No, I don't believe that. I believe that rights are a moral construct. Government physically exists because it actually cooresponds to something physical. Rights don't exist physically, they are ideas that correspond to nothing that you can ever objectively prove exists. Therefore, it's silly to say that people have them when they're born. It's like saying someone has "2+2". It's just dumb. When people say that they have a right to something, they are really asserting their form of morality. Rights aren't physical, they're an agreed upon ideology.

This rights argument will go nowhere, though, because it's like trying to prove that God exists. You'll try to insist that the burden of proof is on me to disprove God/Rights, and I'll try to insist the opposite.

And the circle continues :)

What if there is a social contract of some sort? The hardass approach says there isn't. I really don't know; I haven't put in the hard thinking on it. But the uncertainty alone is enough to start the leak.

Some of my bigger questions are in this thread. One principle of a legitimate government is consent of the governed. If a "100%" libertarian government were elected overnight, it would not have that consent.

That's why Radar requires a revolution -- avoiding, btw, the obvious question of what happens on day two to non-representative governments. Even if he uses the full force of the military to back up his coup, in the long run the people still have more power than he does.

But the really gaping hole that the sunlight is beaming through is evident from this thread. Radar has applied the philosophy to the nth degree, and what has boiled out of it is completely impractical. Its defense requires very obvious blind spots, its common sense appeal is near zero... and everyone here knows that it will not actually happen.

If it could never happen, or could never survive if it did, it is not the answer.

Part of the problem is a huge gap between political philosophy and politics. Or, if you prefer, "how things oughta be" against "how things just are". Ignoring the latter is simply not an option.

You misunderstand my statement. I'm not talking about immigrants. I'm talking about foreigners in foreign countries where they make all the stuff we'd buy with all this extra money. This increase in spending wouldn't create jobs here, but that's a whole different thread.

Radar has become nonsensical. I might stop reading this thread now.

=[

Hinkley did not kill Reagan. He completely failed in his objective (thanks to the Secret Service, God Bless Them). President Lincoln had NO security at Ford's Theater, so I'm not even sure why you bring that up.

Today, our government officials are highly protected and basically invincible. You're just one man, and history shows that there's no way you could accomplish what you say you will.

Are you sure you've thought this through?

     An interesting statement since you're the one talking about doing some killing.
     Ya know, on this part where you start claiming "All most all Americans," doesn't everyone find it interesting that I'm using specific examples of people and Radar's making a generalization that he assurers us is a fact?
     Oh, so slaves only worked for their master 1/4 of the year? And got to go out to parties and other entertainment forums, as well as having freedom of speech? No? Ah, then you be linking to a greater evil, as I said. By the by, compiling the years taxes to make it sound like we receive no pay check for a large portion of the year was a nice touch. That's not the way it works though.
     So, instead of killing for us how 'bout you just let the ones that want your help join you?
     But I thought you'd made it clear that your movement had never lost? So then, if they join you they're safe. No need for war.
     So, which is it? The judicial branch is a part of government after all.
     Riiiiight, 'cause you've got that purity and the light and those kitten's on your side.
     Oh okay, as long as we're free by your rules you won't kill us. Gee thanks.

     By the by, please deal with any pro-Bush sentiments apart from your responses to me. I've already said I dislike the guy, and pointed you to an earlier Cellar thread where I've said so before. Getting anti-Bush with me makes it seem like I'm pro-Bush. Don't do that.. I assume that most Cellar Dwellers have read other threads and know my feelings on the sub, but still that's not me.

Government is a social construct and not a tangible physical thing. It's nothing more than a label for a group of people. People however, do physically exist and so do their natural rights. Natural rights are part of natural law and are as immutable and undeniable as other natural laws like gravity. Even if every person on earth voted to get rid of gravity they couldn't do it. And the same is true of natural rights. They can't be taken or given away. Natural law and natural rights are a science like any other but are apparant to even very small children.

If you don't believe in natural rights such as your right to live, than I wouldn't be committing a crime if I killed you. I wouldn't be violating your right to live since you have none. And there can be no such thing as a crime since nobody's rights are being violated by any action. Nobody would even have a right to complain when they were victimized.

It's nothing like trying to prove god exists because there is no physical being of god but there are physical and tangible beings of people and people out of necessity and reason have rights at birth. You can keep the burden of proof on me because I've proven my point. But you don't have to take my word for it.

It's become painfully clear that you don't do much reading but if you'll read any of the links I posted earlier you'll see a lot of great thinkers proving that natural rights exist. It's even in our own declaration of independence as a self-evident truth. But you can read the works of hundreds of people in every culture on earth for thousands of years talking about how even small children know that natural and inalienable rights exist.

A 100% Libertarian government would be a 100% Constitutional government and as such it would be the government consented to by the people for more than 200 years.

Actually America requires a revolution because the government no longer works based on the consent of the people and violates our rights. The government is closing all avenues for people to peacefully keep control of the government. And as the Declaration of Independence says,

And you misunderstand Free Trade vs. Protectionism. When people in other countries have jobs, they can afford to buy our products. Unions are responsible for the majority of jobs that leave America.

You should read this page real quick to get a better understanding of the subject.

http://www.libertarianworld.com/freetrade.html

Sorry you feel that way, I feel like I'm one of very few people on this board actually who do make sense.

His objective was to shoot Reagan and he did. The fact that he was a bad shot is irrelevant. People killed Kennedy too. May the Easter Bunny bless you.

