Our Rulers Are Destroying Our World

[Truth Warrior]

Watching Our Rulers Destroy Our World


by Robert Higgs (http://www.lewrockwell.com/higgs/mailto:RHiggs2377@aol.com)

Our rulers are destroying the economy. Not little by little, as they usually do, but in huge swaths. Each great assault on the free market, whether it be denominated a bailout, a stimulus, or some other species of purported salvation, brings us visibly closer to the complete ruin of an economic order that required centuries to build. Awestruck, as if we were observing a tsunami sweep across an island, we can only watch the rulers' devastating actions, for which, strange to say, they expect the public to be grateful―and, truth be told, most people are grateful, and clamor for more of the same. We listen to the kingpins' lunatic ravings as they describe their perceptions of the current situation and solemnly declare their determination to "do something" to restore the prosperity that they themselves have demolished by previously "doing something" of the very same kind.

They gaze out at a financial debacle rooted in various government policies that induced lenders to do business with millions of borrowers who had no realistic prospect of repaying the loans. And what do these überguardians propose? They aim to relieve the unfaithful borrowers of their contractual obligations, to purchase the disappointed lenders' "toxic assets," and to "get credit moving again," so that new loans will be made, again at artificially reduced interest rates to borrowers who have no realistic prospect of repaying them. They are pouring credit madness on credit madness because they have no real understanding of how the economic world actually works and, even if they did understand, they are politically beholden to the owners and managers of failing economic behemoths who profited handsomely from the artificial prosperity of the boom and are now staring into the abyss.

Our forebears have stood in a similar position on previous harrowing occasions, and the sense of utter helplessness we feel now resembles the one they felt then. When the world was rushing toward total war in the late 1930s, every intelligent person could imagine the abattoir toward which the great leaders were dragging their nations, yet no one could pull them back from the appalling destruction into which they seemed hell-bent to plunge (http://www.amazon.com/Human-Smoke-Beginnings-World-Civilization/dp/1416567844).

In 1939, in his poem "In Memory of W. B. Yeats," W. H. Auden wrote:

In the nightmare of the dark
All the dogs of Europe bark,
And the living nations wait,
Each sequestered in its hate;
Intellectual disgrace
Stares from every human face
And the seas of pity lie
Locked and frozen in each eye.
Though everyone foresaw the catastrophe, no one could pull the leaders back from its execution.

I experienced this sense of powerlessness in 2002 as I watched the Bush administration rushing headlong toward its murderous attack on the Iraqis. On September 23 of that year, I gave vent to my feelings in an article (http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=430) called "Helplessly, We Await the Catastrophe Our Rulers Are Creating." "Today," I wrote,

the dogs of war are barking not in Europe, but in the District of Columbia, and again people are looking on helplessly as the tragedy unfolds. We see the disaster being designed and touted, we observe the intellectual disgrace staring from the faces of George W. Bush and his advisers, and we note the seas of pity lying locked and frozen in their eyes. Yet we can do nothing to prevent the makers of this coming calamity from carrying out the devastation.
The calamity that Bush and his government wrought in Iraq has now become a chronic, seemingly permanent condition, a pain that never eases, an emergency destined to continue as far as the eye can see, and nearly everybody has given up hope that anything good will ever come out of it, or even that its daily horrors will ever do anything but continue to erupt episodically in spasms of political madness and haphazard violence.

Iraq, however, is thousands of miles away, and few Americans could keep their attention focused on it for long, in any event. Now that the financial mess and the deepening recession are affecting all Americans and raising fears about the whole country's future economic well-being, Iraq has been relegated to brief articles on page A-23 of the newspaper. The economic crisis had become overwhelmingly the foremost concern, and on this front, good news has been a very scarce commodity for the past year.

In the present situation, the formula our rulers employ to guide their actions is simple: borrow and spend―the more, the better. If reminded that the government cannot accumulate ever more debt without grave repercussions, they always answer that the present emergency is so pressing that concern about the future must be set aside until the present exigencies have been met. It is not clear that they sincerely believe the economic drivel they dispense to the news media. Perhaps they are merely cunning enough to appreciate Rahm Emanuel's admonition (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122714374260443023.html), "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." My sense, however, especially when I ponder the way in which they describe the economic situation and justify their proposals for repairing it, is that they have virtually no sound understanding of basic economics, and no interest in acquiring such an understanding, either. If the top dogs of the power elite are already living their lives in a reprehensible manner, it probably does not contribute to their happiness to dwell on the possibility that, in the process, they may also be contributing to public ruin.

