How Do I Liberate Thee? Let Me Count the Ways
[COLOR=orange][SIZE=5]How Do I Liberate Thee?
Let Me Count the Ways[/SIZE][/COLOR]
[SIZE=3]by Harry Browne[/SIZE]
December 15, 2003
Sunday's capture of Saddam Hussein made it a great day — a great day for empty rhetoric and meaningless posturing by politicians and journalists.
Somehow it was assumed by politicians and the press, without explanation, that Hussein's capture has vindicated the Bush administration's attack on Iraq. But from September 2002 to March 2003, George Bush said nothing about capturing Saddam Hussein. Instead, Bush talked incessantly about weapons of mass destruction and Iraq's ability to attack the U.S. with them — as well as Al Qaeda camps in the Iraqi desert. How does finding Saddam Hussein make Bush's claims any more true than they were last week?
We're told that that the Iraqis can see now that Saddam Hussein isn't coming back to power — as though they couldn't figure that out for themselves with 130,000 foreign troops occupying their country.
But in the wonderland occupied by politicians and journalists, the capture of Hussein must mean that all the resisters — also known as "loyalists of the old regime" — would have no more reason to resist.
Some politicians said that if anti-war protesters had their gotten way, Hussein would be in his palace today, instead of in jail. Yes, and if the anti-war protesters had gotten their way, several hundred Americans and thousands of Iraqis would be alive today, instead of dead.
The press played its part in the celebration. Wolf Blitzer of CNN said that Hussein's capture proves to the world that "the President of the United States means business" — whatever that means.
In fact, we've known all along that George Bush means business — the business of getting reelected.
There were plenty of TV pictures of Iraqis firing AK-47s into the air. But no inquiring minds bothered to ask how everyday Iraqis could be carrying AK-47s out in the open, when the American occupiers have imposed strict gun-control edicts and are at war with resisters.
What if Saddam Hussein says that all the dreaded Weapons of Mass Destruction were destroyed years ago? Well, we know that George Bush believes in preemptive strikes, and he's already made one on this front. On Monday, he said of Hussein:
[list]He’s a liar. He’s a torturer. He’s a murderer. . . . He’s a — he’s just — he is what he is: He’s a person that was willing to destroy his country and to kill a lot of his fellow citizens. He’s a person who used weapons of mass destruction against citizens in his own country. And so it’s — he is the kind of person that is untrustworthy and I’d be very cautious about relying upon his word in any way, shape or form. [/list]
In other words, "Believe him only if he confirms what I've been telling you for the past year."
[COLOR=orange][SIZE=3]Liberation[/SIZE][/COLOR]
Donald Rumsfeld said that Hussein's capture means that the Iraqis can now be free in spirit, as well as in fact.
Ah yes, liberated Iraq. It is now a free country. George Bush has liberated it.
How has Iraq been liberated? Let me count the ways . . .
[list]1. The country is occupied by a foreign power.
2. Its officials are appointed by that foreign power.
3. Its citizens must carry ID cards.
4. They must submit to searches of their persons and cars at checkpoints and roadblocks.
5. They must be in their homes by curfew time.
6. Many towns are ringed with barbed wire.
7. The occupiers have imposed strict gun-control laws, preventing ordinary citizens from defending themselves — making robberies, rapes, and assaults quite common.
8. Trade with some countries is banned by the occupying authorities.
9. The occupiers have decreed that certain electoral outcomes won't be permitted.
10. Families are held hostage until they reveal the whereabouts of wanted resisters — much like the Nazis held innocent French people hostage during World War II.
11. Protests are outlawed.
12. Private homes are raided or demolished — with no warning and with no due process of law.
13. The occupiers have created a fiat currency and imposed it on the populace.
14. Newspapers, radio stations, and TV are all supervised by the occupiers.[/list]
This is liberation in the NewSpeak language of politics.
Words like freedom just don't seem to mean what they used to, do they?
Once again Harry shows his contempt for history and complete lack of understanding of foreign affairs. This is the process of installing rule of law. It is temporarily and purposefully and distinctly not Democratic. The purpose of this period is to ensure that the power vacuum is not quickly replaced with another tyranny.
This is how freedom was born in Germany and Japan, similarly militaristic/collectivist countries who are now generally free and peaceful and export their productivity to the world instead of keeping it for their war machines.
By the way, why didn't that widespread AK-47 ownership -- which applied throughout Hussein's reign -- prevent tyranny in Iraq? Could it be that the standard gun argument is a little more complex than you thought?
Once again Harry shows his contempt for history and complete lack of understanding of foreign affairs.
Once again, you show your complete ignorance of history, and a desire to re-write it to suit your own agenda. Harry was absolutely historically accurate in this and the other article I posted regarding WWI & WWII. You and your ilk prove your so-called foreign affairs are nothing but war mongering and the same type of imperialistic tyrrany America was created to escape from.
The purpose of this period is to ensure that the power vacuum is not quickly replaced with another tyranny
Too Late. As we've all seen in Iraq.
And I'd hardly call the democratic socialistic country of Germany a free one, and neither of those countries is able to defend themselves thanks to our military interventionism and the American people are left paying the bill for it.
By the way, why didn't that widespread AK-47 ownership -- which applied throughout Hussein's reign -- prevent tyranny in Iraq?
It most likely could have, but it didn't because the people
CHOSE to follow Hussein and supported his leadership much like those who support Bush in America are supporting tyrrany.
Could it be that the standard gun argument is a little more complex than you thought?
No, it couldn't.
It's become painfully clear that you need to read a few history books, some political science books, and try to develop some common sense.
Iraq is no better off now, than they were with Saddam and America's illegal attack against Iraq wasn't to "Liberate" the Iraqi people.
So are there any countries in the world that you would regard as free?
And what lesson do you draw from that answer?
The USA used to be free but Republicans and Democrats have been attacking that freedom for decades. Even socialistic Holland and Canada are more free than America these days.
So, none?
And what lesson do you draw from that answer?
The lesson is that when you allow imperialistic military interventionism to occur because someone tells you it's for "freedom" or to "liberate" another country, there can't be freedom anywhere on earth. In order to secure freedom we must clamp down on government and ensure it never steps beyond the bounds of the Constitution and never interferes in the affairs of other nations with "foreign aid" or military interventionism.
Noting that the use of force between countries to spread one particular notion of "Freedom" is wrong,...
How would you clamp down on government?
First I'd get rid of every single part of government that isn't specifically listed in the Constitution. Some incredibly ignorant people stupidly think phrases like "general welfare" or "common defense" are vague and give the government unlimited power. Once unconstitutional things like the "homeland security" department, foreign aid, FBI, FDA, FCC, DEA, BATF, IRS, Welfare, Social Security, Federally funded education, Medicare, etc. were eliminated, our country would be safer, more prosperous, and free.
After that I'd propose a few amendments to make sure there are no further attempts to circumvent the Constitution...
ARTICLE.
All people have the right to do ANYTHING they want as long as their actions do not PHYSICALLY harm or endanger a non-consenting other or their property or prevent the equal exercise of another person's rights.
ARTICLE.
ALL people shall be treated equally under the law regardless of their age, gender, social status, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, or country of origin.
ARTICLE.
NO LAWS SHALL BE WRITTEN against any consensual activity between two adults in any of the states, territories, or by the federal government.
ARTICLE.
Under no circumstances is the federal government to construe the terms "general welfare" or "common defense" to give them cart blanche to make any laws they wish or do anything they want. The Federal government may not take part in, or legislate anything that is not specifically listed in the Constitution.
ARTICLE.
Rights are natural and inalienable and the role of government does not include defining those rights or limiting them.
ARTICLE.
Gun ownership is an individual right and applies to all guns without limits on the number of guns, the type of guns, the amount or type of ammunition. Guns will no longer have serial numbers or have any oversight of the government. Nobody may keep track of who owns guns or require registration or waiting periods to get guns. Anything that prevents a person from walking into a gun store, buying a gun from someone willing to sell a gun to them, and walking out with it like he would with any other product is an infringement on the right of gun ownership.
ARTICLE.
The government may not possess any weapons that individuals may not also be able to buy.
ARTICLE.
The states entered into the union on a voluntary basis and they may leave the union if they choose without retaliation from those remaining in the union.
ARTICLE.
The United States has no authority beyond our own borders and as such is not the police of the world.
ARTICLE.
The military of the United States will only be used for the DEFENSE of America and not any foreign nation. DEFENSE will never be construed to mean America will launch a pre-emptive attack. DEFENSE will never be construed to mean OFFENSE. The military of the United States will only be large enough to defend American soil from eminent attack and will not be stationed all over the world in a show of imperialistic force and will not be used for humanitarian aid missions, to overthrow the leadership of nations that haven't attacked America, to violate the sovereignty of foreign nations, to settle disputes among other nations, or to take part in any conflict other than an attack directly against America.
ARTICLE.
ONLY Congress may declare war, and then only when America is under an immediate threat of danger. Congress may only declare war when they have disclosed indisputable proof to the American public that America is about to be attacked or is currently being attacked. War may be declared only against another nation, not against an activity or an idea (See the war on drugs, war on poverty, war on terror).
ARTICLE.
All forms of income-based taxation are slavery and will be abolished immediately in all states and the federal government. (Social Security, income tax, etc)
ARTICLE.
The laws of the states and the federal government bind all people who live within the borders of the United States or any of its territories unless those laws are in direct contradiction with the Constitution. If someone does not like these laws, they can vote to change them or move to another country, but if they stay, they are giving their implied consent to be governed by these laws and by the government.
ARTICLE.
The Electoral College is arcane and flawed and will henceforth be eliminated. The citizens of the United States will vote directly for their leader and a simple majority will decide the winner without going through an intermediary (middle-man).
ARTICLE.