History shows that several men have made it past the secret service and who says I'd be alone?

I would only kill in my defense for instance when returning the government back to a constitutional republic if someone were to oppose me. Executing Bush would be defense also because he is endangering America and the rest of the world, and attacking our civil rights in America.

No, but Americans are being enslaved for 1/3 of the year (which amounts to about 1/4 of our lives). Does the fact that they're not enslaved 100% of the time make it any less slavery? No it doesn't.

Guess what? You don't have freedom of speech in America. Irwin Schiff just had his book banned by the government and they said he can't talk about it.

What do you mean killing you? I said I'd only kill those who oppose me and those like me when we take over the government and return it to a constitutional republic. Do you intend to oppose me when I return America back to the greatest nation on earth? If not, you don't have anything to fear. And there are millions like me so don't worry, people are joining me. There were only about 5% of the population involved in the 1st revolution and the rest didn't take part but reaped the rewards of freedom anyway. My guess is you'll be in the 95%.

No, I made it clear that none of the students of the particular place where I work have ever lost. The government often railroads free thinkers and puts them in jail. Unfortunately there are many who are house niggers like you and are content to be enslaved. They are scared of those who really value freedom.

Judges make unconstitutional rulings against their own conscience because they don't want to be the one's responsible for overturning the fraud of income taxes. Rather than deciding they point to other decisions instead of the law. Rather than standing up, they think of their political careers and rule poorly. That means they're not good people. They may be a decent judge, but not a good person.

No, just truth, justice, freedom, liberty, the law, and millions of freedom lovers.

Not my rules. The rules that established this country. Those that define and limit the role and powers of government.

As if I'd make a separate response just for your comfort. Get real. I'll write my responses to everyone. Don't be so vain as to think my posts were just for you.

Radar you've crossed a line, shut the fuck up.

edit: sorry was a little ticked off about other things at this point and this line just pissed me off. Though I do think you've crossed the line to insanity Radar.

Radar, <i>nothing</i> in your last post made any logical sense. And that's saying something, since you wrote quite a bit. You are a lunatic and a criminal. You've not only admitted to committing one federal crime, but you've committed a second federal crime twice on this very board!

I sincerely hope that you get caught before you kill somebody. Or that you're only joking. Either way, say hello to Bubba for me. And don't drop the soap.

This is an interesting thread. I have not read all the previous posts, so I hope you don't think I am using bad netiquette when I pick up the converstion from it's current locale.

I agree with Radar that human rights are part of being human and are undeniable, but they don't exist in a vacuum. They depend upon mutual respect for each others human rights - for them to have any real meaning.

But as I read alittle more of Radar's posts, I feel like my opinions diverge greatly from his.

And it would be completely untenable, to boot. The framers of the consitution did not intent it to be a blueprint, they intended it to be a general idea. They knew that times would change and issues would change, but the main idea would remain.

There are many other nations that wrote strict consitutions that functioned as the architectural plan for the government - that eventually had to be scrapped because times changed, technology changed, and the economy changed. Strict constructionsim is fantastic - in theory - but in practice it would be inflexxible, unadaptable, and it would fail to meet the needs of the people.

From the bottom up it certainly looks that way. From the top down, the picture is different. The framers of the constitution started off with a double standard and a system where aristocratic landowners had rights - as opposed to all citizens. They designed America in such a way that it would always have a ruling elite. The ruling elite have maintained a stranglehold on the American government ever since. If you ask them, the government represents the ideals of the people because few of them can see beyond their strata. Many in the middle class have been convinced that they are a part of America's controlling elite, which makes them choose policies that do not necessarily end up benefiting them or anyone in their socioeconomic position. Simply shifting to a stict constructionist government would not change this order. The only way to change this order would be to radically restructure the government into a true liberal democracy. I outlined such a shift in this thread.

This is as true now as it was in 1778. But it was better than a monarchy at the time - now, I think we should rethink things.

It also said "all men are created equal". Obviously, the founders started the union with a bit of hypocricy. Can you accept that the people that wrote those words were not writing them for all men? If they were not really writing them for all men, is it possible that they may not have had the golden key to truth and light - that you seem to think resides in strict adherance to the letter of the constitution?

This is simplistic and wrong on many levels. First, a job in Managua is not going to pay a worker anywhere near anough money to buy even the cheapest American products. Furthermore, the jobs that go to foreign nations go there to benefit the shareholders of the corporation. This focuses returns into the hands of a tiny segment of the overall population of America. These people want to continue to see high returns and they encourage further exploitation of cheap third-world labor. This is the basic goal of the globalization movement.

This is debatable. If there had never been a labor movement in America, the middle class may not exist. Worker safety would never have been an issue, and benefits packages would not exist for the working class. Yes, unions have created a confrontational relationship between labor and management,but they both have a symbiotic interest in maintaining market share and success of a company. As overwhelming evidence can attest, most unions are willing to be very flexible with their compensation and demands in times of recession and national emergency.

Unions, are not the cause of a company's flight south of the border. The demands of the stockholders, market bifurcation, the overall economy, and greed combine as a great incentive to set up shop in a third world nation.

The link you provided was simplistic and was not accurate about a lot of the interelated issues of tariffs, free trade, and general macroeconomics.

Why am I reminded of something Bertrand Russell said?

I agree that the magic bullet theory is malarkey. But that is for another thread.

The brownshirts may be coming to get you. I would not advocate killing anybody - to me, assasination of a person because of their myopic political positions would completely fly in the face of everything I believe about human rights and democratic values.