Whether they are fools or charlatans, or both, as I suppose them to be, their actions amount to a genuine tragedy, because their leadership, so long as the people tolerate it, portends only devastation. The people, in the main, are afraid, and they are immoral, so they are happy to seize any momentary advantage or enrichment the government will hand them, regardless of the moral breach this coercive transfer of wealth represents. The rulers understand the people's moral weakness and exploit it at every turn. Their own example of thoroughgoing corruption, of course, only coarsens the entire society's moral character―after all, what sort of people tolerates, much less affirmatively supports, such creeps in high places? In the body politic, however, the masses are the tail, not the dog. The rulers, like tigers who lie in wait near a spring, knowing that their prey will eventually come there to drink, tempt the people to indulge their appetites for ill-gotten gain, and, sure enough, the masses need not be invited twice. It does not occur to the diners that this repast consists of tainted meat, and therefore that in due course they must suffer the consequences of having swallowed toxic fare.

Artificially easy credit, rapid monetary growth, subsidized homeownership for people who cannot make the mortgage payments, exclusive privileges granted to dishonest bond-rating agencies, explicit and implicit government guarantees of bank accounts, bonds, and other financial assets―these policies and others that tend in the same direction have created our present economic difficulties. To suppose, and to act on the supposition, that precisely these same kinds of policies will repair the day is supreme folly. To augment these mistakes by expending a trillion borrowed dollars in new government outlays for whatever suits the grasping members of a totally corrupt Congress only compounds the folly on a cosmic scale. Yet, no struggling firm or family wants to fail, and each prefers to survive the day without having to make painful adjustments, even if doing so requires supping disgracefully at the state's filthy trough.

The entire spectacle is painful to behold. The good that the people and their leaders expect to come of these foolish measures can provide, at most, only temporary relief. Not far down the road, the devil is waiting to collect his due.

February 4, 2009


Robert Higgs [send him mail (http://www.lewrockwell.com/higgs/mailto:RHiggs2377@aol.com)] is senior fellow in political economy at the Independent Institute (http://www.independent.org/) and editor of The Independent Review (http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/). He is also a columnist for LewRockwell.com. His most recent book is Neither Liberty Nor Safety: Fear, Ideology, and the Growth of Government (http://www.amazon.com/Neither-Liberty-nor-Safety-Government/dp/1598130129/lewrockwell/). He is also the author of Depression, War, and Cold War: Studies in Political Economy (http://www.mises.org/store/Depression-War-and-Cold-War-P334C0.aspx?AFID=14), Resurgence of the Warfare State: The Crisis Since 9/11 (http://www.mises.org/store/Resurgence-of-the-Warfare-State-The-Crisis-Since-911-P220C0.aspx?AFID=14)and Against Leviathan: Government Power and a Free Society (http://www.mises.org/store/Against-Leviathan-P212C0.aspx?AFID=14).
Copyright © 2009 Robert Higgs

Robert Higgs Archives (http://www.lewrockwell.com/higgs/higgs-arch.html)

http://images.clickability.com/pti/spacer.gif
Find this article at:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/higgs/higgs104.html

[xd9fan]

I dont see any gunfire...

[Truth Warrior]

I dont see any gunfire...

"The last move in politics is always to pick up the gun." -- R. Buckminster Fuller

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Watching Our Rulers Destroy Our World


by Robert Higgs (http://www.lewrockwell.com/higgs/mailto:RHiggs2377@aol.com)

Our rulers are destroying the economy. Not little by little, as they usually do, but in huge swaths. Each great assault on the free market, whether it be denominated a bailout, a stimulus, or some other species of purported salvation, brings us visibly closer to the complete ruin of an economic order that required centuries to build. Awestruck, as if we were observing a tsunami sweep across an island, we can only watch the rulers' devastating actions, for which, strange to say, they expect the public to be grateful―and, truth be told, most people are grateful, and clamor for more of the same. We listen to the kingpins' lunatic ravings as they describe their perceptions of the current situation and solemnly declare their determination to "do something" to restore the prosperity that they themselves have demolished by previously "doing something" of the very same kind.