All Military Service is forever voluntary in the United States of America and is open to all citizens regardless of their sexual preference, gender, age, ethnicity, religion, or social status providing they can pass the same minimal physical standards already required of other candidates. And all people who join the military will have the same chances of being exposed to danger regardless of their sexual preference, gender, age, ethnicity, religion, or social status.
ARTICLE.
Immigrants from all over the world built the United States of America and non-dangerous immigrants will always be welcomed to America without limitations.
First I'd get rid of every single part of government that isn't specifically listed in the Constitution. ...
After that I'd propose a few amendments to make sure there are no further attempts to circumvent the Constitution...
OK, but you can't do that alone, and the masses seem pretty content with the current interpretation, so what then?
First, I don't "interpret" the Constitution. It means what it says and "the masses" are mostly stupid people who are content to get handouts because they don't realize that they are the masters of government (not the other way around), that they are entitled to keep everything they earn, and that they can make a difference.
I intend to change things peacefully within the system until it can't be done that way anymore (which is quickly approaching), and when it can't be done that way anymore, I will take up arms to defend my country against the government and forcefully return America back to the Constitutional republic we started with (althought with the new amendments in tact....at least those that were legally ratified so the income tax amendment would be toast)
Libertarians don't believe in the initiation of force, but have no problem in using force to defend our rights, property, or persons against attack and that's been happening for the last 100 years.
If goverment doesn't start abiding by the rules, we have THE RIGHT to overthrow it and replace it with one that does. Those who fought in the first revolution only amounted to about 5% of the population and those in the military would hardly fire on other Americans even if ordered to do so.
OK, but since the moment you take up arms against the government, you'll be killed or jailed for the rest of your life, your own personal attitude has no bearing; as long as you don't wield enough power to actually bring about revolution, it's pretty irrelevant what you do, right?
You really have no bearing, and can cause no change, until you have enough people who agree with you that the tipping point is reached. Yes?
Enough people already do. The number of people being victimized by the US Government within our own borders is staggering and it's only getting higher. And if I take up arms against the government I'm within my rights if that government stops defending me and my rights and starts infringing upon them or attempting to limit them or define them. There are well over 5% of the population that would take part in an actual revolt against those who have usurped power from the people and are violating our rights.
Government is the servant and I, along with other citizens, are its master. We don't live in a democracy, we live in a democratic republic where the rights of individuals supercede the powers of government. It's monumentally stupid to think that the apathy of many who see going against the government as futile or impossible to be people who are satisfied with the status quo.
The vast majority of Americans are not happy with what our government is doing right now in one way or another. People like me are the majority, not the other way around.
Of course, there is the other 95% to consider. They would certainly take up arms against you, eh?
If any free country such as Radar posits ever existed, it would be assailed constantly on all sides by every radical faction on the planet, seeking to overturn it for either appearing weak or being too open and liberal.
Oh...wait...that's what is already happening to the US, isn't it? Nevermind.
Of course, there is the other 95% to consider. They would certainly take up arms against you, eh?
No. As I said, those dissatisfied with the government are in the majority and it only took 5% of the population of America to overthrow the English. The others did not take up arms against the true American patriots who were fighting for freedom just as they wouldn't now. In fact very few of those in the military right now would fire on Americans fighting for freedom and trying to make government adhere to the limits on their powers in the Constitution if ordered to do so.
If any free country such as Radar posits ever existed, it would be assailed constantly on all sides by every radical faction on the planet, seeking to overturn it for either appearing weak or being too open and liberal.
It did exist, and I'm living in the same location where it existed. The country I describe was right here in America and it turns out we weren't attacked on all sides because we're neutral. Just as Switzerland hasn't been attacked even though they're surrounded by war.
What was the time frame you were thinking of as representing a free country?
I'm not sure I understand the question. I intend to change government peacefully from within the system as long as it can still be changed peacefully from within the system, but the government is quickly closing that door. I don't intend to take up arms until it's the only way to return government to its Constitutional limits. Until then I will continue to educate people and to try to bring about change peacefully and without bloodshed. So I guess the timeline is all in the hands of the government.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
No, I mean, which years of the past US represent the free country you feel was free by your definition?
For the most part the US Government stuck to the Constitution for the first 100 years. I'd say things really fell apart in 1913 when the federal reserve act was enacted and the income tax amendment was fraudently added to the Constitution. But I suppose the first time the Constitution was really abused badly was in 1861 by Lincoln. He murdered thousands upon thousands of Americans and those who had left the union legally. He also created income taxes, suspended habeus corpus, etc.
OK. So to start, slavery is just a weird blip that doesn't count because it's not in the Constitution, because those people weren't considered people and therefore it's all just a re-do somehow, right?
Women didn't participate in your pet process - that's gotta be worth an asterisk in your thinking somewhere?
Trying to figure out how this plain-speaking document that protects freedom could have these gigantic holes in it. Holes so large they failed to protect the rights of the majority of people.
absolute freedom doesn't work
how could it?
Originally posted by Radar
[major snip]
[b]ARTICLE.
Immigrants from all over the world built the United States of America and non-dangerous immigrants will always be welcomed to America without limitations. [/B]
[COLOR=indigo]Please tell me what a non-dangerous immigrant is and how we're going to pay for our children's education in this hap hap happy world of yours?[/COLOR]
You'll have the money to send them to the school of your choice, b/c you won't have to pay income tax.
Radar needs to meet my friend Reality too...
[COLOR=indigo]So now I have to pay for my children to go to school. OK.
6 months ago, I had a full time job, I wasn't paying income tax because I am tax-exempt and I was living in Nevada, a tax-free state.
I was still considered poor enough to live in "Section 8" housing and qualified for food stamps. I was making $12 an hour.
How was I supposed to afford a decent school for my kids?
[/COLOR]
[COLOR=indigo]By the way, Radar....
You keep holding up Switzerland as an example of neutrality, and have cited their "military preparedness", but in your articles you mention the US armed forces are to be 100% voluntary.
Switzerland has a mandatory service requirement. This means that all males, age 20 and up have formal training using weapons, etc.
I have much less problems with when talking about "everybody gets all the guns they want, on demand," if EVERY able bodied male were formally trained in it's use.
And these articles of yours are going to create havoc. I don't see any changes to the justice system, changes that would have to be implented when Billy Joe Jim Bob goes on a rampage and mows down the local elementary schoolyard that I'm now paying for my kid to go to.
[/COLOR]
Originally posted by Radar
For the most part the US Government stuck to the Constitution for the first 100 years. I'd say things really fell apart in 1913 when the federal reserve act was enacted and the income tax amendment was fraudently added to the Constitution.
One thing I do remember from history class is that the first 100 years were the most corrupt.
OK. So to start, slavery is just a weird blip that doesn't count because it's not in the Constitution, because those people weren't considered people and therefore it's all just a re-do somehow, right?
Women didn't participate in your pet process - that's gotta be worth an asterisk in your thinking somewhere?
Trying to figure out how this plain-speaking document that protects freedom could have these gigantic holes in it. Holes so large they failed to protect the rights of the majority of people.
Times change and the Constitution changed. All I expect is for the Government to abide by the Constitution and the limits on their powers within the Constitution. So if we forced government to start over and stick to the Constitution it would be the current Constitution minus the 16 amendment which was fraudently added.
Please tell me what a non-dangerous immigrant is and how we're going to pay for our children's education in this hap hap happy world of yours?
A non-dangerous immigrant is one which doesnt' pose a danger. One that isn't a criminal, doesn't have a strong history of ties with terrorist organizations, etc. But any normal working person from another country without some sort of violent criminal past should be allowed in.
You'll have the money to send them to the school of your choice, b/c you won't have to pay income tax.
That's right. If you weren't paying income tax, you'd be able to send your children to schools 10 times better than public schools at half of the cost. You'd afford the best healthcare, have a better retirement, and have money left over to give the your favorite non-profit charities which would get more money to those in need than welfare.
Radar needs to meet my friend Reality too...
If you doubt any of what I said, reality is not only your friend, you've never even met.
So now I have to pay for my children to go to school. OK.
Yes, now you pay 1/2 of what you were paying before. And if you can't afford to send children to school on your meager earnings, perhaps you shouldn't have children.
You keep holding up Switzerland as an example of neutrality, and have cited their "military preparedness", but in your articles you mention the US armed forces are to be 100% voluntary.
I would have mentioned that, but it's not the truth. America still has conscription during times of war. A draft. I believe in voluntary military service, but think all citizens should do their duty voluntarily. I'd also be for using government to encourage gun ownership.
And these articles of yours are going to create havoc. I don't see any changes to the justice system, changes that would have to be implented when Billy Joe Jim Bob goes on a rampage and mows down the local elementary schoolyard that I'm now paying for my kid to go to
What changes do we need in the justice system other than removing laws that keep non-violent non-criminals in jail and let genuinely dangerous criminals out of jail early to make room? Once we empty the jails of non-violent drug offenders, prostitutes, and those in jail on other consensual activities, we'll have plenty of room for Billy Jo Jim Bob to stay in jail a long time when he goes on a Rampage. What do you think should be done? And you're fooling yourself if you don't think you're already paying for your kids to go to school. The only difference is in my situation, they might actually learn something which could put them ahead of you.
One thing I do remember from history class is that the first 100 years were the most corrupt.
Then you didn't learn much in History. The last 30 years have been more corrupt than all the other years combined. Just the Bush administration has violated the Constitution more than all previous administrations combined.
Well, I suppose which decade was the "most" corrupt is a matter of opinion. But I guess my point was that there has been corruption in the U.S. government almost since the very beginning. I think your claim that the Constitution wasn't violated much until 1913 is highly unlikely. That is, if one takes your strict, fanatical view about the Constitution.