This is such a weak canard. You are not being enslaved for any period of time. If you don't want to pay taxes, then don't get a job. You are not chained to gang and forced to pick cotton.

Taxes are the price you pay for living in America. If you go to work and drive on a road, your taxes paid for that. If you kids go to the park, your taxes paid for that. If you own a share of stock, your taxes keep the markets sound. If you can sleep well at night - not worrying about a Canadian invasion, your taxed paid for that. If you get mugged and beat up - the cops come because your taxes paid them to come. If you don't have to get your water from the local creek, your taxes paid of that. If the poor are not rising up wanting a redistribution of wealth, your taxes paid for that. If your brother did not die in a care wreck - even though he had no insurance, your taxes paid for that.

Taxes pay for all the things we can't see - but make up the fabric of our society. So any time you hear someone scream about being a slave for 110 days a year, remind them that they, too, receive some benefit from all their labor.

That being said, I am appalled at the current fiscal and spending policies. We need to massivley overhaul the government and eliminate as much of the extra detritus that we can. I do not think that eliminating all taxes and resorting to a sales tax is realistic in any sense. If this was put in place, our society would collapse, and products would be so expensive that they stifle economic growth.

Personally I think we need to get rid of our iron ring of military might - that girds the world. This will never happen, because our military is part of the threat we use against third world nations to maintain our access to their resources at a cheap price. I would like the rich to be taxed more heavily than they currently are. I think the middle class should be taxed much less than they currently are, and the poor should not be taxed at all. This is a subject for another thread - though.

I beg to differ. Didn't you just post a comment about killing the president? Do you think you could do that in Iran, Turkey, China, or Egypt?

I read The Federal Mafia and The Great Income Tax Hoax when I was younger, stupider, and leaning toward the lbertarian ethos. The guy's convoluted "logic" and distortion convinced me that his ideas were drivel. Look up the Supreme Court's decision in Stratton’s Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 406, 415. They make it clear that income tax is constitutionally valid.

And in any case, the constitution is not the be all end all fount of knowledge and truth. It was the general idea that started the union. 200 years of case law and legal wrangling have refined the definition of the govenrment's powers. The Constitution is not absolute.

Ease up Don Qixote, the windmills in here are not the real giants. Personally, I think you might want to expand your base of knowledge. You seem relatively well informed, but also seem pretty credulous. I would encourage you to skeptically examine every point of view you encounter - including your own.

I am going to have to disagree with you there. the American revolution affected all of the colonies, and there was plenty of tragedy and pain paid by most of the American population. They reaped the rewards of liberty, but it took a long time and a lot of lives to make America what it is today.

That is why Harry Browne and Noam Chomsky are sitting in the Hooskow.

The government is holding a lot of people in prison without cause, charges, or legal representaion. but they are not their because they wrote a book that people in power did not like. I hope we can avoid letting things go that far, but I fear the possibility nonetheless.

Huh? There is a difference between rampant reveolutionary idealism - which is pretty naive if you have not thought it through - and working within the system to make things better. Just because a person is trying to work within the system does not mean that they are somehow a slave to the system or that they simply aquiesce to the govenment's point of view ( though I think a lot of brownshirts are like this ).

Or maybe their logic extended beyond "I say it must be so - so it must be so". I am no fan of stupid legal decisions, or judges that participate in the degradation of freedom and liberty, but some arguments are sound. The argument that Income Taxes are constitutional is well founded and sound.

There are 2 types of law. Case law and constitutional law. Case law bases decisions on consideration of issues as they pertain to the constitution and other judges previous decisions. Since the law is a fluid entity - and it is always changing, judges use other judges' opinions and rulings to form their positions. Constitutional law is the consideration of whether a law actually falls within the bounds of the constitution. Some cases are decided using case law - which includes constitutional agreement, other cases are decided based on the basic issues of freedom entailed in the Constitution.

Federal judges are appointed for life. They may make decisions based on a political stance, but their decisions are based upon their own personal ideology - not a fear of loosing their job.

We already know those rules were not perfect or absolute. I think your reasoning is pretty shaky on all of this.

If it's Scott vs Radar at this point, the rest of us can safely depart the thread -- and there's a good chance we'll never hear from either one of them, ever again.

Maybe in "civilized society" but in the jungle you get what you can win and hold. Nothing more.

What, are you trying to say I am long-winded?!?!?!

i agree xoxoxoxoxoxBruce.

Not only that, but there's the fact that if there's one constant in the universe, it's that Radar will never stop arguing with you as long as you're willing.

BINGO.

No, everything I said, especially about natural rights made perfect sense and had logic so solid you can't refute it. Therefore instead of trying, you just dismiss it.

I haven't committed any crimes. It's not a crime to keep the money I earn, particularly when income taxes are illegal which I and many others have proven countless times. And I haven't committed a crime on this board either. I haven't threatened anyone and everything I've said is protected speech. Although since the government doesn't abide by the Constitution they could arrest me, or you for that matter with or without cause.

The only way I'll see Bubba is if I visit him between his daily rapings of you. And I don't have to worry much about dropping the soap at my house. But if I do, I'll have my sexy Vietnamese wife pick it up for me.

Agreeing to respect the equal rights of others is part of living in a society. It doesn't always happen but that's the goal and those who violate the rights of others can and should be punished.

No, it's extremely tenable. It's logic is undeniable and solid as a rock and a Libertarian government would be extremely easy to uphold, defend, and sustain.

