PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul: 'Our Constitution Has Failed' to restrain government




RonPaulFanInGA
11-15-2012, 02:55 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/ron-paul-departs-constitution-failed-230217615--abc-news-politics.html

Sentinelrv
11-15-2012, 03:13 AM
Did he actually say that in his speech? Haven't watched it yet. People in the comments section are disagreeing, saying that we failed the constitution, which I do agree with.

TheTyke
11-15-2012, 03:58 AM
Media spin more than anything... they seized on a few words out of a 45 min speech - and the most pessimistic they could find. He remarked in passing - not even as a point by itself - that our Constitution failed to keep our liberties from eroding this far. But he also said: "From my viewpoint, just following the constraints placed on the Federal Government by the Constitution would have been a good place to start!"

jmdrake
11-15-2012, 06:08 AM
Did he actually say that in his speech? Haven't watched it yet. People in the comments section are disagreeing, saying that we failed the constitution, which I do agree with.

Well it could have been a bit more explicit. Like maybe it should have said "And in case some wiseguy down the road thinks he can order Americans into a war zone and call it a 'police action' or a 'kinetic action', let us be clear. The president's powers as commander in chief only kick in after a war has been declared, only extend as far a necessary to deal with that particular war, and only exist until the war is over. Further war can only be declared against another sovereign state. No wars without a definite end goal in mind may be declared." Of course you'd have to be a clairvoyant to foresee every sticking way politicians would later try to end run around the constitution.

Conza88
11-15-2012, 06:10 AM
Did he actually say that in his speech? Haven't watched it yet. People in the comments section are disagreeing, saying that we failed the constitution, which I do agree with.

Lmao!

SMH.

Carehn
11-15-2012, 06:37 AM
He did. And it has.

FrankRep
11-15-2012, 06:41 AM
No, the People failed to enforce the Constitution.


John Adams warned us:

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
- John Adams

klamath
11-15-2012, 07:19 AM
The people allowed it and condone it. Not even two years ago The president broke the MOST Critical importent part of the constitution and the seperation of powers. Declared war without any approval of congress. He even broke the War powers act that reinforces that seperation of powers. He was reelected.

RockEnds
11-15-2012, 07:33 AM
"Our Constitution, which was intended to limit government power and abuse, has failed."

That's why we're here. What separates Ron Paul from the other candidates is that he sees this and tries to remedy it. It's nothing new. He just worded it differently. We're not following the Constitution. The Constitution was written to limit government. The government isn't very limited at this point in history.

fisharmor
11-15-2012, 07:45 AM
"Our Constitution, which was intended to limit government power and abuse, has failed."

That's why we're here. What separates Ron Paul from the other candidates is that he sees this and tries to remedy it. It's nothing new. He just worded it differently. We're not following the Constitution. The Constitution was written to limit government.

This is just simply false. They already had a weak government.
Whether or not the government under the constitution falls within your personally acceptable range of amounts of government is a separate issue that we can discuss at length, and never get to the bottom of, because everyone has a different amount.
But it's simply a historical fact that the US Constitution falls more on the authoritarian side of that scale than the Articles of Confederation do.

RockEnds
11-15-2012, 07:49 AM
This is just simply false. They already had a weak government.
Whether or not the government under the constitution falls within your personally acceptable range of amounts of government is a separate issue that we can discuss at length, and never get to the bottom of, because everyone has a different amount.
But it's simply a historical fact that the US Constitution falls more on the authoritarian side of that scale than the Articles of Confederation do.

The Constitution was written to create a stronger central government than the Articles. That was not the subject of the statement in the speech.

fisharmor
11-15-2012, 07:53 AM
The Constitution was written to create a stronger central government than the Articles. That was not the subject of the statement in the speech.

No, the subject is the idea that the Constitution was written to limit government, which is clearly false.
It is not a coincidence that all of the rights it supposedly guarantees are amendments.

PaulConventionWV
11-15-2012, 07:55 AM
inb4 "Ron Paul is an anarchist!"

fisharmor
11-15-2012, 07:57 AM
inb4 "Ron Paul is an anarchist!"

LOL once again the haters bring it up first.
I'm pretty sure psychology has a term for this. You know, how the guy who's always gay bashing is secretly gay himself.

RockEnds
11-15-2012, 08:01 AM
No, the subject is the idea that the Constitution was written to limit government, which is clearly false.
It is not a coincidence that all of the rights it supposedly guarantees are amendments.