Let's go back then to the notion that no "free" country exists on the planet and that this is the fault of the US government's use of military power. Howzat again?
Originally posted by Radar
The only difference is in my situation, they might actually learn something which could put them ahead of you.
[COLOR=indigo]When all else fails, go for the personal insult. How charming and persuasive you are!
[/COLOR]
That's right. If you weren't paying income tax, you'd be able to send your children to schools 10 times better than public schools at half of the cost. You'd afford the best healthcare, have a better retirement, and have money left over to give the your favorite non-profit charities which would get more money to those in need than welfare.
[COLOR=indigo]Again, you weren't reading. I am tax-exempt. I was living in a no-income tax state. Making $12 an hour. And not able to make it, even in substandard housing.
Since I wasn't paying taxes, explain how I send my kids to better than public schools at HALF the cost? I'm not paying anything now...how do you half the cost of that?
[/COLOR]
Yes, now you pay 1/2 of what you were paying before. And if you can't afford to send children to school on your meager earnings, perhaps you shouldn't have children.
[COLOR=indigo]Again, you didn't read. I DON'T pay anything now.
How many people in the United States are making $24,000 or less per year? Do you have a percentage? Even if that is tax-free, that is very little to survive on, let alone pay for school, day care, healthcare, retirement and charitable donations. $12/hour is a little over $23k per year, so I was being generous with my number.
But think about that. $24,000 a year. That certainly is meager. Then consider that people who make minimum wage get around $10,500 per YEAR. Talk about meager!! So you're saying that if you make less than $24k a year you shouldn't have children??
What was that percentage of the population again? I don't think your platform is going to be popular with us "po-folk".
[/COLOR]
We had the potential to be free, but through our militarism we've lost that opportunity.
Radar gives the Constitution too much credit. Hell, by 1913 we'd already democratized Cuba.
[COLOR=indigo]Let's run some numbers, shall we?
Let's assume for this post that person is making $24,000 per year. Tax free. Single parent, 2 children.
Under HUD guidelines, a person or family should pay no more than 30 percent of their income for housing in order for that housing to be considered affordable.
That's $7200 a year, or $600 per month for rent.
Food (at $75 per week) is $300 per month, or $3600 per year.
We'll assume our mother has a vehicle that she pays $200 a month on +$75 a month for car insurance. (A stretch by any standard.) Add $10 a week in gas, and a jiffy lube at $20 four times a year, that's $3860 a year.
You have to clothe the children, and if you go to the thrift store and catch the sales at walmart, you can clothe your kids for $200 every school year. But lets assume you have to pay to send them to school. Radar says 1/2 price, so we'll take the going rate at a private school in Vegas (where I lived taxfree) = $500 a month x 12 months. We'll half that, to $3000 a year and assume they don't require uniforms, so we can use the "thrift store" price given. So 2 kids x 1 year half price schooling ($3000) + thrift store clothes ($200)= $6400 per year for both kids.
Let's talk about healthcare. When I was on my HMO, I was paying $210 a MONTH for myself and 2 children to be covered, and that didn't pay for co-pays on office visits or pharmacy. We'll half that, and add $1260 to our running total. This does NOT count costs for glasses, dentists, or accidents like broken limbs or stitches.
I won't even get started on daycare, and assume the older child looks after the younger child until mommy gets home.
Utilities: In a desert community or colder climate, it's around $90 a month average, assuming electric heating and cooling. Let's say heating and cooling all types (oil, kerosene, electricity, propane) average $50 a month, or $600 a year.
Telephone, if you don't have cellular, and don't make any long distance calls, will run $15 a month, or $180 a year.
We're at $23,100. I haven't included most of the other "incidentals" and expenses that we all know exist in the real world. And I was being conservative in my figures. MY costs were a hell of alot more than that in some areas, and less in others.
The average cost of living for single parent families with two children is $29,604 a year, taking income taxes out of the equation.
So, according to your standard, Radar, since 20% are below poverty, ($15,020/year) and the average cost of living ($29, 604/year) is ABOVE the average single parent income ($28,590/year), the average American should NOT have children.
Even on paper your world sucks.
[/COLOR]
I looked it up.
**Average female householder (single income female) makes $28,590 per year.
**20.3% of households in the United States are considered below the poverty line, (for a household of 3 is $15, 020 per year.) That's over 56 MILLION Americans.
Again, you didn't read. I DON'T pay anything now.
Again, YOUR needs don't entitle you to reach into anyone else's pocket to pay for your children's education or anything else you think you need. What's happening right now is theft, and you support it since you're one of the theives. You are not entitled to healthcare, an education, or anything else that you didn't pay for. Maybe someone will feel generous and send your children to school, or maybe you'll do the responsible thing and adopt them to someone who is capable of taking care of them. In either case, if you can't afford children, you shouldn't have them. It's an irresponsible decision that you want to force other people to pay for.
You wanted to know how you'd be better off paying half of what it costs to send your kids to a public school than you are now? You wouldn't be stealing, your kids would have a superior education and might be a lot more financially secure than you seem to be, and maybe you'd deserve some respect. If you were educated, you'd probably be making more than $12/hr.
So you're saying that if you make less than $24k a year you shouldn't have children??
No, I'm saying if you make less than $50k/year you shouldn't even think about having children. You shouldn't have children unless you can afford to feed them, clothe them, pay for their healthcare, education, and other needs without the need for charity from government or anyone else. I'm saying if you do have children under these circumstances, you're irresponsible and if you expect other people to pay to educate, feed, clothe, etc. you or your children at the point of a gun (welfare) you are a common theif. If you are pregnant and have kids while knowing you can't afford to have them, you are doing them a disservice. Poor people should not have children, plain and simple and if they do have kids and really love them, they should to the right thing and adopt them out so they can have a decent life.
Let's go back then to the notion that no "free" country exists on the planet and that this is the fault of the US government's use of military power. Howzat again?
A free country is one where the government doesn't do anything to define or limit the rights of the citizens, and doesn't make any laws that prevent ANYTHING they want to do as long as their actions don't PHYSICALLY harm a non-consenting other or their property. It's a country in which the government abides by the limits on its authority and where people can go as far as their talent, drive, and wit can bring them. It's a country in which people don't look to the government to be their nanny, but rather take responsibility for their own lives.
In a free country the government wouldn't mess with the free market. In a free country your government does what you want it to do instead of what the UN or other countries want it to do. US military interventionism and foreign policy have ensured that virtually no countries are free because America bribes them, bullies them, threatens them, coerces them, cajoles, them, and otherwise pushes other countries around into adopting ignorant policies that even the people of America don't want like the zero-tolerance drug policy.
Radar gives the Constitution too much credit. Hell, by 1913 we'd already democratized Cuba.
Even if you only go to 1861 when Lincoln made major violations of the Constitution that's roughly 80 years of government that mostly stuck to the Constitution.
So places like Canada and Europe would be "free" if only the US would not force them into unproductive policies?
And if their governments wouldn't practice socialism and met the other criteria. Let's look at Australia which in many ways is more free than America and in others not as free. They've got legal prostitution which is the sign of a truly civilized nation and they wanted to adopt a common-sense drug policy that gave addicts medical treatment instead of jail time. The USA threatened Australia (as America often does) to adopt a zero-tolerance drug policy or we'd use our clout at the UN to remove thier ability to grow poppies for pharmaceutical companies (billions of dollars), so they did. America gives "foreign aid" to countries like a drug dealer gives out the first hit of heroin and after they're hooked on it, America threatens to take it away if they don't do what America says to do. Does being bullied, pushed around, threatened, etc. sound free to you?
So, if the US did not practice this kind of interventionism, these other countries would still not be FARD (Free According to Radar Definition), yes?
It's not MY definition. It's the commonly accepted definition of freedom. Doing what you want without being molested by another or having your rights trampled upon.
What does free mean to you? Being robbed at the point of a gun? Having another country tell yours what to do under threat of violence or financial restrictions?
Why don't you start offering up what YOU think freedom is. You obviously seem to think America is free right now. So you must think a government that doesn't abide by limitations on its powers, that attacks civil rights instead of defending them, that starts unprovoked wars against non-threatening nations, that practices imperialistic tyrrany and terrorism under the guise of stopping terrorism, etc. is free. But hey I might be wrong.
Why don't you tell us what you think freedom is.
I'm ignoring everything in your posts that is evasion of my questions. FARD does not exist in any country on this planet, and would not even if the US did not intervene, am I correct?
Fine than I'll ignore all of your posts. If you expect me to answer your questions, and you won't answer mine, you can just fuck off.
OK look, I don't really need you to answer, because I already know your answers AND your evasions. 8-10 years ago I would have been writing them.
What I'm doing is making a point to everyone reading. Every evasion is informative. Every misdirection, every over-dramatic change of subject, every five-paragraph end-around to my simple, one-sentence question, is informative. My careful respect and your strategic disrespect. My caution in definition and your over-generalization. Your early departure of the discussion. Informative, informative, informative.
I haven't evaded a single thing. I"ve answered every question fully. It is YOU who are evading questions. I asked you questions and you evade them and then accuse me of doing exactly what you are doing. I'd say that says a lot more about you than anything I've said does about me.
You make up bullshit terms like FARD and expect me to take it seriously. The freedom I describe is the freedom we once had in America and it was pissed away. You seem to think we've got freedom right now. But you refuse to say what you think freedom is.
Your tactics are weak. You want to keep me on the defensive by always being the one asking the questions, but never answering any yourself.
Now give me the same courtesy I've given you and stop evading my questions.
Again, YOUR needs don't entitle you to reach into anyone else's pocket to pay for your children's education or anything else you think you need. What's happening right now is theft, and you support it since you're one of the theives. You are not entitled to healthcare, an education, or anything else that you didn't pay for. Maybe someone will feel generous and send your children to school, or maybe you'll do the responsible thing and adopt them to someone who is capable of taking care of them. In either case, if you can't afford children, you shouldn't have them. It's an irresponsible decision that you want to force other people to pay for.
