.


What does eliminating a _malum prohibitum_ law like licensing have to do with anarchism?

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> People who check out whether or not you actually have an MD.


I have a certificate.  There are plenty of online schools where you can be one too!

----------


## Longshot

> I have a certificate.  There are plenty of online schools where you can be one too!


It depends upon who certified you and whether they are reputable. Joe's medical school, pretty much no. Harvard, okay.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> It depends upon who certified you and whether they are reputable. Joe's medical school, pretty much no. Harvard, okay.


Dude, you want to eat your cake and have it too.  That's impossible.  You want authorities to oversee the certification of doctors so you will be treated by a competent doctor but you won'd want authorities to be in charge of the process.  

Feel free to nitpick all you like.  The fact remains neither you nor any of your anarchist friends are able to provide evidence your Utopia will work on the scale we are talking about.  There is plenty of historical evidence that, without a governing body of medical experts, anyone like me can present themselves as an "expert".

----------


## Longshot

> Dude, you want to eat your cake and have it too.  That's impossible.  You want authorities to oversee the certification of doctors so you will be treated by a competent doctor but you won'd want authorities to be in charge of the process.


I don't want it both ways. I want to eliminate _malum prohibitum_ laws that require government licensing. 




> Feel free to nitpick all you like.  The fact remains neither you nor any of your anarchist friends are able to provide evidence your Utopia will work on the scale we are talking about.  There is plenty of historical evidence that, without a governing body of medical experts, anyone like me can present themselves as an "expert".


I'm not opposed to a body of medical experts who certify the competency of doctors. I just don't think such a service needs to be socialized. Socialism results is sucky service. The free market results in superior service.

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> The same way the government knows. The government doesn't train people. Schools train people. So instead of looking for a license, the customer can just look for a degree. That way they'll know the person is trained.


I have a degree in computer technology, if I had not worked for NASA how would the government know I had that degree?  How would the government know if someone had a barber's degree or a degree in cosmetology?

----------


## Devil505

> It depends upon who certified you and whether they are reputable. Joe's medical school, pretty much no. Harvard, okay.


Hey!!
I went to Joe's Medical School (and Grill) and it's very hard to get a degree from them. (they won't send it until the check clears)

----------


## Longshot

> I have a degree in computer technology, if I had not worked for NASA how would the government know I had that degree?  How would the government know if someone had a barber's degree or a degree in cosmetology?


You are the one arguing in favor of government licensing, not me. So how would the government know whether or not to give a license to a barber?

----------


## Old Ridge Runner

> You are the one arguing in favor of government licensing, not me. So how would the government know whether or not to give a license to a barber?


I believe it is mandated by law that they apply for their license upon graduation.

----------


## Longshot

> I believe it is mandated by law that they apply for their license upon graduation.


But how does the government know that a barber who is applying for a license actually went to barber school and is qualified for a license?

----------


## Dan40

> But how does the government know that a barber who is applying for a license actually went to barber school and is qualified for a license?


Documentation.  Verification so simple that even a government employee or an anarchist could do it.

----------

Old Ridge Runner (06-16-2014)

----------


## JustPassinThru

> But how does the government know that a barber who is applying for a license actually went to barber school and is qualified for a license?


They don't.  They rely on credentials...but as we've seen with a Kenyan Marxist who's never held a job, and his wife, daughter of a Chicago ward-heeler...both of them greased through law school on AA without learning anything (both being too stupid to learn)...

...credentials are no proof.  So...a regulatory body can only be REACTIVE - YANK the license when the barber gives a Moe Howard haircut; or when Barry Soetoro tries to teach Constitutional Law and instead lectures on Alinsky agitprop.  Or when Michelle Robinson hires on in the legal department of a government hospital and doesn't even show up for her one-third-mill job.

It's not a very effective control - but it's the best we can hope for.  The alternative, making skilled craft jobs subject to government hiring permission slips...is much, much worse; it will lead to more bad haircuts, more lawyers like Barry and Moo; more doctors like Jocelyn Elders.

----------

usfan (07-06-2014)

----------


## Maximatic

> *John Adams* in a speech to the military in 1798 warned his fellow countrymen stating, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." _John Adams_ _is a signer of the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and our second President.
> 
> 
> _


So, only as long as people are angels can government work.

----------

BleedingHeadKen (07-06-2014)

----------


## East of the Beast

> So, only as long as people are angels can government work.


I don't think that's what it is saying.But.just look how the dishonest have corrupted the government.We are a far cry from original intent.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> I don't think that's what it is saying.But.just look how the dishonest have corrupted the government.We are a far cry from original intent.


You're arguing with a die-hard anarchist who believes all government is bad.

----------


## Maximatic

> I don't think that's what it is saying.But.just look how the dishonest have corrupted the government.We are a far cry from original intent.


We are. So, how would you ensure that a government exists without corruption?

----------


## Maximatic

> You're arguing with a die-hard anarchist who believes all government is bad.


It's better for you than arguing with a die-hard statist.

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> It's better for you than arguing with a die-hard statist.


Not really.  I find most people who are "die-hard" aka extremist to not be worth discussing since their views are so skewed, it's like talking with a wall.

----------


## hoytmonger

Where has this thread gone? People still defending a perfect record of failure against natural laws and rights?

----------


## usfan

> Where has this thread gone? People still defending a perfect record of failure against natural laws and rights?


It's where they all go around here.. down the anarchy hole..    :Big Grin:

----------

Max Rockatansky (07-06-2014)

----------


## Max Rockatansky

> It's where they all go around here.. down the anarchy hole..


LOL.  

Funny how some people will bitch about anything and everything yet never, ever offer up any ideas themselves plus provide the supporting evidence that such an idea would work.  This is where the entire anarchy fantasy falls apart.  They got nuthin'.

----------