Personally, I don't think it's a false statement, but I'll easily agree that there's more than one way to see it. There was concern that the Articles of Confederation would be ineffectual in preserving the union among the States. That was probably a valid concern. One of the purposes of the Constitution was to strengthen that union, and to that end, it has been effective. Right, wrong, good or bad, it has so far achieved that goal. But the Constitution was not intended to create the monstrosity that exists today. It was a limit on government. There were rights retained by the people and the States. The amendments, the Bill of Rights, were controversial because it was thought that enumerating some rights might make it appear as if those enumerated rights were the only rights retained by the people. An effort was made to limit government--not the rights of the people.

Personally, I think it the single executive was a big part of the problem. Of course, there are other shortcomings as well.

Republicanguy
11-15-2012, 08:04 AM
John Adams certainly wasn't the walker of the gospel was he, I also wouldn't trust that statement to the letter, nor the illusion of that reigion.

As somebody that doesn't agree with many positions that Paul stands for, he has make some good points during his term. In that respect, there won't be another Rep like him. There aren't any women reps like him are there, except a little like Cynthia Mckay or kathy Glass, the Libertarian governor candidate for Texas in 2010.

Though I perfer Roscoe Bartlett's realisation of the energy deficit.;) I watched a cabin film of his, he has a place out in some woods for retirement with his wife.

mport1
11-15-2012, 08:17 AM
He did. And it has.

This.

Hopefully people will stop worshiping that terrible, destructive document now. Words on paper have never, and will never constrain a government. Especially when those words enshrine the monopoly power to initiate violence against the American people. Let's stop the talk of "getting back to the constitution" and instead promote liberty, not tyranny.

fisharmor
11-15-2012, 08:20 AM
Personally, I don't think it's a false statement, but I'll easily agree that there's more than one way to see it. There was concern that the Articles of Confederation would be ineffectual in preserving the union among the States. That was probably a valid concern. One of the purposes of the Constitution was to strengthen that union, and to that end, it has been effective. Right, wrong, good or bad, it has so far achieved that goal.
Right but a strong union is indistinguishable from a strong central government.
There was no strong central government before. That was the complaint. They fixed that. There is a stronger central government now. The constitution does try to limit government to an extent - but given that it was more limited before, and less limited after, and given that the problem they were ostensibly fixing was weak government, you can't claim that the purpose of the document was to limit government.

Moreover, history disagrees with the idea that the constitution preserved union - because when several states tried peacefully to go their own way, the union invaded and caused the deaths of roughly three quarters of a million people. That is what preserved union - not the constitution. There is no provision in the constitution for preventing states leaving. That had to be written on flesh with minie balls.


But the Constitution was not intended to create the monstrosity that exists today. It was a limit on government. There were rights retained by the people and the States. The amendments, the Bill of Rights, were controversial because it was thought that enumerating some rights might make it appear as if those enumerated rights were the only rights retained by the people. An effort was made to limit government--not the rights of the people.

The amendments are additions. They were not part of the original document. They were put in because concerned antifederalists like George Mason (ever hear of him? I wouldn't have if I didn't work at his house in the 90's) were distressed at the increase of power on the federal level. They knew they were getting screwed at the time! They pushed for the amendments to lessen the blow.


Personally, I think it the single executive was a big part of the problem. Of course, there are other shortcomings as well.
I'm interested in what you think those are.

Republicanguy
11-15-2012, 08:25 AM
Admiral Hyman Rickover explained that the Liberty era of two centuries ago was gone in 1957 with new challenges that obviously couldn't be seen from that time. The fact that nobody seems to of challenge that, shows that you know just brush it under the carpet.

RockEnds
11-15-2012, 08:46 AM
...


The amendments are additions. They were not part of the original document. They were put in because concerned antifederalists like George Mason (ever hear of him? I wouldn't have if I didn't work at his house in the 90's) were distressed at the increase of power on the federal level. They knew they were getting screwed at the time! They pushed for the amendments to lessen the blow.

I have heard of George Mason. [I'm a political science major, but I'm old and college was many moons ago. Sometimes I find myself dusting off the cobwebs in the hamster cage. :) ]

Over the years, I've gone back and forth on the enumeration of rights. I can definitely see both sides to that argument, and hindsight still isn't working 20/20 for me. There were good arguments against enumerating specific rights. However, if today we were limited just to the rights which were enumerated, we would be more free than our current state. In that sense, it's better that they're there.