[color=indigo]I don't pay taxes because the government says I don't make enough per year to tax me. I'm not on Food Stamps, although I could have been. I'm not on welfare, although I qualify. I did what I could on my own until I was forced to move to a location that was less expensive to live. [/color]
You wanted to know how you'd be better off paying half of what it costs to send your kids to a public school than you are now? You wouldn't be stealing, your kids would have a superior education and might be a lot more financially secure than you seem to be, and maybe you'd deserve some respect. If you were educated, you'd probably be making more than $12/hr.
[color=indigo]Teachers only make $16 an hour (average), about $31,000 a year. Mid-level Accountants earn an average of $45,000 a year, and Mid-level management earns about $52,000 a year.
You're saying over 68% of Americans should adopt their children out, so that the other 32% can adopt them and give them the education and lifestyle your policies would limit them to? And what if the 32% don't want those kids? Who takes care of them then under your "new Amerika"?
[/color]
Edit: And by the way, I have a degree in Psychology and I'm earning another in secondary Education with a minor in foreign languages. Your assumptions only highlight the flaws in your reasoning.
Radar, you started this thread by evangelizing for your own personal philosophy. That's the context of this whole discussion.
I don't need to post my philosophy in order to show yours to be in error. My philosophy could be full of holes and yet I might locate the biggest hole in yours.
The only way to know whether your philosphy is strong is to permit any number of tests of it. You must rigorously and HONESTLY test it, personally in your own mind, and you must also accept tests of it from others.
When others see you not permitting any test of your philosophy, they will decide - with good reason - that you yourself do not test your philosophy, and therefore that it is probably not very strong.
When others see that you do not want to endure a simple, open-ended discussion with honest skeptics, but that you do want to endlessly evangelize, what do you think they assume? What would you assume?
I'm saying anyone who has children without being able to afford to give them the education, healthcare, clothing, food, shelter, etc. they need and desire is irresponsible at best and they are thieves if they expect government to force anyone else to pay for those things.
I'm all for you not paying income-based taxes. Nobody should pay them. But don't expect anyone else to pay for the education, healthcare, clothing, food, shelter, toys, etc. of your children except through some voluntary charity organization, but never through government.
I'm also flat out saying that poor people should not have children and if they do, they are irresponsible.
You're saying over 68% of Americans should adopt their children out, so that the other 32% can adopt them and give them the education and lifestyle your policies would limit them to? And what if the 32% don't want those kids? Who takes care of them then under your "new Amerika"?
I'm saying that those who can't afford to pay for all the needs of their own children including education should adopt their children out to people who can afford it. This is the responsible thing to do. I don't think they should be forced to adopt their children out though. But if they don't, their children should only get the education, healthcare, etc. their parents do pay for. So I guess your kids wouldn't be very educated. Much like a person who can only earn $12/hr.
I love how you put the 'k' in America as though I were promoting some horrible authoritarian violation of your rights when it is you who want to use men with guns to make other people pay for your irresponsible decision. Freedom means you pay for what you want and don't steal from others to pay for it. Freedom and Responsibility are inseparable.
Edit: And by the way, I have a degree in Psychology and I'm earning another in secondary Education with a minor in foreign languages. Your assumptions only highlight the flaws in your reasoning.
There's your mistake. If you had majored in an applied science instead of a liberal art, you might stand a chance of making actual money. I'm an engineer, as far as I'm concerned taking language and liberal art classes (I speak 3 and am working on a 4th) are for fun. You might as well major in underwater basketweaving.
A responsible person would have gone to college and finished BEFORE having children and wouldn't have them if they couldn't afford to fulfill all of their needs including paying for their educations.
Radar, you started this thread by evangelizing for your own personal philosophy. That's the context of this whole discussion.
Wrong, this thread started off with an articulate, well-founded, cogent article written about the situation in Iraq. You then made ignorant comments about its author. It's not a discussion about my own personal philosophy which I've examined and is solid as a rock. It's not a thread for you to question me without offering any answers of your own.
Your attempts ot keep me on the defensive are transparant. If you want to keep evading questions but expect me to answer yours, you can piss up a rope and slide down the dry side.
And who the hell are you to test my philosophy without offering a test of your own? My philosophy is well-tested, has a solid historically factual foundation, and offers the most freedom to the most people without coercion or force while maintaining safety and prosperity. I think you are bothered by it because there are no holes in it what-so-ever.
If you care to start a thread to question each other's philosophy, go ahead, but be prepared to answer questions about yours if you expect me to answer questions about mine.
I'm content to let the readers decide what's happened here. It's been a productive discussion, thanks.
I'm content to let them see your smug attitude and your evasive tactics. They'll also note that I answered all of the questions directed at me honestly, fully, and without hesitation while you ran away like a coward when confronted about your own beliefs.
Originally posted by Radar
I'm saying anyone who has children without being able to afford to give them the education, healthcare, clothing, food, shelter, etc. they need and desire is irresponsible at best and they are thieves if they expect government to force anyone else to pay for those things.
snip
I'm also flat out saying that poor people should not have children and if they do, they are irresponsible.
[color=indigo]OK, so they are irresponsible. What you will have if you remove "free" education is a LARGE group of children that are completely uneducated, sick, and breeding irresponsibly. A downward spiral.
What happens in your world? They simply starve to death, out of the economic gene-pool? Just because their parent, an educated teacher making much less than your $50,000 winning number a year, can't afford to send them to school? [/color]
I'm saying that those who can't afford to pay for all the needs of their own children including education should adopt their children out to people who can afford it. This is the responsible thing to do.
[color=indigo]I heard you. But you didn't answer my question. Let's say all 68% of the populous suddenly becomes responsible and adopts their children out because they can't afford them.
Who then, adopts them? By your definition, the 32% of the people that can afford them. And when those 32% are having their OWN children, what parcentage of that 32% is going to adopt? What do you do with the rest of the children?[/color]
I don't think they should be forced to adopt their children out though. But if they don't, their children should only get the education, healthcare, etc. their parents do pay for. So I guess your kids wouldn't be very educated. Much like a person who can only earn $12/hr.
[color=indigo]Please check my edit on the post above this one. I am educated. And will be more educated by the time I earn my second degree. But according to your definition, I will still be too poor to have children. So you can't use the "uneducated" argument, when educated people STILL make less than your magic number per year.[/color]
I love how you put the 'k' in America as though I were promoting some horrible authoritarian violation of your rights when it is you who want to use men with guns to make other people pay for your irresponsible decision. Freedom means you pay for what you want and don't steal from others to pay for it. Freedom and Responsibility are inseparable.
[color=indigo]What you are promoting is not possible in today's world. It simply will not work.
You're saying only those making over $50K a year should procreate, because they are the only ones who will be able to afford to live in America. Since when was that considered freedom?[/color]
OK, so they are irresponsible. What you will have if you remove "free" education is a LARGE group of children that are completely uneducated, sick, and breeding irresponsibly. A downward spiral.
There is no such thing as a "free" education. There is theft to pay for substandard education.
What happens in your world? They simply starve to death, out of the economic gene-pool? Just because their parent, an educated teacher making much less than your $50,000 winning number a year, can't afford to send them to school?
No, they learn how to perform a menial job as their parents did until one of them is smart enough to act responsibly by not having kids and educating themselves until they can afford to have them.
I heard you. But you didn't answer my question. Let's say all 68% of the populous suddenly becomes responsible and adopts their children out because they can't afford them.
If they suddenly became responsible they wouldn't have the kids in the first place. And if they already had kids, they'd work 2 or 3 jobs to support them. And if they did adopt them out, those that did get adopted would be better off. Those that didn't get adopted would suffer because of their parent's initial irresponsible actions. They'd probably grow up poor, but if they were hard-working and industrious enough, they'd earn their own education and get themselves out of the situation their irresponsible parents placed them in.
Please check my edit on the post above this one. I am educated. And will be more educated by the time I earn my second degree. But according to your definition, I will still be too poor to have children. So you can't use the "uneducated" argument, when educated people STILL make less than your magic number per year.
I edited my own post after your edit, and I still can use the poorly educated argument. Did you earn your degrees BEFORE you had kids? No, you didn't. You had the kids before you were able to take care of them. You made an ignorant, poorly educated decision to have children before you had the earning potential to pay for their needs.
What you are promoting is not possible in today's world. It simply will not work.
Wrong. What I'm promiting was a reality in America for most of the time we were a country. Federally funded education only started recently. Before the federal government got involved, America had the best education system on earth. Before the federal goverment got involved we had the best healthcare system on earth. What I'm promoting is possible, and it offers a superior education, and work perfectly in America for more than 100 years. In fact Libertarians also say as long as we do have income based taxes, we should give a dollar-for-dollar tax credit to anyone who pays for a child to attend a private school. That means companies and individuals could choose to send their tax dollars to Washington, or to send poor children to school. Which would you do if given that choice?
You're saying only those making over $50K a year should procreate, because they are the only ones who will be able to afford to live in America. Since when was that considered freedom?
Since the beginning of time. Those that have children they can't care for soon have sick, poorly educated, children and many of them die. 50k is an arbitrary number since it's the average income of most people in America. The number could be $1 or $1 million. As long as you can pay for the education, food, shelter, clothing, healthcare, and other needs of your children with that $1, $50k, or $1 million.
You're free to have children, but you're not free to steal from me to pay for their education. That's not freedom.
Yes, one last thing. I do come at this from a certain smugness. It's the smugness of one who knows he does not have all the answers, meeting someone who thinks he does.
Two things I know for sure. 1) I am not always right. 2) Neither are you.