As Thomas Jefferson said, "That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves."

They DID intend for it to be a blueprint. A blueprint for freedom. And the principles they used to create it are immutable and unchanging. They did know that they didn't know everything and made government able to change through amendments, but not through case law. They created the constitution to be the highest law of the land in all cases and always applicable.

I disagree. Other nations didn't write their constitutions with the same level of freedom, and the ability to change when times change. They also made it difficult to change so it wouldn't be done lightly. But some people violate thier oaths and look for loopholes in the constitution and argue over specific words like "militia". Rather than upholding and defending the Constitution they are violating it and attempting to nullify it.

As I mentioned, times changed and so did the constitution. But at that time, those with property needed to defend it. They had the most to lose. America has no class struggle. Many point to disparagies between the haves and have-nots and claim it's because the poor are victimized by the wealthy but nothing could be further from the truth.

Blacks and women weren't considered "men" at the time. They were property. But things changed and so did the constitution and the words they used about "all men" are more true now than they have ever been.

Eventually it will. As more jobs go there the economy becomes stronger and salaries go up. Soon you've got a larger skilled worker pool and they can buy American products. Without these jobs most would starve to death.

There's nothing wrong with that. Corporations aren't some big scary monster, it's a bunch of regular people from all walks of life. Housewives, Lawyers, Doctors, and Taxicab drivers all invest thier money and expect a return on their investment. The executives of the corporation have a duty to get their stockholders the most profit they can. Unions have made it impossible for many companies to make a profit in America so they move to somewhere they can pay people a fair salary and they can expect someone to work for 8 hours to get 8 hours worth of pay or 10 hours, 12 hours, or whatever.


3rd world workers aren't being "exploited". They're given work which they wouldn't have had otherwise. They are given an opportunity to survive and they're paid the going rate in those parts of the world. I've personally been to Vietnam and seen people who make an average of $1 day to carry bricks from one side of a busy highway to another on their backs. And these people weren't exploited. They were paid the going rate for unskilled labor in that part of the world. It's unreasonable and ignorant to expect American corporations to pay American salaries in another part of the world or to follow American labor laws.

I'm as against the New World Order as anybody else, but corporations are in business to make profits and their loyalty belongs to their stockholders.

Labor unions aren't responsible for changes in worker safety, shorter work days, or even ending child labor. All of these were done voluntarily by businesses when people boycotted thier products. Nothing speaks louder than money.

Unions are responsible for many companies going bankrupt. Labor costs become so high that the business can't make a profit. And companies are paying for lazy union workers to sit around doing nothing while there's work to be done because they say, "that's not my job".

Even more overwhelming evidence can be provided detailing corruption and socialism in unions. Not to mention Unions want raises even when their productivity doesn't rise and they're costing a company so much they can't remain in business in America.

It's not "greedy" to expect a return on your investment. But I'll agree with the demands of stockholders to make a profit. And they can't make a profit paying inflated labor costs for products that aren't any better than those created by the union workers.

I too value human rights, natural rights, and civil rights and as such I would only kill in the defense of myself, my property, or my country. Even if that means defending my country against my government.

Let's try to be at least a little bit realistic. Telling someone they don't have to work is like telling them not to eat.

Yes, and all of the things you mentioned can be paid for completely without a single penny of income based taxes. I've said many times that I'm not against taxes, just income taxes. And 100% of all the Constitutional parts of government can be paid for with tariffs and excise taxes and that's without stealing a single penny from citizens in the form of income taxes.

Taxes are far from being the "fabric of our society". But all of the things you mentioned are paid for with excise taxes, tariffs, sales, taxes, property taxes, etc. Not one penny of income taxes is required to run a Constitutional federal government. And the operative word in your quote is "some". People are turned into slaves for a third of the year and if they're lucky get 1/100th of what they could have done if they had paid for the services on thier own. Every single thing the government does other than what is enumerated in the Constitution can be better provided at a superior quality and a lower cost by private businesses.

I agree that America's military isn't a constitutional "defensive" military but rather an imperialistic show of force spread out all over the world like the world's largest bully to push other countries around and make them adopt our policies.

So if someone prints a book with convoluted logic they don't have the right to free speech?

I'll tell you what. Rather than just citing a court case, quote some of it here so we can discuss it. But one thing I can tell you is that the supreme court doesn't add amendments and they can't make less than 36 votes into 36 votes. And there were less than the 36 required votes to pass the 16th amendment. But that's far from being the only way that income taxes are unconstitutional.

The Constitution is the single most perfect thing ever written by humans, including all religious texts like the bible in my personal opinion.

Being "effected" isn't the same as taking part in the revolution.

No, but it's why Peter McWilliams and Irv Rueben were both jailed and murdered by the U.S. Government.

You can't fix the system from within the system because the government doesn't stick to the rules of the game. The government has government workers on a short leash. They have them by their paychecks so in essence they are slaves to the system.

There is no legal requirement to pay income taxes. The argument that income taxes are constitutional is completely and utterly false. It's a case of outright fraud against the American people and is perpetuated by the corrupt court system.

In practice that's true, but not according to the way things are supposed to be. Case law is supposed to be irrelevant. But both of those fall below natural law which is the highest law of all.

Tell it to the judge.

Well, well, well ... This suddenly got very interesting again!

(*little dance*) Go Scott! Go Scott! Go Scott!

UT ... My money's on Scott. Not to win, as this is not a contest of strength or logic, but to continue to hang out.