They gaze out at a financial debacle rooted in various government policies that induced lenders to do business with millions of borrowers who had no realistic prospect of repaying the loans. And what do these überguardians propose? They aim to relieve the unfaithful borrowers of their contractual obligations, to purchase the disappointed lenders' "toxic assets," and to "get credit moving again," so that new loans will be made, again at artificially reduced interest rates to borrowers who have no realistic prospect of repaying them. They are pouring credit madness on credit madness because they have no real understanding of how the economic world actually works and, even if they did understand, they are politically beholden to the owners and managers of failing economic behemoths who profited handsomely from the artificial prosperity of the boom and are now staring into the abyss.

Our forebears have stood in a similar position on previous harrowing occasions, and the sense of utter helplessness we feel now resembles the one they felt then. When the world was rushing toward total war in the late 1930s, every intelligent person could imagine the abattoir toward which the great leaders were dragging their nations, yet no one could pull them back from the appalling destruction into which they seemed hell-bent to plunge (http://www.amazon.com/Human-Smoke-Beginnings-World-Civilization/dp/1416567844).

In 1939, in his poem "In Memory of W. B. Yeats," W. H. Auden wrote:

In the nightmare of the dark
All the dogs of Europe bark,
And the living nations wait,
Each sequestered in its hate;
Intellectual disgrace
Stares from every human face
And the seas of pity lie
Locked and frozen in each eye.
Though everyone foresaw the catastrophe, no one could pull the leaders back from its execution.

I experienced this sense of powerlessness in 2002 as I watched the Bush administration rushing headlong toward its murderous attack on the Iraqis. On September 23 of that year, I gave vent to my feelings in an article (http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=430) called "Helplessly, We Await the Catastrophe Our Rulers Are Creating." "Today," I wrote,

the dogs of war are barking not in Europe, but in the District of Columbia, and again people are looking on helplessly as the tragedy unfolds. We see the disaster being designed and touted, we observe the intellectual disgrace staring from the faces of George W. Bush and his advisers, and we note the seas of pity lying locked and frozen in their eyes. Yet we can do nothing to prevent the makers of this coming calamity from carrying out the devastation.
The calamity that Bush and his government wrought in Iraq has now become a chronic, seemingly permanent condition, a pain that never eases, an emergency destined to continue as far as the eye can see, and nearly everybody has given up hope that anything good will ever come out of it, or even that its daily horrors will ever do anything but continue to erupt episodically in spasms of political madness and haphazard violence.

Iraq, however, is thousands of miles away, and few Americans could keep their attention focused on it for long, in any event. Now that the financial mess and the deepening recession are affecting all Americans and raising fears about the whole country's future economic well-being, Iraq has been relegated to brief articles on page A-23 of the newspaper. The economic crisis had become overwhelmingly the foremost concern, and on this front, good news has been a very scarce commodity for the past year.

In the present situation, the formula our rulers employ to guide their actions is simple: borrow and spend―the more, the better. If reminded that the government cannot accumulate ever more debt without grave repercussions, they always answer that the present emergency is so pressing that concern about the future must be set aside until the present exigencies have been met. It is not clear that they sincerely believe the economic drivel they dispense to the news media. Perhaps they are merely cunning enough to appreciate Rahm Emanuel's admonition (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122714374260443023.html), "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." My sense, however, especially when I ponder the way in which they describe the economic situation and justify their proposals for repairing it, is that they have virtually no sound understanding of basic economics, and no interest in acquiring such an understanding, either. If the top dogs of the power elite are already living their lives in a reprehensible manner, it probably does not contribute to their happiness to dwell on the possibility that, in the process, they may also be contributing to public ruin.

Whether they are fools or charlatans, or both, as I suppose them to be, their actions amount to a genuine tragedy, because their leadership, so long as the people tolerate it, portends only devastation. The people, in the main, are afraid, and they are immoral, so they are happy to seize any momentary advantage or enrichment the government will hand them, regardless of the moral breach this coercive transfer of wealth represents. The rulers understand the people's moral weakness and exploit it at every turn. Their own example of thoroughgoing corruption, of course, only coarsens the entire society's moral character―after all, what sort of people tolerates, much less affirmatively supports, such creeps in high places? In the body politic, however, the masses are the tail, not the dog. The rulers, like tigers who lie in wait near a spring, knowing that their prey will eventually come there to drink, tempt the people to indulge their appetites for ill-gotten gain, and, sure enough, the masses need not be invited twice. It does not occur to the diners that this repast consists of tainted meat, and therefore that in due course they must suffer the consequences of having swallowed toxic fare.