I know you understand and agree with my point #1. I'm trying to convince you of point #2.
I don't need convincing of #2. I've never claimed to be always right. But my philosophy is more solid than any other you can name and it offers the most freedom to the most people at the least cost. If you think you have a better idea, let's hear it. As the saying goes, put up or shut up.
Originally posted by Radar
50k is an arbitrary number since it's the average income of most people in America.
[color=indigo]Please site the source that tells you that $50K per year is the average income in America.[/color]
The GDP per capita numbers in America are
$37,600 per person per year. But that number divides the GDP by the number of every man, woman and child so it's skewed downward since most kids don't earn a living. When you go to urban areas (LA, Chicago, New York City, New Orleans, Miami, Dallas, Seattle, San Francisco, St. Louis, San Jose, Las Vegas, etc.) the cost of living is higher and so are wages. $37,600 can buy a lot more in Kansas than $50k can buy in San Francisco.
According to the Census numbers of 2002, the actual average median household income in America (all 50 states) is $43,017 (Not too far from $50k before we even making purchasing power parity adjustments) And in highly populated areas it's higher up to about 56k per year depending on the state.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/income02/statemhi.html
So there you go. It's certainly higher than what you were saying. In the cheapest state it's over $30k. Maybe you should move to West Virginia. I'm sure your earnings would almost be average, and even if you couldn't pay for your kids to go to school, they probably have all their teeth and are brilliant compared to the locals.
It's ok, you can say it. Tell me I'm right. :haha:
sorry to intrude on this heated debate so late in it's evolution, and i want to confess that I have NOT read ALL of the posts as they seem to be, ostensibly at least, mainly argumentative, but Radar, if there is no income tax, who pays for the infrastructure? roads, sewers, etc.? who defends our borders? if there was no tax, wouldn't this all be privatized and therefore cost the consumer a whole shit load more? would all roads be toll roads? I don't see it.
If there existed the articles of rights as you describe, wouldn't there be huge grey areas where peoples rights overlap, and infringement on those becomes muddy?
the government exists as it does because it has evolved that way from neccessity. The tax laws from greed and special interest kickbacks. However, in your defense, I agree that the Patriot act and the Homeland security act are potentially disastrous acts that in "time of emergency" can rob us of our rights. And now, we keep hearing different colors of alert status. Is this just to warm us up for when it goes RED and they begin to take away our rights? Maybe.
And if that happens, I'm joining your revolution. Take some time and look into pre WWI germany and what they did with peoples rights and "state of emergency" scenarios. It didn;t take hitler long to declare that state of emergency and militarize the country in preparation for his Imperialistic goals. And here we are taking over Iraq.
uh oh.
don't trust them. don't trust any of them.
[COLOR=indigo]I'd love to say you're right, but unfortunetly, this is HOUSEHOLD income, which includes 2 income families lumped in with 1 income families. I'm talking about one income families.
These ideas are great, Radar, on a macro level. But when you talk about practicalities, it starts looking less like a good thing and more like a "fend for yourself" thing. And I'm here to tell you that all men are not created equal, and every person in this country does NOT have the opportunity to earn $50K a year.
There aren't 251 million $50K a year jobs. Not every one can earn that amount. Therefore not everyone can live responsibly (read: well) in your new America.[/COLOR]
Lumberjim: Every single constitutional part of government can be paid for with the excise taxes, tariffs already collected from other countries (although I'd have it spread out evenly at about 3% to make it fair). That includes our military, judiciary, etc. Who do you think pays for the roads now? The states do. The states have sales taxes, property taxes, and other taxes that pay for local infrastructure. If not a single penny of income tax was collected starting today, we'd still have a military, court system, sewars, roads, libraries, police, firefighters, etc.
if there was no tax, wouldn't this all be privatized and therefore cost the consumer a whole shit load more? would all roads be toll roads? I don't see it.
You've got that backwards. Private industry is ALWAYS cheaper than government. The roads, and everything else would be far cheaper privately than through government. Competition breeds superior quality and lower prices.
the government exists as it does because it has evolved that way from neccessity.
That's completely false. It's not necessary for government to steal from Americans and send it to other countries. To pay tobacco farmers to grow tobbacco and then pay for anti-smoking campaigns, to try to do everything for everybody. But those trying to get elected are trying to please everyone looking for a handout and who gets left to pay the bill? It's you and me.
I'd rather pay for what I want to use, and not for what I don't. I'd rather go through voluntary exchange than through coercive force. I'd trust private industry far more than I trust goverment.
Hitler came to power because of America's involvment in WWI. The war was nearly over and armistice talks were already being prepared when America came in and prolonged the war for a year and a half, and then because France was our friend (They were still pissed about losing land to Germany in the Franco-Prussian war) we blamed the war on Germany even Austria started it and put unimaginably horrible restrictions on them and took all their assets. When the whole world went into depression, it was even worse in Germany which left the people so desperate they'd even listen to Hitler. Were it not for the conditions forced on Germany by America, Hitler would have been laughed at and never come to power.
These ideas are great, Radar, on a macro level. But when you talk about practicalities, it starts looking less like a good thing and more like a "fend for yourself" thing. And I'm here to tell you that all men are not created equal, and every person in this country does NOT have the opportunity to earn $50K a year.
Life is a "fend for yourself" thing. And I agree that not all people are born with the same abilities, talents, brains, looks, etc. but Constitutional equality refers to equality of opportunity, not of standing. You have the equal freedom to go as far as your particular talents, abilities, brains, looks, etc. can take you. For some people that's not as far as others.
Also the majority of HOUSEHOLD incomes are single incomes.
There aren't 251 million $50K a year jobs. Not every one can earn that amount. Therefore not everyone can live responsibly (read: well) in your new America.
There aren't 251 million working age adults in America and everyone can live responsibly if they choose to. That means if they can't afford to have kids, they don't have them. And it's not a new America, it's the same America we've always had. I'd just remove the forceful government robbing some people to pay for others. One persons needs don't entitle them to rob another person just because they are doing better.
[COLOR=indigo]But we're not starting from zero.
We're starting with a LOT of households not making $50K per year. We're starting with a LOT of children that wont get the education necessary to earn $50K a year.
We starting with a lot of people in the hole. Those people get lost in your America. "Too bad, so sad" doesn't inspire people to revolution. [/COLOR]
Radar, In practice the world you describe creates an even larger chasm between the few rich and majority poor. To me, the mechanics it suggests seem to spin backwards towards ignorance, poverty and isolation. The trail of your extreeme values end at selfishness and greed at all costs. I believe we do need each other, that workings of daily life are bigger than my person, and there is value to the whole in providing assistance to others. (Its defining and deciding the assistance that is the issue, not the complete scraping of it.)
Its interesting that your entire position and mission rests on the ideal of educating, uplifting the masses you deride- those poor kids you feel so much contempt for you wish them dead. Just as paved roads and firetrucks, I think the educational opportunities and health of other people's kids are my investment, and it baffles me that you cannot see the benefit in that.
We starting with a lot of people in the hole. Those people get lost in your America. "Too bad, so sad" doesn't inspire people to revolution.
Keeping what you earn, not having government tell you what you will do with your own body, and forcing government to abide by the limits on their powers does inspire a revolution. Seeing thousands upon thousands of American families broken up because the Government wants to legislate their choice of medicines, having Americans murdered, attacking every right we have, inspire a revolution. Living on your own through your own merits is just what freedom is. If you don't want it, you're unwilling to accept the responsibility that goes with freedom as many Americans are.
Radar, In practice the world you describe creates an even larger chasm between the few rich and majority poor.
The opposite is true. When people get all the money they earn, their children have better educations, they have more money to start up businesses, which means more jobs, goods are made better and cheaper so even the most poor people benefit from what I'm proposing and they have a better chance to stop being poor.
To me, the mechanics it suggests seem to spin backwards towards ignorance, poverty and isolation.
See the response above. And don't make the mistake of comparing military non-interventionism and isolationism. They are entirely different. I suggest we have strong ties with other countries. We should sign non-aggression treaties, and trade freely, but we should never use our military to defend any nation that is not our own and we should always remain neutral in every situation.
The trail of your extreeme values end at selfishness and greed at all costs.
Wrong again. It's not selfish to keep what you earn and to spend it how you want. It's selfish to expect other people to pay for your irresponsibility at the point of a gun. Also the poor, elderly, and sick would get
MORE help than they do now under my plan.
I believe we do need each other, that workings of daily life are bigger than my person, and there is value to the whole in providing assistance to others. (Its defining and deciding the assistance that is the issue, not the complete scraping of it.)
Of course there's value in helping others, but not at the point of a gun. Charity comes from the heart. And instead of having glorified DMV workers who don't care about the poor keeping 85% of the money collected to help the poor and treating them badly, why not let us voluntarily give to the charities we want to support who only need 12%-17% of the money collected for overhead, actually care about people, and get more help to those in need?
Some people ignorantly believe that if you're against the government stealing money for forced charity, you're against charity or if you're against the government stealing money for education, you're against education. Perhaps they think if I don't expect the government to feed all of us, I'm against eating.
Private enterprise is more efficient, cheaper, and better than government 100% of the time.
Its interesting that your entire position and mission rests on the ideal of educating, uplifting the masses you deride- those poor kids you feel so much contempt for you wish them dead.
lol. Let me play a sad song on a violin...
:violin:
Whenever people want to steal from you in America they say, "It's for the children...". We've got to attack your rights for "the children". I say I want my children to be free, well-educated, and prosperous and what I'm proposing will give them that. It's very obvious that government funded education hasn't.
Just as paved roads and firetrucks, I think the educational opportunities and health of other people's kids are my investment, and it baffles me that you cannot see the benefit in that.