This thread was originally about paying taxes. April 15th came and went, and the Federal government owes me $94. I've seen arguments about the legality of income taxes. All portions of the Constitution have been eaten away at in some form or another.

So anyway, let's get hypothetical about the specifics. We all seem to have some ideas on what taxes are, where they should come from. We all complain in some form or another. So what should be done ... specifically?

1. What is the tax pie to be made of?
2. What kind of taxes?
3. Who pays the taxes?
4. Are they to be taxes on goods and/or services?
5. Are there any fundamental shifts in the way things are done that if implemented would alter this pie?
6. How tall will the pie be [silly Dubya!]?
7. What is it spent on? [Worms, can, can opener]

Where do we get the money from to run the country, and do it well? Should the nutbar who just wrote this post have this moved to another thread?

But being affected is! Learn the difference, you ignoramous.

:D

No it isn't dickhead. Being affected by something doesn't mean you took part in it asswipe.

Does being able to pick out a grammatical error in a small novel I wrote on the fly make you smarter than I am? Not on your best day and my worst.

Just because you spread lies among your own differential opinion and worthless ideology doesn't make you any better than the rest of your dissident anti-patriot companions and weak-minded light-weights. I celebrate the day that you realize your misled inner-constitution and egotistical flaws are your greatest enemies, and not your sole weapons.

Radar,

Your method of argument leaves much to be desired. Basically all you did was refute everything I said - but offered no clarifying arguments to make your position seem more lucid. I am sorry, but I feel that - whatever the argument I use that may disagree with you - you will simply refute it.

I really don't care to play, "I say it is so - so it is so." SO I'll just leave it here:

You are wrong on many levels with regard to globalization, the impact of unions, the power of the working class shareholder, constitutional interpretation, and macromeconomics. I don't really feel like typing a long diatribe about each flawed argument you made. If you feel that this is a victory, so be it. Congratulations.

If, however, you want to get a broader understanding of law, macroeconomics, and the constiution, I think you should take a trip to the library and look for books from authors that are not simply trying to prove that the Libertarian ethos is beyond question.

Thanks

Seems it didn't take ScottSolomon long to realise he was talking to a mule. Smart man.;)

Damn. I kept reading this thread. Oops.
Radar, do you believe that the right to keep a well organized militia refers to the right of private citizens to keep and bear arms or that it refers to having a state militia (currently, the coast guard)? Since the West interprets the term in the former way and the Southeast interprets the term in the second way, which segment of the American population is completely and utterly wrong? How will you go about proving to them that they read the Constitution in a completely and utterly wrong way? What was the original intent of writers of the Constitution -- keeping some military power with the states or allowing the citiZens to remain armed so as to prevent abuses of power by their government? Which words of Jefferson will you use to prove that you are irrefutably correct?

This one really irked me. Since you emphasized "effected", I believed that you were pointing out poor use of grammar by the person you disagreed with. However, the person you disagreed with used "affected", which is the proper term for the situation. I found it very annoying that you accentuated this.

As I recall, the reason we switched from using largely tariff-based taxes to largely income-based taxes was that we found tariffs to be a cause of dissension (ref: Civil War) and to be bad for business. You seem to be quite pro-business, so why do you want to return to a more detrimental tariff-based taxing system?

(edit: sentence error fixed)

I gotta get in on this here ... The Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms (RKBA) IS an individual right.

None of the other rights in the bill of rights refer to collective rights or rights of the state ... they are the rights of the people ... the individual citizens. Why should the 2nd amendment be interpreted any differently.

The 5th US Circuit court HAS affirmed RKBA as an individual right, even if they didn't think that Dr. Emerson retained that right in his case ... US v. Emerson.

There is a very good analysis of the case here.

Ah! Really? I'll have to keep that in mind then -- so scratch most of the message of my previous post. It looks like the task I challenged Radar to do has already been done for him.

However, I see how you could interpret it differently: "a well regulated militia" (oops, I used the wrong word in my previous post) might indicate that it applies to a state army of private citizens. There were also many more advocates of state's rights and freedoms in face of the federal government than there are now.

However, I find it interesting that the article says that the 2nd Amendment was largely interpreted as endorsing state militias for a few decades (and that this view is still held in some Circuits), rather than individual possession of weapons. Looking at the text of the Amendment, it looks to me like both are true. I attempted to bold text that I felt possibly indicated state militias, and italicize text that I felt possibly indicated private gun ownership.

(edit: added why the quote is bold and italic)

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;If this line makes sesnse to you then you have no clue what actual slavery is, so this is pointless. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;This may well be the closest you come in this entire thread to asking about anyone elses opinions...
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;To answer your question yes, I would oppose you. The reason is that I don't believe that you would "return it to a constitutional republic." Everything you've posted to this point makes you sound like a fanatic. I don't trust fanatics, no matter how good what they say sounds. That's exactly how the Spanish Inquistion and Hitler came to power. You have shown no sign of hearing anything anyone has said to you.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Frankly, I think that if someone like you did take over you would feel it was necessary to maintain the position to "insure our freedom." You want proof? &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;In this statement you belittle everyone not like you to the point of insignifigance. It's also sounds like you've got a lot of hate in your heart. No, I don't trust you. You are a fanatic, with false claims of your values. If you actually believed that all men are created equal you couldn't think in such terms. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;So, a decent judge can decide to make unconstitutional rulings? Didn't expect you to say that. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Taken from that site:
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;But you had previously said: &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;So, to tariff or not to tariff? Which is it?

