PDA

View Full Version : The Pledge of Allegiance




Christian Liberty
05-01-2013, 07:29 PM
I'm not a big fan of it, but of course, I'm stuck pledging to the flag in High School.

I was thinking about the pledge lately and it pledges "To the Republic for which (The flag) stands."

Most people don't think this way, but wouldn't you kind of have to oppose the empire we currently have in order to support the REPUBLIC for which the flag stands?

Or am I missing something...

I might not hate it so much were it not for the "Indivisible" line. Whenever possible I deliberately but casually slide my hand off my heart for that word. The nation is NOT indivisible. In fact, it was divided once before, by the heroic rebels in 1861.....

bolil
05-01-2013, 07:32 PM
I forgot the words as soon as I was released from priso...err. school

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
05-01-2013, 07:41 PM
I'm not a big fan of it, but of course, I'm stuck pledging to the flag in High School.


Really? What happens if you don't?

Christian Liberty
05-01-2013, 07:46 PM
I've honestly never tried. Partially because my parents don't agree with me and I didn't want to start that kind of a fight....

Its really tough when you're basically alone as a libertarian. Granted, I know a few "Belway" libertarians, but I'm the only real one. One of my "libertarian" friends that I recently talked to preferred Gary Johnson over Ron Paul, that showed me that he probably doesn't really know what libertarianism is, and he's still probably the closest that I've seen. Most people are just total statists. It really IS a lonely journey, which makes it tough.

That's one reason why this site is so awesome, its the one place where liberty is NOT such a lonely journey. Thanks guys!

James Madison
05-01-2013, 07:46 PM
No Christian should pledge allegiance to a symbol invented by man.

bolil
05-01-2013, 07:51 PM
I've honestly never tried. Partially because my parents don't agree with me and I didn't want to start that kind of a fight....

Its really tough when you're basically alone as a libertarian. Granted, I know a few "Belway" libertarians, but I'm the only real one. One of my "libertarian" friends that I recently talked to preferred Gary Johnson over Ron Paul, that showed me that he probably doesn't really know what libertarianism is, and he's still probably the closest that I've seen. Most people are just total statists. It really IS a lonely journey, which makes it tough.

That's one reason why this site is so awesome, its the one place where liberty is NOT such a lonely journey. Thanks guys!

Oh man, how much of your sentence have you served? Have you checked out the books section in the education subforum? Always keep in mind that YOUR belief is the one most affirming of humanity.

Christian Liberty
05-01-2013, 07:52 PM
No Christian should pledge allegiance to a symbol invented by man.

On principle, I agree with you...


Oh man, how much of your sentence have you served? Have you checked out the books section in the education subforum? Always keep in mind that YOUR belief is the one most affirming of humanity.

I'm almost done. Senior this year. Graduating this year. Then college.

Christian Liberty
05-01-2013, 07:56 PM
What I find even more disturbing is that the pledge is done in my CHURCH for the younger kids. I'm not usually there during their program, but on the occasions where I have, I have refused to participate in the pledge for a good while.

Anti Federalist
05-01-2013, 08:00 PM
Give the salute that was orginally designed for the pledge...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-afhNihFrUQg/TsqBgMlurzI/AAAAAAAADHc/IbjBLV6xNfM/s1600/Bellamy1.jpg

bolil
05-01-2013, 08:04 PM
Give the salute that was orginally designed for the pledge...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-afhNihFrUQg/TsqBgMlurzI/AAAAAAAADHc/IbjBLV6xNfM/s1600/Bellamy1.jpg

I would relive those days and bust that out. I did wear a stars and bars t shirt to school one day... Heh heh heh.

Sweet home, Chicago.

heavenlyboy34
05-01-2013, 08:06 PM
No Christian should pledge allegiance to a symbol invented by man.