Yes, they are YOUR investment. You may invest in the education of anyone you choose. All I ask is that you don't put a gun to my head and make me pay for it. Why should someone without children be forced to pay for the education of those who CHOSE to have children? If they want to pay for it, I'd encourage them to pay to educate children. It's a very worthwhile charity. But the second you force someone to do it, it is morally wrong, and no matter how many sad pictures you paint of starving, sick, poorly educated children dying in the streets, it won't change that fact.
oops. i meant pre ww2. and, obviously i don't know enough about it to argue this point.
i'm with you on the sending foreign aid bit unless there is profit to be gained in the near future from interest on loans, or product exports. Same with the subsidized farming, too. And at least partly with you on the welfare vs. darwinistic society.
When I say that the gubment evloved as it is from neccessity, i mean that for various reasons, people have elected and voted in ways that support the systems we have today, be they humanitarian, or reaction to problems, or whatever, we found it needful to do what we did in that respect.
you say that states could pay for infrastructures soley with sales, excise and property taxes. I pay state income tax. I know that the federal government assists the states road programs at least in part, from the whole 55mph speed limit debates from years ago. And if we didn't pay income tax, wouldn't our sales tax etc just be higher?
It would be really nice if we didn't have to pay any income tax. How much is collected annually from american workers in just federal income tax? in other words, how much income would the government find itself without when you are elected *king? would your america still support a Social Security tax? how bout medicaid?
(* not being smart, just simplifiying)
i have 2 ideas for when I am king of america:
1. all businesses should be open 24 hours a day.
-this would reduce traffic problems, and creat new jobs.
2. prisoners would be treated like prisoners. hard labor. no rights. no cable. prison would be a bad place to be. really bad. maybe people would try to stay out of it then.
lumberjim: Right now, the way roads are paid for is the federal government tells the states to give them a bunch of money to pay for crap they shouldn't be doing. The states send a whole bunch of money and the government takes a huge bite and sends back a few crumbs and table scraps to the states of their own money to build roads.
As I said, all of the constitutional parts of the federal government could be paid for solely with the tariffs and excise taxes collected currently. That means the states wouldn't have to send money to the fed. They could keep their own money and pay for their own roads, make their own speed limits, etc.
States wouldn't have to raise taxes to cover these things, because they'd be getting a lot more of their own money. They could actually lower taxes and still have more money to take care of infrastructure.
Most of the money currently collected in income tax goes to pay for unconstitutional parts of government like foreign aid. Hardly any stays in America. Did you know there are more US Dollars outside of America than inside of it?
Harry Browne laid out a good plan to take care of the elderly while still allowing the young people to escape from the bankrupt pyramid scheme of Social Security. I'm paraphrasing, but he'd have us sell all government property that isn't currently being used by the government for offices, military bases, etc. and use that money to buy annuities for those already retirement age or close to it so they'd be taken care of as they were promised. Everyone else would cut their losses and prepare for their own retirement and probably do much better than those on social security.
Keep in mind also that with people keeping what they earn, they'd have a lot more money to help out those who can't take care of themselves.
The opposite is true. When people get all the money they earn, their children have better educations, they have more money to start up businesses, which means more jobs, goods are made better and cheaper so even the most poor people benefit from what I'm proposing and they have a better chance to stop being poor.
[color=indigo]only if they make $50K or more.[/color]
And they'll have a lot more chance to earn that $50k (or whatever the equivalent buying amount is in a cheaper state) when more companies open, more jobs open up, and goods become cheaper because people got to keep their own money and opened new businesses.
We'll be in touch, Paul.
Looking forward to it. I'd love to go up against the most evil, corrupt, vile, disgusting, group of lowlifes who stand in the way of freedom on the planet....namely....YOU. Just imagine how much pure evil must be in a man who actually ran the CIA.
Originally posted by Radar
A the most evil, corrupt, vile, disgusting, group of lowlifes who stand in the way of freedom on the planet....namely....YOU. Just imagine how much pure evil must be in a man who actually ran the CIA.
we cannot confirm or deny the accuracy of this statement. I will say, however, that our benefits package is great!
Originally posted by Radar
Once unconstitutional things like the "homeland security" department, foreign aid, FBI, FDA, FCC, DEA, BATF, IRS, Welfare, Social Security, Federally funded education, Medicare, etc. were eliminated, our country would be safer, more prosperous, and free.
Hrm...ok. So what do you do for those who are collecting SSDI and are on Medicare for a disability (like myself)?
[COLOR=indigo]My lady, thou art screwed. [/COLOR]
[COLOR=indigo]There was a "political quiz" to determine what type of affiliation you were matched with. There was a link to it. Where is that? I can't find it...[/COLOR]
The political compass thread is
here
The political compass itself is
hereHrm...ok. So what do you do for those who are collecting SSDI and are on Medicare for a disability (like myself)?
Harry Browne laid out a plan whereby government would sell all land and assets not currently in use for military bases, etc over a 6 year period. and the money raised would buy annuities which would pay benefits to all of those already retirement age or close to it while allowing others to cut our losses escape all together from the bankrupt pyramid scheme of social security.
Perhaps she should have explained it better, Radar: She is 34 years old and on SSDI and Medicare because she is in end-stage renal failure, unable to work full-time.
Originally posted by Radar
Why should someone without children be forced to pay for the education of those who CHOSE to have children?
Because it improves the general, overall quality of society that you also play a part in. Businesses and people pay into the local taxes, the local schools educate the children with that money, then down the line the children grow up with that education and enter the workforce. The money comes back. If you feel that your children need an education better than what the state can provide, then send them off to a private school. Do not, however, remove the system that enables children from low-income families to receive an education that will provide them with the means to get a job and enter the workforce as a productive adult and return the money you invested back into the system. Despite what you perceive, the money that is taken out of your paycheck comes back in the form of business and employment to yourself as well as others.
Why do you think college tuition is different for in-state students when compared with the inflated rates for out-of-state ones? Because the in-state students are more likely to stay in the area in which they attended college after they graduate, get a job, and begin returning money to the local community. The money taken out of your paycheck ensures that children in your local area have a chance to become edcuated, productive adults that will get jobs, earn money, and return what was given to them many times fold.
If the system of "buy your own education with your own money" were already in place and had been for decades, I could see this working. Implementing such a policy now would result in disaster for communities across the entire country.
[COLOR=indigo]Thanks for the link UT. Where I fall on the graph wasn't really a surprise to me. I suppose I'm just too new at all this to know what it means... :) [/COLOR]
Because it improves the general, overall quality of society that you also play a part in.
Society is nothing more than a collection of individuals. "Society" has no rights, only individuals do. "Society" is not above the rights of individuals.
Businesses and people pay into the local taxes, the local schools educate the children with that money, then down the line the children grow up with that education and enter the workforce. The money comes back.
Wrong. Businesses need educated people, and those who have been educated apply for the jobs. Businesses have no obligation to educate these people or as you say "invest" in their education. They have a responsibility to educate themselves and thier children. Education is not a right, nor is healthcare, or even eating. You have the right to have any education, healthcare, food, etc. you obtain honestly whether it's donated to you, or paid for by you, but you don't have the right to force anyone else to pay for it.
If you feel that your children need an education better than what the state can provide, then send them off to a private school.
Actually home schooling is superior to public or private schooling.
Do not, however, remove the system that enables children from low-income families to receive an education that will provide them with the means to get a job and enter the workforce as a productive adult and return the money you invested back into the system.
You do not use a gun to force other people to pay for the education of other people. They are not entitled to reach into my wallet or anyone elses to pay for their education. There are plenty of ways (as I've already described) for children from low-income families to get an education, and if not all of them can get one, that is the fault of their parents for having children they couldn't afford. If you have children, you alone are responsible to pay for 100% of their needs and "society" isn't.
"Despite what you perceive, the money that is taken out of your paycheck comes back in the form of business and employment to yourself as well as others."
Despite what you just falsely claimed, the truth is very different. The money that is
STOLEN from my paycheck does not come back to me. It's sent to other countries, it pays for farm and business subsidies, it pays for things I don't want and don't use; some of which are used against me to attack my rights. And if a little of it pays for education, I don't benefit from that either. No matter how many times you claim I benefit from paying for the education of other people's kids, you'll be wrong. It's a crock of shit. In fact the opposite is true. If less people were getting an education, my life would improve since I'd be one of few people who educated MYSELF. I'd have more opportunity, more money, etc.
Implementing such a policy now would result in disaster for communities across the entire country.
Wrong again. Implementing such a policy would mean people would take having a child much more seriously, and they'd act more responsibly. It would also mean children would get a superior education including poor children.
Originally posted by Radar
Wrong again. Implementing such a policy would mean people would take having a child much more seriously, and they'd act more responsibly. It would also mean children would get a superior education including poor children.
[COLOR=indigo]You're contradicting yourself.
If they are poor children, that means their parents are already poor. Their parents aren't going to get richer overnight when you take taxes away, because I guarantee you they AREN'T paying taxes, because they don't make enough. So you aren't increasing their income by saying "No more taxes!"
Since parents aren't getting richer, how are they supposed to afford school now? I think that is what Kitsune means. If we had started this system years ago, it would be different, but implementing it now would wreak havoc with low income families.
[/COLOR]
No matter how many times you claim I benefit from paying for the education of other people's kids, you'll be wrong. It's a crock of shit.
The sign above the door that reads 'Sarcasm' has turned on.
Yeah -- you're right. I'm sorry.
So, let's get set on changing some other things then, shall we? There are some other things, along with public schooling, that need to go.
1. Parks - All national, state, county, and city parks need to be shut down and put up for sale. The money raised will, in turn, be given back to the people. If there is a demand for the conservation of wilderness and the preservation of historic areas, the people will pay for it on their own. The Grand Canyon, for instance, could be made to turn a profit if a roller coaster is installed by a theme park company. Its time these lazy park rangers stop being paid for having such a slack job. The majority of the land will be logged or paved over and business will boom.