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Just to add a little more to the fanatic point...

First, it's not a right to keep a well organized militia, it's a right for individuals to keep and bear arms because militias are "necessary to the security of a free State". Second, anyone who reads it another way is wrong. As mentioned by someone else, everytime the phrase "the people" is used in the rest of the Constitution, it refers to the general populace. And Thirdly because we all have a right to life, we have a right to defend that life any way we see fit and that includes using guns.

I would be interested in a very low flat-rate tariff on all trading partners. Right now some pay huge tariffs and some pay no tariffs at all. I'd be talking about 3% across the board which wouldn't be detrimental to business, especially considering the lower labor costs abroad.

Slavery is being forced under duress to labor without compensation. I think we can all agree on that point. So if the guns of government are going to come after me if they don't get the fruits of my labor, it's slavery.

If you would oppose me in my efforts to return America to a Constitutional republic, I would kill you plain and simple. Because you would represent those who oppress us, rob us, threaten us, and even murder some of us.

As I've said, I'm not interested in raising tariffs (protectionism). I'm interested in keeping the same amount of tarifs we already collect but spreading it out evenly and fairly among all those who import good into America.

I'm not a fanatic in any sense of the word. I am a citizen of America and have popular sovereignty. I DEMAND that the government I've given power to follow the rules set up in the beginning. The government answers to me, not the other way around. The Constitution wasn't created to limit our rights, but to limit the powers of the government. The government will follow the limitations on thier powers listed in the Constitution or blood will be spilled. It's that simple.

So you want to create a republic based on the Constitution yet are planning on killing those that oppose you. You're one of the most hypocritical people I've ever met.

I don't plan on creating anything. I plan on returning America to a Constitutional republic and if someone opposes that they are a traitor and traitors should be shot. If people oppose me, they oppose America. There's NOTHING hypocritical, illogical, or wrong about me or any of my values.

If someone opposes the Constitutional Republic of the United States of America, they oppose me to the death and don't deserve to live in this country.

Funny I was thinking the same thing about you a few days ago. Then I realized that this is America where people with different view points are allowed to have those views. But I must be wrong if someone with such great knowledge of the constitution believes he has the right to kill those that oppose him.

So, Radar, do you have any hobbies other than politics? Are you married? What's bartending like? What's one thing your parents did that most aggravated you?

Just curious.

Of course you can have different views. You just can't legislate your views when those views contradict the Constitution. And I'm discussing who would die if there were a second American Revolution. I'm not some raving whacko who's going to just grab a machine gun and start indiscriminately killing people because I don't like thier viewpoints.

Sure. Juggling, movies, video games, backgammon, etc.

I will be in a few months.

It's fun. It's like getting paid to party. You meet cool people and everyone likes you. And you get paid for it. I'm not doing any bartending these days though. I've been making a living with my politics.

Got divorced, beat the hell out of me, treated me like shit, etc.

But the best thing they did for me was teach me to be self-reliant...they taught me how to cook, do laundry, etc. They also taught me from a very young age that I can do or be anything I want. And I truly believe that even still.

How about you juju? What's your favorite color? Your favorite dish? What countries have you been to? How old are you? What music do you like? What bothers you most about the America? What would you do to make it better?

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Slavery is being owned by another human being. And you repeatedly say you proved, you don't have to pay taxes. Nobody does, according to you. So, look up the word slavery, in a dictionary instead of interpreting it's meaning to be what you want, and decided whether you're being forced to pay taxes or if you don't pay taxes. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;You've made it clear that if a person doesn't have your opinion then that person is an idiot. Also that they are not good people. Oh, sorry, if they're to afraid to oppose you then they are ok. Hmm, you've threatened, insulted, seek to oppress anyone with a different opinion. Hmm, haven't heard you say you're into robbery outright, but three out of four ain't bad. Yep, sounds like you'd fit right in with such a crowd. Maybe you and Bush should get together sometime and go bowling. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Obviously it's I'd oppose you because you've led me to believe you would oppress us, threaten us, and even murder some of us. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Uh, yeah. I believe the question was to "tariff, or not to tariff" your link led to a guy that explains why tariffs are bad. You say that limited tariffs are ok. So, why post a link to someone that says otherwise?
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Yeah, you're a fanatic. What's more, you DEMAND the government be shaped by your say so, the constitution references are your own illusion to make you feel better. As far as blood being spilled, it won't happen. You're supposed "Millions" are not going to rise up. You're just being pretentious. Keep ranting. I think it's cute. You big bad internet tough guy you

whit, youre awesome. :D

~james

I've said nothing that would lead anyone to believe I'd oppress anyone. And I only threaten those who threaten the Constitution (which is the same as threatening America) and I would never murder anyone. I might kill someone in my own defense or the defense of my country. But I'd never murder them.

Try again loser. My Constitutional references are above reproach and are 100% accurate. I don't want the government to be "shaped" by you, me, or anyone else. Unlike the morons who advocate violating the Constitution, I read it for what it says, not what I want it to say.

It's already happened. The government has already killed private citizens who opposed their violations of the Constitution. And blood will be spilled, especially if the second patriot act passes. And yes, millions will rise up because there are millions of Americans like me who respect the Constitution and will die to defend our country against our government. I see them every single day. I travel around the country meeting them and doing public speaking engagements. I'll be doing 3 of them in the next 3 days.