Artificially easy credit, rapid monetary growth, subsidized homeownership for people who cannot make the mortgage payments, exclusive privileges granted to dishonest bond-rating agencies, explicit and implicit government guarantees of bank accounts, bonds, and other financial assets―these policies and others that tend in the same direction have created our present economic difficulties. To suppose, and to act on the supposition, that precisely these same kinds of policies will repair the day is supreme folly. To augment these mistakes by expending a trillion borrowed dollars in new government outlays for whatever suits the grasping members of a totally corrupt Congress only compounds the folly on a cosmic scale. Yet, no struggling firm or family wants to fail, and each prefers to survive the day without having to make painful adjustments, even if doing so requires supping disgracefully at the state's filthy trough.

The entire spectacle is painful to behold. The good that the people and their leaders expect to come of these foolish measures can provide, at most, only temporary relief. Not far down the road, the devil is waiting to collect his due.

February 4, 2009


Robert Higgs [send him mail (http://www.lewrockwell.com/higgs/mailto:RHiggs2377@aol.com)] is senior fellow in political economy at the Independent Institute (http://www.independent.org/) and editor of The Independent Review (http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/). He is also a columnist for LewRockwell.com. His most recent book is Neither Liberty Nor Safety: Fear, Ideology, and the Growth of Government (http://www.amazon.com/Neither-Liberty-nor-Safety-Government/dp/1598130129/lewrockwell/). He is also the author of Depression, War, and Cold War: Studies in Political Economy (http://www.mises.org/store/Depression-War-and-Cold-War-P334C0.aspx?AFID=14), Resurgence of the Warfare State: The Crisis Since 9/11 (http://www.mises.org/store/Resurgence-of-the-Warfare-State-The-Crisis-Since-911-P220C0.aspx?AFID=14)and Against Leviathan: Government Power and a Free Society (http://www.mises.org/store/Against-Leviathan-P212C0.aspx?AFID=14).
Copyright © 2009 Robert Higgs

Robert Higgs Archives (http://www.lewrockwell.com/higgs/higgs-arch.html)

http://images.clickability.com/pti/spacer.gif
Find this article at:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/higgs/higgs104.html

Because we fail to reduce tyranny down to what it truly is; it being a return to the business of pimping and prostituting and to that age of family dependency when fathers counted their daughters as livestock. Because we look at politics in a fictional sense rather than in a responsible one.
As members of the protagonist party, we blame the antagonist party for all our problems. The media then become the narrators of our fiction.

[Truth Warrior]

Because we fail to reduce tyranny down to what it truly is; it being a return to the business of pimping and prostituting and to that age of family dependency when fathers counted their daughters as livestock. Because we look at politics in a fictional sense rather than in a responsible one.
As members of the protagonist party, we blame the antagonist party for all our problems. The media then become the narrators.

The Difference between Democrats and Republicans
http://differencebetweendemocratsandrepublicans.com/ (http://differencebetweendemocratsandrepublicans.com/)

An accurate, quick and easy read.<IMHO>

It's ALL just theater, "bread and circuses". :p

[heavenlyboy34]

The Difference between Democrats and Republicans
http://differencebetweendemocratsandrepublicans.com/ (http://differencebetweendemocratsandrepublicans.com/)

An accurate, quick and easy read.<IMHO>

It's ALL just theater, "bread and circuses". :p

LOL!!! That's a great book on the subject. ;)

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

The Difference between Democrats and Republicans
http://differencebetweendemocratsandrepublicans.com/ (http://differencebetweendemocratsandrepublicans.com/)

An accurate, quick and easy read.<IMHO>

It's ALL just theater, "bread and circuses". :p

We do have a real reason to have a two party system. Such allows us to solve a lot of problems without tempting the fate of the Constitution by way of ammending. Aside from that important reason, yes, the vast differences cooked up by modern sophists have more to do with disillusionment than real political differences.