2. Police - These are the people that are always holding a gun to our heads to force money out of our paychecks and, when they aren't doing that, they're eating donuts. Each individual will need to take the law into their own hands through the ownership of a weapon. If their house is broken into, they will have to deal with it on their own. Private industry could also provide certain protections and investigative powers. Instead of calling 911, you might call your local Pinkertons office.
3. Fire Departments - Your local firestation should be replaced by a private or volunteer organization. If your house burns down, you get to pay to save it. After all, if it burns down, you didn't build it with proper safety materials in mind, anyways. In the event of a major fire, each family must fend for itself. Towns will not send fire departments to other towns in need of assistance unless the people are willing to pay a premium for it. Forest fires will finally have the opportunity to burn unchecked.
4. Art and Culture - If the public really feels the need to preserve art, culture, and historic items, they will pay for it.
5. Roads and Infrastructure - State and Federal governments need to stop building roads. Private industry, in turn, needs to take over this responsibility. If there is a market demand for it, then it will happen. I'd personally like to see multiple roads, side-by-side, that all go in the same direction built by competing companies. You could be charged for whichever road you take and the more you pay, the higher the speedlimit could be or the better quality of pavement.
6. Emissions and EPA Control - Hey, if the people want clean air and water, they'll pay for it.
7. Government Assisted Medical Research - Its time we stopped funding Universities and research centers! If people really need to find a cure for HIV, they'll pay for it. It is more likely, however, that Cancer research will advance faster than AIDS. After all, those with money don't contract HIV nearly as often -- why pay for something you aren't ever going to need?
8. Coast Guard and other DOT departments - Have you been swept out to sea? Boat sinking? You probably shouldn't have been out there in the first place.
This freedom is going to be awesome. The quality of life is going to skyrocket.
You're contradicting yourself.
No, I'm not. When more people have more of their own money, they'll give to charities including those that pay for the education of poor children. But the difference is it would be voluntary.
If there is a demand for the conservation of wilderness and the preservation of historic areas, the people will pay for it on their own.
That's right. There are many conservationist groups. Dr. Gordon Labedz (Founder of the Surf Rider Association and Chairman of the largest chapter of the Sierra Club) is a Libertarian and believes, as I do, that the private ownership of land is the best way to preserve it. Companies don't pollute on their own land, they pollute on PUBLIC land because the government allows them to do so. If you want the Grand Canyon preserved, you should make sure it's privately owned by a nature conservancy.
Fire Departments, Police, Roads and Infrastructure would still be paid for without the need for income-based taxes so this isn't a valid point. But anyone who has been on a private toll road knows it's usually in better repair than a public road.
As far as Art & Culture go, the valid role of government doesn't include paying for art or culture. Those are private industries and if the people want them, they'll get them.
Your comments are laughable. As I said, you think that if I'm against government paying for art, I'm against art. If I'm against government funded (theft) medical research, I'm against medical research. etc.
As far as the EPA goes, they were guilty themselves of leaking mercury into ground water a few years ago and don't do much to stop the largest polluter on earth (the US gov't) from polluting since the government says they're immune from prosecution. The best way to make sure companies are environmentally responsible is to make it impossible for them to pollute public lands, to hold them responsible for pollution they cause on others (this is trespass), to hold government responsible for pollution at thier hands, and the ultimate way...use your dollars to buy from clean companies.
If we want cheaper healthcare, and more medical research, stop using government to prevent life-saving new medicines from being released, allow people to practice medicine without arbitrary licensing, etc. Some people come here that were doctors in another country. Why prevent them from giving healthcare? When more people are giving healthcare, the prices will be lower and the quality higher.
You don't have a single valid point. Not one. Every single thing you've mentioned could be better done by private industry than by government. In fact the only truthful thing you said was this...
This freedom is going to be awesome. The quality of life is going to skyrocket
Originally posted by Radar
The money that is STOLEN from my paycheck does not come back to me.
Did you change jobs recently?
Originally posted by Radar on 4/16/2003
I won't be filing any income tax returns ever again and I'm not paying income taxes either. I'm working for an employer that doesn't withhold any taxes and pays me in cash.
Fire Departments, Police, Roads and Infrastructure would still be paid for without the need for income-based taxes so this isn't a valid point. But anyone who has been on a private toll road knows it's usually in better repair than a public road.
Really? How would these public services be paid for? Why should they be paid for?
As for the toll road, you obviously haven't driven on any of them in and around Pittsburgh. :D
If you want the Grand Canyon preserved, you should make sure it's privately owned by a nature conservancy.
Do you think a nature conservancy, based on donations, would be able to out-bid a corporation attempting to slash-and-burn an area? Would any land be conserved at all if logging companies had the ability to bid on the plots?
Your comments are laughable. As I said, you think that if I'm against government paying for art, I'm against art. If I'm against government funded (theft) medical research, I'm against medical research. etc.
I didn't say you were against anything. I'm stating that if you remove government funding from certain forms of research, only the research that gets money will continue. An incredible majority of the people with HIV and AIDS have little income, so therefore that research will shrink as compared to, say, cancer research.
The best way to make sure companies are environmentally responsible is to make it impossible for them to pollute public lands, to hold them responsible for pollution they cause on others (this is trespass), to hold government responsible for pollution at thier hands, and the ultimate way...use your dollars to buy from clean companies.
I would love to see companies held responsible for the land, water, and air they pollute -- Piney Point currently holds Tampa Bay in check with overflowing water with a pH of 3. The phosphate company that caused the pollution moved to Texas and declared bankruptcy in the state of Florida, so they are under no obligation to clean up anything. Under your laws, how would this change? For that matter, what companies are "clean" and who would you buy from? Who would define "clean" and how would you know that a company wasn't lying when they told you they were? Certainly, there would be no government organization that forms these standards, nor any that would enforce them.
Some people come here that were doctors in another country. Why prevent them from giving healthcare? When more people are giving healthcare, the prices will be lower and the quality higher.
Umm... we might prevent them because they might not have proper training? They might be quacks cheating common citizens, who don't understand medicine, out of their money? I actually see quality becoming much lower if you allow anyone to practice medicine without a license and cut all the corners they can to make it as cheap as possible. Malpractice insurance would go through the roof, along with the prices patients have to pay.
You don't have a single valid point. Not one. Every single thing you've mentioned could be better done by private industry than by government.
I'm not stating that the government does an outstanding job at what it is attempting to do through its programs. I'm also not saying that a lot of these applications could be better handled by private industry. I'm saying that companies inherently cut as many corners as they can in a desperate attempt to make as much money up front as they are able in order to please the shareholders, and then run. I'm also stating that neither the public, nor corporations, hold many long-term views. With all of these factors, simply "flipping the switch" on the controls in society has the potential to completely ruin it. In the coming years, we're about to see a massive catastrophe as millions of baby boomers, who were planning on seeing social security see them through their final years, find out there is nothing for them. Now they are told that they should have opened 401Ks and IRAs and all that they were previously told was false. Do we just permit these people to suffer for the better of the coming generations? The issues of the interim are not easily ignored.
[COLOR=indigo]I was reading the Constitution and Amendments today.[/COLOR]
Radar said:
ARTICLE.
All forms of income-based taxation are slavery and will be abolished immediately in all states and the federal government. (Social Security, income tax, etc)
and he also said
First, I don't "interpret" the Constitution. It means what it says and "the masses" are mostly stupid people who are content to get handouts because they don't realize that they are the masters of government (not the other way around), that they are entitled to keep everything they earn, and that they can make a difference.
[color=indigo]But the Constitution says[/color]
Article XVI.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
[COLOR=indigo]So, since the Constitution says Congress shall levy income tax, how do you propose following the Consititution AND getting rid of income tax?[/COLOR]
Did you change jobs recently?
If 6 months ago is recently.
So, since the Constitution says Congress shall levy income tax, how do you propose following the Consititution AND getting rid of income tax?
The 16th amendment was fruadently ratified and didn't have the required number of votes to pass. But even if it did have the valid number of votes, it would still be illegal because it contradicts other parts of the Constitution and nothing may be added to the Constitution that contradicts another part as Article 6 Paragraph 2 says.
Article VI
All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
No new laws may be made (which includes Constitutional amendments because the Constitution is the highest law of the land) that contradict any part of the Constitution. You may add something to the Constitution, You may take something away from the Constitution (repeal it), but you can't have one part of the Constitution say something is legal and another part say it's illegal.
Contrary to the opinion of many idiots out there, when you add an amendment to the Constitution it doesn't "override" other parts it happens to contradict with. Let's look at the 18th and 21st amendments. The 21st didn't say "Alcohol is legal", it said it was repealing the part of the Constitution that said it was illegal in the first place. (The government has no authority to tell anyone what they may or may not consume, but that's another topic). The proper procedure was followed.
In the case of the 16th amendment, which not only didn't have the required number of votes to pass, but also contradicted Article 1 Section 9, the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, 10th, and 13th amendments so it is a blatant violation of the Constitution and therefore illegal.
The first Supreme Court of America decided in Marbury vs. Madison that any laws that are contrary to the Constitution are null and void and citizens are under no obligation to follow them.
It's an open and shut case.
Remind us again who decides whether there's a contradiction?
Article I. Section. 8.
Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Section 9. Clause 4
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
[color=indigo] I looked up enumeration. It means "to list before"[/color]
Article. V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Article XVI.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Proposal and Ratification
The sixteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States was proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the Sixty-first Congress on the 12th of July, 1909, and was declared, in a proclamation of the Secretary of State, dated the 25th of February, 1913, to have been
ratified by 36 of the 48 States.