And keep talking shit. You make yourself look more and more stupid each and every time. It's amazing. I didn't think it was possible for you to look more stupid yet you never disappoint. And if you want to find out how tough this internet guy is, feel free to look me up anytime. I don't start fights, but I always finish them.

Wow Radar I don't think I could have laughed any harder than I did just now, nearly stained my pants. So in other words you're trying to say "I can beat you up" OMG that is funny.

Ehh, I don't really have a "favorite color". Most all of them can look really cool if they're used right, I think.

The only other country I've been to is Mexico. It was on a church trip -- one of those deals where they go "witnessing" to people. This basically involves going around knocking on people's doors and harrassing them about religion. We also passed out little "salvation" pamplets to strangers on the street. The interesting thing about it, though, was that not one person ever refused a pamphlet. Whenever one was offered to them, they would just take it and read it. It was really bizarre behavior, not at all what I'm used to -- and I live in the South! I was pretty surprised by the fact that everyone took the time to read some pamphlet that a stranger handed to them. I guess it's just a different culture down there. Or maybe they just hadn't been barraged by commercialism yet?

That was probably when I was around 16, and I'm 27 now. Anyway, I found that Christianity didn't really have the answers I was looking for, and I found the church culture to be somewhat offensive. They were supposed to be addressing all these big questions, but really it was more like a big party. What a waste of time.

Then, between the ages of 18-24, I was deeply into witchcraft and thought I was a powerful demi-god. Fun stuff!

Today I'm completly different than all that, though. I'm pretty much the most anti-religious person you could ever know, mostly because of my experiences with what faith can do to a person.

I really love listening to progressive rock, like Rush, Yes, and Dream Theater. Any music that's reasonably complicated has the potential to hold my interest, though. I like it when I can listen to a song over and over again, and catch a new nuance every time. You know, like songs that have layers of complexity. Most of the popular music just seems to loop the same riff over and over again. That's fun for a while, but it just seems to get old quickly.

The thing that bothers me most about America.. Well, it does have a lot of flaws, so I guess there's plenty to choose from. The fact that everyone seems to think it's the greatest nation on earth is really irritating. If the people who said this had actually done hard research into every other nation on earth and really made an informed decision, that would be okay. But most of it seems to amount to nothing more that high-school football team rah-rah. It's like, the group that you're a member of is automatically the best just because you're a member of it.

I do like America, though, don't get me wrong. There are a ton of really, really awesome things about it. But the problem I have is that more often than not, Patriotism stems from "It's good because I live here", and not, "It's good because of X, Y, and Z".

The other thing I dislike is that Corporations have too much power. I'm not sure what could be done about this, because we do need to have a Free Market and we need the goods they produce. But the fact that they can railroad politics the way they do is just terrible.

Congratulations on getting married! I'll be celebrating my 1st wedding anniversery in about a month and a half, and I'll have a helpless, newborn child in early November. Whodathunk it? We had an outside wedding, behind my mom's house. I'm really not much into church, and I wanted it to be more of a relaxed atmosphere. It worked out really well, too. It was like one big, casual party. Not formal and stuffy at all.

I was always uncomfortable in bars because I don't drink (I consider it a form of voluntary mind control). But I imagine that would be fun. I'd have a sense of ownership of the place, too -- like everybody was just partying at my place.

What kind of political job do you have? Are you working for the Libertarian Party? Any idea who the next Libertarian presidential candidate will be?

I keep thinking I would like to bartend next year, I think my mother would kill me if I started doing that though. How did you get into that Radar, did you know a lot about making drinks before you started, or did they pretty much teach you how to make the most popular drinks and then set you loose.

No, that's not what I was saying in other words. What I was saying is someone is acting like I write checks with my mouth that my ass can't cash. All I'm saying is my bank account is full and I've never bounced a check. I don't look for fights, but I don't run away either.

It would be nice if we had a free market, but sadly politically influencial Corporations and corrupt politicians have turned our markets into protectionist mercantilism.

Like you, I think that true patriotism means keeping a watchful eye on government and ensuring they don't step beyond their authority. Also I detest people who say bullshit things like, "love it or leave it" and ignore the glaring problems here. The cheerleader mentality you spoke of is disgusting in many ways.

The witchcraft thing is strange. I listened to a bit of gothic and punk in college but never did the white face thing. I don't have to. I'm Irish.

Congrats on the new kid. I hope that works out well for you. I hope this marriage works out better than my first. My new wife is from Vietnam. I met here while I was there on vacation a couple of years ago. Unlike many of the ignorant people who support socialism or communism, I've personally seen the damage it does.

Mostly I've been doing legal paperwork for people having trouble with the IRS or State Tax collectors. I've also been managing an office, and travelling to freedom rallys, forums, etc. to sell books, videos, cd's, tapes, etc. and to give away lots of flyers, audio cd's, and other information about what's happening. I also attend a lot of Libertarian events. I'll be speaking at one in May. I'm not working for the LP at the moment, but I have in the past and most likely will in the future before I'm elected to public office.

Several people are trying for the Libertarian Presidential ticket. My favorite is Bill Masters. He's a Colorado Sheriff who has been re-elected several times. He's extremely intelligent, but unlike Harry Browne he doesn't sound like a Political Science professor. He's got a lot of "folksy" charm. He reminds me of Andy Griffith. He says things like, "I'm just a small town Sheriff but even I know that the drug war is wrong..."

Check him out at:

http://libertybill.net/home.html


There's a Judge in Southern California who just joined the party and wants to go for the Libertarian Ticket too. Judge Gray is in Orange County. I don't know if he'll have as much appeal to the public though.