I've been to churches that have the congregation recite the pledge during the service on occasions like Independence Day . It gave me teh sad. :(

jclay2
05-01-2013, 08:09 PM
Edit: Found the link. Just google bellamy salute and you will find all sorts of wonderful photos. Does anyone know if its illigal to the fedcoats to say a pledge like this? Gosh, what I would give to go back to school and be able to do the pledge of allegiance. People would be all up in arms just because they don't know history. lol

Thanks for helping me learn something new!

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
05-01-2013, 08:11 PM
I've honestly never tried. Partially because my parents don't agree with me and I didn't want to start that kind of a fight....

Its really tough when you're basically alone as a libertarian. Granted, I know a few "Belway" libertarians, but I'm the only real one. One of my "libertarian" friends that I recently talked to preferred Gary Johnson over Ron Paul, that showed me that he probably doesn't really know what libertarianism is, and he's still probably the closest that I've seen. Most people are just total statists. It really IS a lonely journey, which makes it tough.

That's one reason why this site is so awesome, its the one place where liberty is NOT such a lonely journey. Thanks guys!


I understand. I can't even remember if they did that in my high school or not. If they did, I might have stood up and done nothing else. I'm also of the opinion you can't really "make" anyone do anything past age 11 or 12.

Anti Federalist
05-01-2013, 08:11 PM
Linky?

It is called the "Bellamy Salute".

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

Christian Liberty
05-01-2013, 08:13 PM
I've been to churches that have the congregation recite the pledge during the service on occasions like Independence Day . It gave me teh sad. :(

My church only does it for their kids ministry, thank God. I don't particularly like it in school, but I don't really expect better from an organization dedicated to brainwashing people to worship the state. They failed on me, even though they might not know it yet. I expect better from the House of God.


Give the salute that was orginally designed for the pledge...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-afhNihFrUQg/TsqBgMlurzI/AAAAAAAADHc/IbjBLV6xNfM/s1600/Bellamy1.jpg

Man, that's really sad, although fortunately (or unfortunately? I can't tell) it wasn't deliberate since it was made before Hitler...

Christian Liberty
05-01-2013, 08:15 PM
Speaking of parents, since I mentioned it before, I said something about "Hating" Obama in a conversation and my dad told me to "Respect the President" or some such, even though he doesn't like him. Of course, I pointed out that Obama is a murderer and so I will no more respect him than I would Ted Bundy, but that didn't end particularly wonderfully.

Too many people are implicit statists even if they aren't explicit statists. What scares me the most is that I probably haven't totally eliminated it yet.

Anti Federalist
05-01-2013, 08:15 PM
Or, you could do what I do on those rare occasions when I find a pledge imminent...

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..and...when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Christian Liberty
05-01-2013, 08:16 PM
I understand. I can't even remember if they did that in my high school or not. If they did, I might have stood up and done nothing else. I'm also of the opinion you can't really "make" anyone do anything past age 11 or 12.

Well, no, if I wanted to make that much trouble.

Might consider possible techniques to appear to be pledging without actually doing so, as a form of "Spite" or something. Admittedly, that's cowardly, but I'm waiting to really fight until I get through the silly system. I want to educate people, not to get in trouble for no reason. I want to become a professor and hopefully I can help correct ingrained statist thinking.

cajuncocoa
05-01-2013, 08:17 PM
I'm not a big fan of it, but of course, I'm stuck pledging to the flag in High School.

Here's my advice, and it might not be popular here but....choose your battles wisely. You're almost out of high school. There's no need to rock the boat right now. Stand there and go through the motions, and in a few weeks you'll be able to make your own decisions about your future as an adult (well, almost).

I guess you'll be graduating later this month? Let me be the first here at RPF to say "Congratulations!"

Christian Liberty
05-01-2013, 08:18 PM
Or, you could do what I do on those rare occasions when I find a pledge imminent...

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..and...when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Do you actually quote that at them?

+1 for quoting it here in any case...


I like Laurence Vance more and more every day. State worship really does need to go.

Anti Federalist
05-01-2013, 08:18 PM
Man, that's really sad, although fortunately (or unfortunately? I can't tell) it wasn't deliberate since it was made before Hitler...