And yes, there was much concern that the Constitution was a power grab. That concern was certainly justified. But at the same time, there were border disputes between the states. The government couldn't pay the bill for the Revolutionary War. It was a different world. We were a small population, and England would have loved to have seen us fall flat and come running back. There was a reason to want to preserve the union. (And yes, I understand that actions in the 1860s exceeded the bounds of the Constitution. ) It really is questionable whether or not we could have survived as a nation without increasing the power of the federal government. Of course, unless someone has a time machine, there's no way to be certain.


I'm interested in what you think those are.

That could take awhile, and I have a busy day today! The design of the executive was just not the best. It really left the door wide open for the problems we face today. I kind of like the idea of three executives. I'm not sure exactly how it would have been designed, but it's an interesting thought. I think a vote of no confidence would have had a positive effect on limiting government. Having a single executing also serving as the CIC maybe hasn't worked so well. The office was tailor made for Washington, and he's been gone for awhile.

But I think their lack of illustrating the foundation of the principles of liberty has created the biggest problem. I'm sure it was challenging to institute liberty while simultaneously preserving slavery. That of course, was also a hot topic of the day.

July
11-15-2012, 09:28 AM
No, the subject is the idea that the Constitution was written to limit government, which is clearly false.
It is not a coincidence that all of the rights it supposedly guarantees are amendments.

I think the point is that yeah, it was intended to create a bigger and more centralized government at the time. But at this point in time, the government has gone far beyond even that. It's a small government document today compared to what we've got now, and compared to the centralized international direction we are heading in, with the UN, etc.

BuddyRey
11-15-2012, 10:16 AM
Pussyfooting around the truth is a luxury we can no longer afford, and Ron Paul knows that. The Constitution was the greatest governing document ever written for a free society, but as good as it was, it was still destined to fail. You cannot give the power to tax and regulate to such a corruptible species as mankind and expect any other outcome. The power to tax is the power to destroy.

Travlyr
11-15-2012, 10:20 AM
Actually what Ron emphasized in his speech was implementing the principles of liberty. He even mentioned this morning on CSPAN about how government should be limited.

TruckinMike
11-15-2012, 10:36 AM
No, the People failed to enforce the Constitution.


John Adams warned us:

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
- John Adams

Ron covered himself, he used that very quote. But as we all know, Ron is Ron, sometimes you have to really listen, and then listen again, to get the complete message. LoL!

TMike

sailingaway
11-15-2012, 10:37 AM
Did he actually say that in his speech? Haven't watched it yet. People in the comments section are disagreeing, saying that we failed the constitution, which I do agree with.

he said it failed to restrain government, and we need PEOPLE to change in their expectations and demands, it isn't asking to scrap the Constitution.

sailingaway
11-15-2012, 10:38 AM
No, the subject is the idea that the Constitution was written to limit government, which is clearly false.
It is not a coincidence that all of the rights it supposedly guarantees are amendments.


The Constitution was written to limit government, it is just that the limits negotiated where much more expansive than the AntiFederalists wanted. They were still limits.

fisharmor
11-15-2012, 10:57 AM
The Constitution was written to limit government, it is just that the limits negotiated where much more expansive than the AntiFederalists wanted. They were still limits.

This is directly analogous to saying "Hey, I currently don't have a problem with bird droppings in my yard. And I wish to limit the number of bird droppings in my yard. So I'm gonna set up a bunch of bird houses and feeders on my property... but I'm only going to set up 10 of each, because more than that isn't limiting the bird droppings in my yard."

It doesn't change the fact that you end up with more bird droppings. If the goal from the onset was to limit bird droppings, then the forehead-slappingly simple conclusion is not to build the feeders and houses.

sailingaway
11-15-2012, 11:02 AM
This is directly analogous to saying "Hey, I currently don't have a problem with bird droppings in my yard. And I wish to limit the number of bird droppings in my yard. So I'm gonna set up a bunch of bird houses and feeders on my property... but I'm only going to set up 10 of each, because more than that isn't limiting the bird droppings in my yard."

It doesn't change the fact that you end up with more bird droppings. If the goal from the onset was to limit bird droppings, then the forehead-slappingly simple conclusion is not to build the feeders and houses.

I see it more like the debt limit. Raising it allows more growth of government, as did ratifying the Constitution. However, there is still a limit there, and we need to enforce it when we reach it, not surpass it without a murmur.