Do you interpret the Second Amendment, when it says "necessary to the security of a free State", to refer to preservation of the independences of States confronted with a strong central government, which would be done by permitting the states to keep militias, or the freedoms of the people? I feel that the first interpretation has some credence given how many supporters there were of partially autonomous states at the time of the writing of the Constitution (eg; United States), and precedents that this view has in Europe (until the consolidation under absolutist monarchies, which were viewed as being terrible nations for the citizens to live in).



Um, you included a quote opposing tariffs. I am somewhat confused.

Wow. That is incredible if true. Are we arguing with God?

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Thanks, perth!
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Hey, thanks for taking the time to cut out the portion of the site that you linked to that you actually agreed with. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Oh right all you said was that you'd overthrow the goverment and kill anyone that opposed you. LOL Where would we get the idea that you're forcing anything (including death) on us? Oh, becuase that's what putting the goverment you want in effect and killing those that oppose you means... &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;That must be why you ignored Juju's post/link about Alexander Hamilton. Heh. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Oh of course, and we should all trust the guy that calls us names and says he'll kill us if we're in opposition. 'Cause he's a nice guy that wants to help us. Suuuure he is. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Ok, you just hold your breath waiting for them to take up arms. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;This is exactly why you're an internet tough guy. You talked about killing me and then said I was talking shit. Oh yeah, and I should look you up. LOL Obviously you're the one that cares here. I'm posting for my own amusement. You're getting emotional.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;By the by, congrats on the upcoming nuptuals.

I attended a bartending school and then looked for work. I started off doing banquet bartending at hotels and restaurants to get experience. But it's best if you know someone who owns a bar and will give you a shot. I later returned to teach bartending and I think that made me a better bartender. Just like when I used to teach Microsoft Certification to would-be engineers. I felt like teaching them helped me be a better engineer. They would try new things I'd have to find a way to fix it.

The quote was against protectionism. Right now all of the constitutional parts of government can be paid for using the amount of money we already collect in tariffs and excise taxes. I'd be satisfied to spread it out evenly so nobody had an unfair advantage over another and it wouldn't be a large burden on those who bring goods here. Perhaps one day we'd be able to eliminate tariffs too if we started using usage taxes. But regardless of whether or not we do have tariffs, the income tax is unconstitutional and amounts to slavery. And as such nobody is required to pay them. In fact it's unamerican to pay income taxes because of this. Everything short of violence has been tried to get the government to address this issue except for one thing. Check out Bob Schulz at http://www.givemeliberty.org to see the extent to which he went just to get the government to answer a few questions. He invited them to discuss it with him on CSPAN and they claimed they'd show but didn't. He went on a hunger strike and they said they'd meet with him so he'd end the strike on the 19th day but they didn't show. He showed up in Washington D.C. with representatives from all 50 states to exercise their 1st amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Nobody in Washington knew what to do. It had never been done before. They made a list of questions and gave them to every member of congress and the president, but nothing they did, including taking out full page ads in the USA Today got the government to address the problems.

The only thing left to do short of violence is for people to stop paying income taxes. We the people are the master's of government. They are our public servants. What is a free people to do when a servant starts taking over the house? Starve them. Don't give them the means to support themselves and you'll make a point very quickly.


No, just an honest and well-educated man of honor.

Hey, I'm all for getting a Libertarian to make a stronger than usual run at the presidency, since that would most likely take votes from Bush.

No, I said I'd overthrow those who have taken over government and return government to a Constitutional Republic like what we started with only with the additions to the constitution included (not the parts that were added illegally like the 16th amendment). And no I wouldn't be putting the government that I personally want, but rather the government all of us agree to live under with the Constitution. Without the Constitution there is no United States of America. I'm not interested in taking over, or in replacing our government. Just in removing those who have violated the Constitution and returning government to one that sticks to the rules. Not MY rules, or even new rules; just the same rules they've always been REQUIRED to follow.

The Federalist papers are not part of the Constitution. And for the record the anti-federalists were right in what they said and Hamilton was wrong.

Thanks. I appreciate that.

When you bartend, is the difficult part keeping track of 10 different orders? Do you serve people by taking order A and filling order a, then taking order B and filling order b, or is it more like ABCDaEbcF ...

It depends on what kind of bartending you're doing. In a lot of restaurants they've got printouts and you can go by them. In banquet bartending you've got to take people one at a time, or in a club you've got to keep track in your head.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Radar, dude, if some guy you didn't know was talking about revolution and assured you he wasn't intending to take over, just make it like it was supposed to be, would you believe him?

It would depend mostly on who the guy was, what his reasons were, and what his goals were. I would believe me. But I wouldn't believe George Bush, Al Gore, or Ralph Nader.

Radar I think your hopeless.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Like I said, you'd have to take the guys word on his reasons and his goals.

You would believe yourself.

I wouldn't.

I would believe me were I someone else. I have far more credibility, integrity, honesty, and intelligence than any of those I mentioned.

Yep and that's why you find yourself sitting in the Oval office right??

Actually I've never run for the office of president but I'd imagine as an honest and truly patriotic man, I'd be at a disadvantage to obtain it. I'll be satisfied when another Libertarian holds that spot. But I will be elected at some position in government whether it be congress, the senate, or governor of a state, I'm not sure.

would urge you to run for office. It gives one a fine perspective on the challenge and reality of politics. I never ran myself but I have managed several campaigns.