[Truth Warrior]

We do have a real reason to have a two party system. Such allows us to solve a lot of problems without tempting the fate of the Constitution by way of ammending. Aside from that important reason, yes, the vast differences cooked up by modern sophists have more to do with disillusionment than real political differences. It seems to me that the Federalists PLANNED on a one party system. :rolleyes:

[heavenlyboy34]

It seems to me that the Federalists PLANNED on a one party system. :rolleyes:

And succeeded. :(:p

[amy31416]

My title revision to reflect reality:

WE Are Allowing Our Rulers to Destroy Our World

[Truth Warrior]

My title revision to reflect reality:

WE Are Allowing Our Rulers to Destroy Our World Do you have a mouse in your pocket? :D

[acptulsa]

Do you have a mouse in your pocket? :D

You implying that you've done something useful to counter it?

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

It seems to me that the Federalists PLANNED on a one party system. :rolleyes:

But none of the three branches were appointed to judge Constitutionality from this nation's infancy. The Supreme Court decided its job was to issue Writs of Mandamus instead. So, the two party system was set up to to handle that responsibility. If it weren't for the burden of having the Constitution properly interpreted, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson may have never run for President.

[Truth Warrior]

But none of the three branches were appointed to judge Constitutionality from this nation's infancy. The Supreme Court decided its job was to issue Writs of Mandamus instead. So, the two party system was set up to to handle that responsibility. If it weren't for the burden of having the Constitution properly interpreted, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson may have never run for President. By WHAT CONstitutional authority ( so called :rolleyes: ) did the Supreme Court do that?
Revolution of 1800
Politics and Public Service
Some observers have regarded Jefferson (http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h664.html)'s election in 1800 (http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h448.html) as revolutionary. This may be true in a restrained sense of the word, since the change from Federalist (http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h377.html) leadership to Republican (http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h446.html) was entirely legal and bloodless. Nevertheless, the changes were profound. The Federalists lost control of both the presidency and the Congress.

By 1800, the American people were ready for a change. Under Washington (http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h658.html) and Adams (http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h460.html), the Federalists had established a strong government. They sometimes failed, however, to honor the principle that the American government must be responsive to the will of the people. They had followed policies that alienated large groups. For example, in 1798 they enacted a tax on houses, land and slaves, affecting every property owner in the country. Jefferson had steadily gathered behind him a great mass of small farmers, shopkeepers and other workers; they asserted themselves in the election of 1800. Jefferson enjoyed extraordinary favor because of his appeal to American idealism. In his inaugural address, the first such speech in the new capital of Washington, D.C. (http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1932.html), he promised "a wise and frugal government" to preserve order among the inhabitants, but would "leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry, and improvement." Jefferson's mere presence in The White House (http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h461.html) encouraged democratic behavior. White House guests were encouraged to shake hands with the president, rather than bowing as had been the Federalist practice. Guests at state dinners were seated at round tables, which emphasized a sense of equality. He taught his subordinates to regard themselves merely as trustees of the people. He encouraged agriculture and westward expansion. Believing America to be a haven for the oppressed, he urged a liberal naturalization law.
Federalists feared the worst. Some worried that Jefferson, the great admirer of the French, would set up a guillotine on Capitol Hill.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h470.html (http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h470.html)

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

By WHAT CONstitutional authority ( so called :rolleyes: ) did the Supreme Court do that?
Revolution of 1800
Politics and Public Service
Some observers have regarded Jefferson (http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h664.html)'s election in 1800 (http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h448.html) as revolutionary. This may be true in a restrained sense of the word, since the change from Federalist (http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h377.html) leadership to Republican (http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h446.html) was entirely legal and bloodless. Nevertheless, the changes were profound. The Federalists lost control of both the presidency and the Congress.