I'm not arguing it against the Articles, I'd have to research that in much more detail, but it IS the law of the land, and enforcing it is what I see we need at this point.

Cabal
11-15-2012, 11:30 AM
Didn't see this one coming!!! /sarcasm

Lol.

osan
11-15-2012, 11:40 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/ron-paul-departs-constitution-failed-230217615--abc-news-politics.html

How can a concept fail in the manner suggested by the thread title?

PEOPLE failed. I failed. We failed.

Let us not deflect OUR culpabilities away from ourselves and project them onto an inanimate shred of paper with ink upon it. The Constitution is naught but the material repository for a set of concepts, the responsibility of which is ours to see realized. We have failed to realize it in a manner consistent with the bottom-most principle that underpins the entire document: individual liberty.

We have failed.

Spectacularly.

sailingaway
11-15-2012, 11:49 AM
How can a concept fail in the manner suggested by the thread title?

PEOPLE failed. I failed. We failed.

Let us not deflect OUR culpabilities away from ourselves and project them onto an inanimate shred of paper with ink upon it. The Constitution is naught but the material repository for a set of concepts, the responsibility of which is ours to see realized. We have failed to realize it in a manner consistent with the bottom-most principle that underpins the entire document: individual liberty.

We have failed.

Spectacularly.

In reality that is what Ron said.

torchbearer
11-15-2012, 12:14 PM
Did he actually say that in his speech? Haven't watched it yet. People in the comments section are disagreeing, saying that we failed the constitution, which I do agree with.

you should watch the speech.
he does go on to explain using quotes from ben franklin that the constitution was written for a moral people... without a moral people the constitution is meaningless.

Cabal
11-15-2012, 01:43 PM
How can a concept fail in the manner suggested by the thread title?

PEOPLE failed. I failed. We failed.

Let us not deflect OUR culpabilities away from ourselves and project them onto an inanimate shred of paper with ink upon it. The Constitution is naught but the material repository for a set of concepts, the responsibility of which is ours to see realized. We have failed to realize it in a manner consistent with the bottom-most principle that underpins the entire document: individual liberty.

We have failed.

Spectacularly.

If the Constitution is just an inanimate shred of paper with ink on it, then why is it regarded so highly?

Given that the Constitution establishes and 'legitimizes' a central State, I would argue this is the bottom-most principle that underpins the entire document, not individual liberty. The intention of the convention was actually called to create a new government, rather than 'fixing' the existing one--AoC. Ironic that 'fixing' is now the preferred answer. In any case, the Bill of Rights, which is primarily concerned with liberties of the citizens, wasn't even included in the Constitution originally, and didn't even get adopted until two years later. Thirteen delegates walked out, three refused to sign--39 of 55 actually signed. So it wasn't even unanimous. This lends itself to the assertion that establishing a State was more important than individual liberty. Many only agreed to sign with the hint of a promise of a Bill of Rights to come further down the road.

So no, the bottom-most principle of the entire document really has nothing to do with individual liberty, according to history. It is true that for many, the aspect and ideas of individual liberty were necessary and requisite, but ultimately this didn't matter. Individual liberty was beat out by statism. If anything underpins the Constitution, it is that, according to history.

Carson
11-15-2012, 08:16 PM
I have thought of the United States Constitution as the rules the government were meant to govern under. Like a solid foundation.

I've also heard that it is our duty to see to it that they do.

It is kind of tough to make any headway when some can counterfeit whatever it takes to dictate their way.

I suppose the only thing we have going for us is the fact that some have chosen to build on an unsound foundation. Maybe there is where we need to look to get them back on solid ground where they are suppose to be.

heavenlyboy34
11-15-2012, 08:21 PM
No, the People failed to enforce the Constitution.


John Adams warned us:

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
- John Adams
lolz ;) :D

torchbearer
11-15-2012, 08:26 PM
all types of society fail when the super majority of the people are immoral. no voluntary society can exist without enough people who are moral enough to understand property rights.
Ron did list the proper functions of government in a free society in his farewell speech.

AuH20
11-15-2012, 08:29 PM
Someone could write the most foolproof articles of voluntarism with like-minded people and over time atrophy would destroy it's intent. You are not going to restrain corrupting human desires with a document. The citizens failed the Constitution as opposed to the reverse.

idiom
11-15-2012, 08:55 PM
http://i.imgur.com/Srvzw.jpg

liberty2897
11-15-2012, 09:02 PM
"Called Congress a bunch of psychopathic authoritarians"

.. and they applauded afterwards.