The dates of ratification were:
Alabama, August 10, 1909;
Kentucky, February 8, 1910;
South Carolina, February 19, 1910;
Illinois, March 1, 1910;
Mississippi, March 7, 1910;
Oklahoma, March 10, 1910;
Maryland, April 8, 1910;
Georgia, August 3, 1910;
Texas, August 16, 1910;
Ohio, January 19, 1911;
Idaho, January 20, 1911;
Oregon, January 23, 1911;
Washington, January 26, 1911;
Montana, January 30, 1911;
Indiana, January 30, 1911;
California, January 31, 1911;
Nevada, January 31, 1911;
South Dakota, February 3, 1911;
Nebraska, February 9, 1911;
North Carolina, February 11, 1911;
Colorado, February 15, 1911;
North Dakota, February 17, 1911;
Kansas, February 18, 1911;
Michigan, February 23, 1911;
Iowa, February 24, 1911;
Missouri, March 16, 1911;
Maine, March 31, 1911;
Tennessee, April 7, 1911;
Arkansas, April 22, 1911 (after having rejected it earlier);
Wisconsin, May 26, 1911;
New York, July 12, 1911;
Arizona, April 6, 1912;
Minnesota, June 11, 1912;
Louisiana, June 28, 1912;
West Virginia, January 31, 1913;
New Mexico, February 3, 1913.
Ratification was completed on February 3, 1913.
The amendment was subsequently ratified by Massachusetts, March 4, 1913;
New Hampshire, March 7, 1913 (after having rejected it on March 2, 1911).
The amendment was rejected (and not subsequently ratified) by Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Utah.
[color=indigo]
So explain please, how this amendment is not legal again? You mentioned that it wasn't legally ratified. For those people that are completely ignorant, please provide sources.[/color]
Radar discusses the issues with the 16th amendment in this
thread, and provides various links.
[COLOR=indigo]Thanks, Syc! I'll go look at that. :)[/COLOR]
No problem...just trying (probably in vain) to head off another of his maniacal rants.
No problem. There are a bunch of idiots out there who are stupid enough to believe that ONLY the Supreme Court makes this decision, but the Supreme Court themselves said in Marbury vs. Madison that we the citizens (aka the bosses of the government) make that decision for ourselves. To claim otherwise is ludicrous.
If Congress suddenly decided to pass the no more abortion bill which said girls under the age of 18 must all be forcefully sterilized it would not have to even be looked at by the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional in its face. It would be unconstitutional the moment it was signed. Even if the Supreme Court never made a decision or heard a case involving the forced sterilization law, it would still be unconstitutional and nobody would have to follow it. Only an idiot with no comprehension what-so-ever of government would suggest it was constitutional until the USSC decided on it. Only the worst scumbag would suggest we actually start following through with the sterilizing while we wait for the Supreme Court to hear a case on it.
The Supreme Court is made up of people, not of magicians. Laws don't magically become constitutional or unconstitutional because they say so. Laws are constitutional or unconstitutional the moment they're created whether or not the Supreme Court ever gets around to hearing cases on them. The Supreme Court's job is limited to comparing new laws, court cases, etc. to the Constitution to see if they fit properly and settling disputes between states and NOTHING else. The Supreme Court's job doesn't include "interpreting" or "defining" the Constituion, which doesn't need interpretation since it's written in English.
Let's say I'm sent to go grocery shopping for my wife. She lists 1 lb of Ground Round, Butter, Turkey Bacon, and Wheat Bread and I'm told never to deviate from the list much like government is told never to deviate from the Constitution. My job (much like the Supreme Court's job) isn't to "interpret" the list, but merely to follow it. When I go to the store, I don't decide what goes on the list, I don't change the language of the list, and I don't do anything other than compare an item to the list to see if it matches. If I hold see Chocolate Cake on the shelf but don't see it on the list, I know not to get it. In fact even if I see White Bread, Pork Bacon, Ground Chuck, or Margarine in the store, they don't qualify.
I am not given discretion to deviate from the list and neither is the Supreme Court.
So once again, I'll repeat this so you can get it through your head.
EACH AND EVERY SINGLE CITIZEN DECIDES FOR THEMSELVES WHETHER A LAW IS CONSTITUTIONAL OR NOT AND THAT LAW MUST NOT NECESSARILY BE DECIDED ON BY THE SUPREME COURT TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, PERIOD.
Like the Supreme Court, citizens do not have discretion to define or interpret the Constitution. They can not "decide" that murder is constitutional and follow through on it, or to steal from others because they've "interpreted" the Constitution to allow it. The entire federal government is here for one and only one purpose, to defend our person, rights, and property from tresspass, theft, and non-consensual harm whether that be from each other, or from outside forces. Citizens, unlike the Supreme Court, hold the power to actually change the Constitution since it is the citizens who hold 100% of the power and are the masters of government (our servant).
The Federal government's legitimate role does not include charity, education, healthcare, retirement, imperialism, spying on Americans, limiting the rights of citizens, etc.
[COLOR=indigo]Hey Radar, on one of the sites you listed for the 16th Amendment, it says that[/COLOR]
that the Constitution requires a Declaration of War before the armed forces of the United States can be deployed in hostilities overseas.
[color=indigo]But you said that under no circumstances is the US military to go overseas, under the constitution. Can you clarify this for me?[/color]
So explain please, how this amendment is not legal again? You mentioned that it wasn't legally ratified. For those people that are completely ignorant, please provide sources.
36 votes were required to pass the amendment, but most of the states you've listed violated their own state Constitutions by voting on the amendment with the same senate that recieved the proposed amendment. Most states have a provision that says if an amendment to the Constitution is proposed, the senate who recieves it can not vote on it because they must allow the people one election cycle to choose who will vote on the amendment. So those states are gone. Next many of the states actually re-wrote the proposed amendments (sometimes to mean the exact opposite of what it proposed) before signing it and sending it in. This is also not allowed. So those states are out. Some states actually voted against the amendment and their votes were tallied as voting for it by Philander Knox (the man who illegally and fraudently ratified the amendment).
In the end there were not even close to the required number of legal votes to legitimately ratify the amendment.
Feel free to do some reading. Bill Benson actually travelled to all of the states who supposedly voted to ratify the amendment, searched their archives and actually got certified copies of all the documents in question and proved without a doubt that the 16th amendment was not legally ratified.
Feel free to read his extremelly large and comprehensive books "The Law That Never Was - Vol I" and "The Law That Never Was - Vol II". You can find it at:
http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com
Of he states you listed as ratifying the amendment here's just a few examples that prove my point...
[list][*]The Kentucky Senate voted upon the resolution, but rejected it by a vote of 9 in favor and 22 opposed.
[*]The Oklahoma Senate amended the language of the 16th Amendment to have a precisely opposite meaning.
[*]The California legislative assembly never recorded any vote upon any proposal to adopt the amendment proposed by Congress.
[*]The State of Minnesota sent nothing to the Secretary of State in Washington[/list]
Even if there were only one of these, it would mean the amendment hadn't been legally ratified.
Sure, everyone must decide whether to follow the law or not, but the law does apply to them in any case. The court system is where they work out whether you're locked up for your decision. Whether or not you are right will have no bearing on their figuring.
But you said that under no circumstances is the US military to go overseas, under the constitution. Can you clarify this for me?
I didn't say the US military could never go overseas, I said they couldn't be stationed overseas during times of peace and the only valid reason for the US military to be used ever is to defend against an impending attack or to retaliate for one that has occurred even if we must go overseas to retaliate. This is the very definition of a "Defensive" military and DEFENSE (not OFFENSE) is the
SOLE PURPOSE of the US Military as defined by the US Constitution in the phrase "common DEFENSE"
Sure, everyone must decide whether to follow the law or not, but the law does apply to them in any case.
Wrong. The law does not apply if it is unconstitutional in its face and we need not wait for a Supreme Court decision on the matter as the first Supreme Court of the United States declared in Marbury vs. Madison.
No, it applies in the real world, where you can be convicted and put behind bars for doing something even though it is Constitutionally defensible.
In the real world the Supreme Court and the Constitution (the highest law in the land) are exactly as I've said. If you are about to be arrested or locked up for a blatantly unconstitutional law, you are within your rights to kill anyone who tries to do the arresting or locking up in your own defense.
Let's go back to the forced sterilization example. If the Supreme Court refused to hear the case and I said I would not allow the government to sterilize my daughter. If police came to my house to arrest me, or to sterilize my daughter, I would be within my legal rights to kill every single person who tried to do it.
That's not a fantasy, that's reality. The reality of a bullet going through someone's skull. You fail to understand that the powers of government are extremely limited and that the people are the masters while government is the servant.
You need to grow up and get an education, assuming you're capable of learning.
Staying in the real world here, if you don't appear on a summons and kill the people who come to retrieve you, you can expect that the state will bring all of its resources to bear, and you will eventually either be killed or jailed for life.
The absurd sterilization case is interesting because, if it were to somehow pass tomorrow, without the consent of most of society, it would be ignored by almost everyone with a role to play in the system. The cops can choose not to arrest people breaking the law. The prosecutors can choose not to prosecute the arrestees. The judges can choose not to apply the law, or to apply a light sentence. The jury can decide not to convict. The whole thing can go through appeals or be thrown out on technicalities.
The application of the law requires a lot of people to buy into it one way or the other and almost any of them can dismiss any case very easily. I can predict that none of them, however, would buy into the notion that the Constitution operates the way you think it does and not the way they think it does. No matter how sure of your convictions you are, how eloquent your defense, etc. the law will apply to you the way they think it does, not the way you think it does.
And I follow that up with: in some cases, that does in fact suck. It sucks hard.
But given the inevitability of politics in a system implemented by imperfect people, it's not really that bad of a system. It's close.