By 1800, the American people were ready for a change. Under Washington (http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h658.html) and Adams (http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h460.html), the Federalists had established a strong government. They sometimes failed, however, to honor the principle that the American government must be responsive to the will of the people. They had followed policies that alienated large groups. For example, in 1798 they enacted a tax on houses, land and slaves, affecting every property owner in the country. Jefferson had steadily gathered behind him a great mass of small farmers, shopkeepers and other workers; they asserted themselves in the election of 1800. Jefferson enjoyed extraordinary favor because of his appeal to American idealism. In his inaugural address, the first such speech in the new capital of Washington, D.C. (http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1932.html), he promised "a wise and frugal government" to preserve order among the inhabitants, but would "leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry, and improvement." Jefferson's mere presence in The White House (http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h461.html) encouraged democratic behavior. White House guests were encouraged to shake hands with the president, rather than bowing as had been the Federalist practice. Guests at state dinners were seated at round tables, which emphasized a sense of equality. He taught his subordinates to regard themselves merely as trustees of the people. He encouraged agriculture and westward expansion. Believing America to be a haven for the oppressed, he urged a liberal naturalization law.
Federalists feared the worst. Some worried that Jefferson, the great admirer of the French, would set up a guillotine on Capitol Hill.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h470.html (http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h470.html)

In its infancy, the Supreme Court exercized its power by writing Writs of Mandamus to the lower courts ordering them to do things. This changed when the Supreme Court made the decision that "It was Unconstitutional for them to be involved with a particular case."

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

That changed during the Marshall Court (1801–1836), which declared the Court to be the supreme arbiter of the Constitution (see Marbury v. Madison) and made a number of important rulings which gave shape and substance to the constitutional balance of power between the federal government (referred to at the time as the "general" government) and the states. In Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, the Court ruled that it had the power to correct interpretations of the federal Constitution made by state supreme courts. Both Marbury and Martin confirmed that the Supreme Court was the body entrusted with maintaining the consistent and orderly development of federal law.

Up until the Supreme Court took over the responsibility of Constitutionality, the two party system helped settle what would be the interpretation of the Contitution. The two party system still plays that important role by helping to keep the Supreme Court from altering the Constitution beyond that of a tweak, a slight clarification or an ammendment.

[Truth Warrior]

In its infancy, the Supreme Court exercized its power by writing Writs of Mandamus to the lower courts ordering them to do things. This changed when the Supreme Court made the decision that "It was Unconstitutional for them to be involved with a particular case."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
That changed during the Marshall Court (1801–1836), which declared the Court to be the supreme arbiter of the Constitution (see Marbury v. Madison) and made a number of important rulings which gave shape and substance to the constitutional balance of power between the federal government (referred to at the time as the "general" government) and the states. In Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, the Court ruled that it had the power to correct interpretations of the federal Constitution made by state supreme courts. Both Marbury and Martin confirmed that the Supreme Court was the body entrusted with maintaining the consistent and orderly development of federal law.

Up until the Supreme Court took over that responsibility, the two party system helped settle what would be the interpretation of the Contitution. The two party system still plays that important role keeping the Constitution from being altered beyond that of a tweak, a slight clarification or an ammendment.

'Lysander Spooner once said that he believed "that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize." At the same time, he could not exonerate the Constitution, for it "has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." It is hard to argue with that.' -- Thomas E. Woods Jr

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

'Lysander Spooner once said that he believed "that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize." At the same time, he could not exonerate the Constitution, for it "has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." It is hard to argue with that.' -- Thomas E. Woods Jr

The real power is expressed in our formal divorce from tyranny, The Declaration of Independence. A self-evident truth unalienable imprinted on every human soul always win out over every past tradition and future occurence. Once again, this is the Civil-Purpose of the people. Our Founding-Fathers did not sit in as rulers when creating our government, thus not deeming it as a legal precedent, but as acting people under its rule, thus deeming it as a Civil-Purpose.
Don't understand this? Go back to Europe.

[Truth Warrior]

The real power is expressed in our formal divorce from tyranny, The Declaration of Independence. A self-evident truth unalienable imprinted on every human soul always win out over every past tradition and future occurence. Once again, this is the Civil-Purpose of the people. Our Founding-Fathers did not sit in as rulers when creating our government, thus not deeming it as a legal precedent, but as acting people under its rule, thus deeming it as a Civil-Purpose.
Don't understand this? Go back to Europe.

Totalitarian Lincolnites (http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo77.html)
Marx, Hitler, Jaffa, Buckley, et al.

Don't understand this? Go back to Greece. :p I'm sovereign. ;)

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Totalitarian Lincolnites (http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo77.html)
Marx, Hitler, Jaffa, Buckley, et al.

Don't understand this? Go back to Greece. :p I'm sovereign. ;)

An ever more perfecting government is necessary to implement Civil-Purpose. Not the other way around. If you aren't clear about what this nation's Civil-Purpose is, then you are delving into theory. Natural-Law conclusions had no theories opposing them.