I think he nailed it.

Psychopathy (/saɪˈkɒpəθi/[1][2] is a personality disorder that has been variously described as characterized by shallow emotions (in particular reduced fear), stress tolerance, lacking empathy, coldheartedness, egocentricity, superficial charm, manipulativeness, irresponsibility, impulsivity, criminality, antisocial behaviors such as parasitic lifestyle[clarify], and lacking guilt. There is no consensus about the symptom criteria and there are ongoing debates regarding issues such as essential features, causes, and the possibility of treatment.

au·thor·i·tar·i·an (-thôr-târ-n, -thr-, ô-thôr-, ô-thr-)
adj.
1. Characterized by or favoring absolute obedience to authority, as against individual freedom: an authoritarian

VoluntaryAmerican
11-15-2012, 09:05 PM
No, the People failed to enforce the Constitution.


John Adams warned us:

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
- John Adams

Adams was a TYRANT.

kylejack
11-15-2012, 09:09 PM
Most of the anarchists I know are more liberty-minded than most of the religious people I know. Considering the crap Adams did like the Alien and Sedition Acts, I don't think I'll buy in to that quote.

awake
11-15-2012, 09:33 PM
The written constitution might be all but a small technical hurdle for the power addicts, but the moral laws from which it was drawn up, and its unavoidable consequences are in full effect. The economic Armageddon awaiting the world has just begun. Reading the events in Greece on a daily bases confirms that there are moral and economic laws that exist, they are unavoidable, and the US empire is unmistakably in line for the painful lesson.

It's all fine for the state to think they can just raise taxes to bail themselves out. But people, when fed up, find ways of getting around the increases by going under the table. The government by raising taxes might actually cause a drop in collections due to the black marketeers in all of us. Greece is the future for the US. It's like watching a train go off a bridge and having a clear view from the caboose.

Conza88
11-16-2012, 05:57 AM
“In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written.”

— Ron Paul, End the Fed


Some of you here really need to get your heads outta the sand...


Ron Paul on Self-Government


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=oEDUT7SzCqM



At a huge rally in Seattle: “If you had a perfectly ideal world, and you had liberty passed on back to the individual, it would be self-government, that would be the ultimate test. As long as we accept one principle - that we don’t force other people to try to live the way we want to live. Stay out of meddling with these peoples lives.”
Self-government being synonymous with voluntarism and a private law society.



“If Canada and the United States can be separate nations without being denounced as being in a state of impermissible “anarchy,” why may not the South secede from the United States? New York State from the Union? New York City from the state? Why may not Manhattan secede? Each neighborhood? Each block? Each house? Each person? But, of course, if each person may secede from government, we have virtually arrived at the purely free society, where defense is supplied along with all other services by the free market and where the invasive State has ceased to exist.”
— Murray N. Rothbard, No More Military Socialism.

FrankRep
11-16-2012, 07:02 AM
Most of the anarchists I know are more liberty-minded than most of the religious people I know. Considering the crap Adams did like the Alien and Sedition Acts, I don't think I'll buy in to that quote.


Do you know your history? You're acting like you don't. I don't agree with the Alien and Sedition Acts, but I understand why they were created.



Alien and Sedition Acts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts)

The Alien and Sedition Acts were four bills passed in 1798 by the Federalists in the 5th United States Congress in the aftermath of the French Revolution and during an undeclared naval war with France, later known as the Quasi-War. They were signed into law by President John Adams. Opposition to Federalists among Democratic-Republicans reached new heights at this time since the Democratic-Republicans had supported France. Some even seemed to want an event similar to the French Revolution to come to the United States to overthrow the government. When Democratic-Republicans in some states refused to enforce federal laws, and even threatened to rebel, Federalists threatened to send the army to force them to capitulate. As the unrest sweeping Europe was bleeding over into the United States, calls for secession reached unparalleled heights, and the fledgling nation seemed ready to rip itself apart. Some of this was seen by Federalists as having been caused by French and French-sympathizing immigrants. The acts were thus meant to guard against this real threat of anarchy. Democratic-Republicans denounced them, though they did use them after the 1800 election against Federalists. They became a major political issue in the elections of 1798 and 1800. They were very controversial in their own day, as they remain to the present day. Opposition to them resulted in the highly controversial Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, authored by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson.


