[joemama]

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.

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.

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.

Actually America requires a revolution because the government no longer works based on the consent of the people and violates our rights.

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.

The government is closing all avenues for people to peacefully keep control of the government.

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.

And as the Declaration of Independence says,

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?

When people in other countries have jobs, they can afford to buy our products.

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.

Unions are responsible for the majority of jobs that leave America

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.

I feel like I'm one of very few people on this board actually who do make sense.

Why am I reminded of something Bertrand Russell said?

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

I would only kill in my defense for instance when returning the government back to a constitutional republic if someone were to oppose me.

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.

but Americans are being enslaved for 1/3 of the year

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.

You don't have freedom of speech in America

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?

Irwin Schiff just had his book banned by the government and they said he can't talk about it

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.

Do you intend to oppose me when I return America back to the greatest nation on earth?

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.

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.

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.

The government often railroads free thinkers and puts them in jail.

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.

house niggers like you

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 ).

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

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.

Rather than deciding they point to other decisions instead of the law.

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.

they think of their political careers and rule poorly

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.

The rules that established this country

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