[Truth Warrior]

An ever more perfecting government is necessary to implement Civil-Purpose. Not the other way around. If you aren't clear about what this nation's Civil-Purpose is, then you are delving into theory. Natural-Law conclusions had no theories opposing them. How much more, in time, is necessary for PERFECT? :p :rolleyes: 220 YEARS has created and produced a global empire. :mad:

[heavenlyboy34]

How much more, in time, is necessary for PERFECT? :p :rolleyes: 220 YEARS has created and produced a global empire. :mad:

Empire, shmempire. :p:mad::(

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

How much more, in time, is necessary for PERFECT? :p :rolleyes: 220 YEARS has created and produced a global empire. :mad:

The people have the greatest power, but it is limited though. As it is clearly expressed in both of our formal documents, the people have the power to divorce tyranny and then to remarry themselves to a more perfect government. The people don't desire or need any more power than that and the idea that they can acheive it is disillusional. We don't want to be powerful. We want to be content.

[Truth Warrior]

The people have the greatest power, but it is limited though. As it is clearly expressed in both of our formal documents, the people have the power to divorce tyranny and then to remarry themselves to a more perfect government. The people don't desire or need any more power than that and the idea that they can acheive it is disillusional. We don't want to be powerful. We want to be content. And just look at the current Frankenstein abomination that the "greatest power" ( so called :rolleyes: ) has now produced. :p :(

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

And just look at the current Frankenstein abomination that the "greatest power" ( so called :rolleyes: ) has now produced. :p :(

It is our irresponsibility returning us to a world of pimping and prostituting and not tyranny.

[heavenlyboy34]

It is our irresponsibility returning us to a world of pimping and prostituting and not tyranny.

How do you reckon? :confused:

[Truth Warrior]

It is our irresponsibility returning us to a world of pimping and prostituting and not tyranny. Nonsense. :p

The monstrosity came without our consent. Tis but the essential nature of the beast.<IMHO>

"Taking the State wherever found, striking into its history at any point, one sees no way to differentiate the activities of its founders, administrators, and beneficiaries from those of a professional-criminal class." ~ Albert Jay Nock, Our Enemy, The State

[Theocrat]

It seems these rulers are acting like anarchists (no objective law nor absolute accountability), so it's no wonder they can destroy economies. What law or person is going to stop them in their power?

[Truth Warrior]

It seems these rulers are acting like anarchists (no objective law nor absolute accountability), so it's no wonder they can destroy economies. What law or person is going to stop them in their power?

The "Christian" electorate? :rolleyes:

[Theocrat]

The "Christian" electorate? :rolleyes:

I'm glad you put "Christian" in quotation marks because I agree with you. It's the pseudo-Christians out there (who are really humanistic and/or anarchistic at heart) that are causing most of this financial/civil/Constitutional/moral disaster. They think the world is theirs, and they act accordingly without regards to their Creator, and to the detriment of their neighbors.

[Truth Warrior]

I'm glad you put "Christian" in quotation marks because I agree with you. It's the pseudo-Christians out there (who are really humanistic and/or anarchistic at heart) that are causing most of this financial/civil/Constitutional/moral disaster. They think the world is theirs, and they act accordingly without regards to their Creator, and to the detriment of their neighbors. Yep, not too many of them can even come close to passing the Jesus filter.<IMHO> :(

So, do you have a rough guesstimate of how many non-pseudo Christians there are? ;)

[Theocrat]

Yep, not too many of them can even come close to passing the Jesus filter.<IMHO> :(

So, do you have a rough guesstimate of how many non-pseudo Christians there are? ;)

As many as make a public profession of Christ but then live like Satan in private. How many have the media caught so far? ;)

[Truth Warrior]

As many as make a public profession of Christ but then live like Satan in private. How many have the media caught so far? ;) I asked for a NON-PSEUDO Christian count. ;)

[Theocrat]

I asked for a NON-PSEUDO Christian count. ;)

Oh. I guess I read that too fast. Why is such a count needed?

[Truth Warrior]

Oh. I guess I read that too fast. Why is such a count needed? In order to separate the wheat from the chaff. :D

Based on what I've seen, there's only about 2 or 3 potential wheat candidates here on the RPF.<IMHO> :(