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

osan
11-16-2012, 07:12 AM
...the moral laws from which [the Constitution] was drawn up, and its unavoidable consequences are in full effect.

Let us tune that a bit. Such "laws" ( I prefer "principles") remain fully valid, but they are not in full effect due to governmental trespass. My rights are always fully valid, meaning nobody may take them from me. They can, however, prevent me from exercising them through all the usual means. Such prevention, which constitutes trespass, takes some or all of them out of effect, "effect" being the operative term here. To be "in effect" or "effective" means by definitionto be or have been carried out in the first place. That cannot happen if people are successfully prevented from exercise. When exercise is successfully stemmed, the principle(s) underlying such exercise have been taken out of effect. Such principles, however, remain valid and the birthright of every person.


The economic Armageddon awaiting the world has just begun.

Probably true, but nobody wants to accept it. Here the normalcy bias takes on a most stridently stubborn character because lying just below the surface is the question of the individual's physical survival and that hairy little monster is way too scary for most people to face. At times like this it is all too easy to retreat into a system of slogan- or platitude-belief... "This is AMERICA! Can't happen here." And some may remain there right until taking their last breath, the exhalation issuing a sound that a straining ear would find sounding suspiciously like, "oh shit..."


Reading the events in Greece on a daily bases confirms that there are moral and economic laws that exist, they are unavoidable, and the US empire is unmistakably in line for the painful lesson.


Precisely what the elites want, IMO. It will likely bring the mentally and morally bereft majority to their quaking knees with no fight greater than that of whimpering wildly - enough of them to usher in the "golden age" of 1/4 chicken in every pot at least once a month. YEAH! There may come some icing on that cake in the form of cull, who can tell... But one thing of which I am confident is the elite will not be touched in any meaningful sense. They control everything of consequence and will therefore have food, shelter, heat, weapons in staggering abundance, and will be able to ride the storm in opulence as the rest of us wonder how in hell we are going to make it through another day without eating our children. That is indeed a pretty scary vision, but if that is what it takes to bring us down I hold no illusions about "them" hesitating in the least interval to see it made so.


It's all fine for the state to think they can just raise taxes to bail themselves out. But people, when fed up, find ways of getting around the increases by going under the table.

Certainly so. Even the Soviets had black markets. Consider, however, that to which such a circumstance reduces the average man: a furtive criminal by virtue of his desire to survive. He lives in perpetual fear of being discovered - of expressing a "wrong" opinion and drawing dreaded attention to himself. His life has been stripped away to mere existence, the very essence that was conveyed by Orwell in "1984". Years ago I thought Orwell had it wrong and that Huxley had nailed it - a rotten core gussied up with pretty shiny stuff for a population too intellectually stunted to understand the bankrupt nature of their "lives". That is where we are now, but the turn this nation has taken in the past several years was not so much surprising to me as unexpected. The face of 1984 is coming more to the fore that I would have thought because in my view, the Brave New World model is perfection itself. Control the birth rate, ensure the lowest level of intellectual function that will allow warm bodies to nominally discharge their assigned functions, and keep them happy with mindless pursuits such as sex, drugs, and vacuously inane entertainments. Present the sweetest carrots and a great big and scary-ugly stick to the weak and they will tow the desired line with profound glee.

If that is so, and if the goal of the elite is to exercise effectively total control, then why are they making this 90* turn toward Orwell's vision of open and obvious fear? Have I misjudged the goal? Are they screwing the pooch, losing patience? I for one cannot grok this in any meaningful manner, except that they want what they want NOW because they can taste the end result on the wind and feel it is time to strike the terror into world and gain compliance in exchange for the rotten brand of safety I imagine to be held out as temptation in the face of common fright. Come to us and be safe and have food. Perhaps the BNW approach has proven insufficient and they must therefore resort to the stick to be applied to the hold-outs? Oh to be a fly on the right walls...


It's like watching a train go off a bridge and having a clear view from the caboose.

Great imagery. That merits some rep. Pony up, folks.

presence
11-16-2012, 07:16 AM
Liberty

...lies in the hearts of men and women.
When it dies there,
no constitution,
no law,
no court can save it.

– Justice Learned Hand

noneedtoaggress
11-16-2012, 03:58 PM
This is nothing new:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQWz2zQ9OmI

awake
11-16-2012, 04:05 PM
It's really a game of illusion.. The rulers pretend they have all power by the Constitution and the people under their bondage think they are bound to it. No one, NOT ONE person currently alive has signed it. The people who wrote and signed it are bound - as any contract. The idea that unlimited generations are bound to the document smells a little to close to an enslavement. The moral principles enshrined are extremely important; writing them on paper does nothing to protect them.

Defending the principles of liberty is something other that writing them down and signing it. It takes an individual commitment to these principles in action through voluntary transactions.

Feeding the Abscess
11-16-2012, 04:07 PM
This is nothing new:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQWz2zQ9OmI

Have you seen the speech of his that was done in front of the Confederate flag? It was from like 2003. It was beautiful. Referenced Spooner, and talked about disarming the government.

heavenlyboy34
11-16-2012, 04:13 PM
Adams was a TYRANT.+rep

awake
11-16-2012, 04:15 PM
Protect and defend the principles of liberty by living by them.

Simply writing them down and handing them over to a band of murdering thieves to protect is insane.

heavenlyboy34
11-16-2012, 04:17 PM
[QUOTE=awake;4736898]


Certainly so. Even the Soviets had black markets. Consider, however, that to which such a circumstance reduces the average man: a furtive criminal by virtue of his desire to survive. He lives in perpetual fear of being discovered - of expressing a "wrong" opinion and drawing dreaded attention to himself. His life has been stripped away to mere existence, the very essence that was conveyed by Orwell in "1984". Years ago I thought Orwell had it wrong and that Huxley had nailed it - a rotten core gussied up with pretty shiny stuff for a population too intellectually stunted to understand the bankrupt nature of their "lives". That is where we are now, but the turn this nation has taken in the past several years was not so much surprising to me as unexpected. The face of 1984 is coming more to the fore that I would have thought because in my view, the Brave New World model is perfection itself. Control the birth rate, ensure the lowest level of intellectual function that will allow warm bodies to nominally discharge their assigned functions, and keep them happy with mindless pursuits such as sex, drugs, and vacuously inane entertainments. Present the sweetest carrots and a great big and scary-ugly stick to the weak and they will tow the desired line with profound glee.

Indeed. If you want a general image of what happens after we enter 1984-world, read the dystopian futuristic sci-fi novel "We". :( The future is full of fail.

PaulConventionWV
11-19-2012, 09:21 AM
LOL once again the haters bring it up first.
I'm pretty sure psychology has a term for this. You know, how the guy who's always gay bashing is secretly gay himself.

Pretty sure that's a myth perpetrated by the gay "rights" advocates. You act like it's solidified science.

PaulConventionWV
11-19-2012, 09:31 AM
Most of the anarchists I know are more liberty-minded than most of the religious people I know. Considering the crap Adams did like the Alien and Sedition Acts, I don't think I'll buy in to that quote.

"The people I know blah blah blah..."

Please, cut the anecdotal crap and stop trying to extend it to reflect a very wide base of opinions among hundreds of millions of people.

PaulConventionWV
11-19-2012, 09:35 AM
“In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written.”

— Ron Paul, End the Fed


Some of you here really need to get your heads outta the sand...


Ron Paul on Self-Government


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=oEDUT7SzCqM



At a huge rally in Seattle: “If you had a perfectly ideal world, and you had liberty passed on back to the individual, it would be self-government, that would be the ultimate test. As long as we accept one principle - that we don’t force other people to try to live the way we want to live. Stay out of meddling with these peoples lives.”
Self-government being synonymous with voluntarism and a private law society.



“If Canada and the United States can be separate nations without being denounced as being in a state of impermissible “anarchy,” why may not the South secede from the United States? New York State from the Union? New York City from the state? Why may not Manhattan secede? Each neighborhood? Each block? Each house? Each person? But, of course, if each person may secede from government, we have virtually arrived at the purely free society, where defense is supplied along with all other services by the free market and where the invasive State has ceased to exist.”
— Murray N. Rothbard, No More Military Socialism.



Told ya they would come.

osan
11-19-2012, 12:06 PM
Pretty sure that's a myth perpetrated by the gay "rights" advocates. You act like it's solidified science.


Actually there have been studies done on this. I don't now whether any of it is conclusive... not sure such things can be, but I do recall one study where mixed audiences of "haters" and others were shown ***** porn. According to the researchers, who had hooked the viewers up to various instrumentation monitoring pulse, respiration, pressure, and I believe brain activity and pupil response, the haters were pretty much universally aroused whereas the rest were not.

No idea whether any of that is valid, but it seemed to have establish a credible correlation.

torchbearer
11-19-2012, 12:20 PM
Actually there have been studies done on this. I don't now whether any of it is conclusive... not sure such things can be, but I do recall one study where mixed audiences of "haters" and others were shown ***** porn. According to the researchers, who had hooked the viewers up to various instrumentation monitoring pulse, respiration, pressure, and I believe brain activity and pupil response, the haters were pretty much universally aroused whereas the rest were not.

No idea whether any of that is valid, but it seemed to have establish a credible correlation.

the biggest pushers of prohibition of alcohol were, themselves, alcoholics.
projection and all...just saying

osan
11-19-2012, 12:31 PM
“If you had a perfectly ideal world, and you had liberty passed on back to the individual, it would be self-government, that would be the ultimate test. As long as we accept one principle - that we don’t force other people to try to live the way we want to live. Stay out of meddling with these peoples lives.”

This, of course, is only half of the story. The issue of trespass extends a bit further than implied in the quote. Though I may not be asking you to live in some specific way, willing to let you live as you see fit, if your choices impact me then the question arises, "where are the lines to be drawn?"

For example, I am producing some industrial wastes that are making it into your drinking water. I have impacted your life in some significant manner and you should be able to call me to account. But what if all I am doing is making pickled garlic paste, the odor of which is pretty strong, yet is completely harmless. It is still impacting your life, but are you within your rights to demand I cease and desist? I tend to think not, but I am not quite certain enough to make the declaration.

Further complicating this is our contemporary cultural psychology. Some people will whine and mewl endlessly over the flimsiest of pretexts. On the other end we have those who feel they can do anything so long as nobody's arm is off. Each extreme lacks reason and so long as people hold to their six-sigma point of view I do not see how free living becomes even remotely possible, particularly in the environment of "the state" where the lowest stupidities now seem to underpin all function.

mport1
11-19-2012, 07:35 PM
It's really a game of illusion.. The rulers pretend they have all power by the Constitution and the people under their bondage think they are bound to it. No one, NOT ONE person currently alive has signed it. The people who wrote and signed it are bound - as any contract. The idea that unlimited generations are bound to the document smells a little to close to an enslavement. The moral principles enshrined are extremely important; writing them on paper does nothing to protect them.

Defending the principles of liberty is something other that writing them down and signing it. It takes an individual commitment to these principles in action through voluntary transactions.

Nailed it. The Constitution was absolutely a document of enslavement. It is listing rules the slave masters are supposed to follow. The problem is slave masters are not going to follow the rules. Why would they?

GunnyFreedom
11-19-2012, 08:22 PM
Selective perception is alive and well, even amongst those who should value truth far more than the rest of society. Oh well. Once, long ago I thought maybe most of our people were immune from selective perception due to our personality types, INTJ being over-represented and such. But I guess it's just a human condition and all living souls are susceptible.

PaulConventionWV
11-20-2012, 05:50 PM
Actually there have been studies done on this. I don't now whether any of it is conclusive... not sure such things can be, but I do recall one study where mixed audiences of "haters" and others were shown ***** porn. According to the researchers, who had hooked the viewers up to various instrumentation monitoring pulse, respiration, pressure, and I believe brain activity and pupil response, the haters were pretty much universally aroused whereas the rest were not.

No idea whether any of that is valid, but it seemed to have establish a credible correlation.

I know what you were talking about, and no, it wasn't valid. It wasn't scientific at all. They used "homophobe" as if it was a scientific term.

PaulConventionWV
11-20-2012, 05:51 PM
the biggest pushers of prohibition of alcohol were, themselves, alcoholics.
projection and all...just saying

Assertions and stereotypes. When will people learn.

PaulConventionWV
11-20-2012, 05:55 PM
Nailed it. The Constitution was absolutely a document of enslavement. It is listing rules the slave masters are supposed to follow. The problem is slave masters are not going to follow the rules. Why would they?

That's distorting the matter. Enslavement is a loaded buzzword which you applied in a situation which cannot be objectively determined to be actual "enslavement." The Constitution limited government. Why make it any more complicated than that? That was the purpose of the Constitution, not to subject the people of this land to enslavement via limited government, or any government for that matter. The purpose cannot be said to have been enslavement.