Oh, "the powers that be" dropped it like a hot potato, once the European fascists adopted it as their own...but what's the difference really?

Both are explicit pledges of fealty to the government and its symbols.

Christian Liberty
05-01-2013, 08:18 PM
Here's my advice, and it might not be popular here but....choose your battles wisely. You're almost out of high school. There's no need to rock the boat right now. Stand there and go through the motions, and in a few weeks you'll be able to make your own decisions about your future as an adult (well, almost).

I guess you'll be graduating later this month? Let me be the first here at RPF to say "Congratulations!"

Might not be popular here, but its also most likely what I'm going to do... barring divine revelation (Which I HAVE received before) to do otherwise...

Christian Liberty
05-01-2013, 08:19 PM
Oh, "the powers that be" dropped it like a hot potato, once the European fascists adopted it as their own...but what's the difference really?

Both are explicit pledges of fealty to the government and its symbols.

Well, there is SOME difference. We aren't QUITE the Nazis yet.

Christian Liberty
05-01-2013, 08:19 PM
Oh, and thanks for the quick responses people. Will try to distribute rep accordingly.

bolil
05-01-2013, 08:19 PM
I second that.

Anti Federalist
05-01-2013, 08:21 PM
Do you actually quote that at them?

+1 for quoting it here in any case...


I like Laurence Vance more and more every day. State worship really does need to go.

Yes, I have done that...I have it written up on a few index cards I keep around my desk...I make sure to tuck one in my pocket if I am going anyplace that might require a pledge recital.

Recited that at the opening ceremony at Lee Speedway in NH last year, during the anthem.

Actually had a couple "thumbs up" from some of the people around me.

Christian Liberty
05-01-2013, 08:24 PM
Yes, I have done that...I have it written up on a few index cards I keep around my desk...I make sure to tuck one in my pocket if I am going anyplace that might require a pledge recital.

Recited that at the opening ceremony at Lee Speedway in NH last year, during the anthem.

Actually had a couple "thumbs up" from some of the people around me.

LOL! Nice. I wish I could +1 you again. I also wish I would actually get the same response as you did, but I wouldn't. Quoting Jefferson is "Treason" these days, don't you know? (For the record, I do support removing that word entirely from our law code, treason is as often heroic as it is wrong anyways.)

Anti Federalist
05-01-2013, 08:24 PM
Well, there is SOME difference. We aren't QUITE the Nazis yet.

Enabling Acts.

That is all...;)

Christian Liberty
05-01-2013, 08:25 PM
Enabling Acts.

That is all...;)

Not sure what you mean there. I wouldn't be surprised if they WANT to be the Nazis but right now the people/constitution/states wouldn't let them do it yet. The System is biding its time.

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
05-01-2013, 08:28 PM
Well, no, if I wanted to make that much trouble.

Might consider possible techniques to appear to be pledging without actually doing so, as a form of "Spite" or something. Admittedly, that's cowardly, but I'm waiting to really fight until I get through the silly system. I want to educate people, not to get in trouble for no reason. I want to become a professor and hopefully I can help correct ingrained statist thinking.


Likely what I did, but I didn't consider it cowardly. Once I was old/smart enough to figure out what I was actually saying, I stopped saying it. There have been a few people who fared better by looking at my example of "fuck you" and choosing "I'll pretend to go along for now" instead. Admittedly, my "fuck you" attitude was not well thought out. It was gut reaction. It was many years later and much study of political philosophy before I understood why I had those gut reactions. I think you're miles ahead of the 18 year old me.

Christian Liberty
05-01-2013, 08:32 PM
Likely what I did, but I didn't consider it cowardly. Once I was old/smart enough to figure out what I was actually saying, I stopped saying it. There have been a few people who fared better by looking at my example of "fuck you" and choosing "I'll pretend to go along for now" instead. Admittedly, my "fuck you" attitude was not well thought out. It was gut reaction. It was many years later and much study of political philosophy before I understood why I had those gut reactions. I think you're miles ahead of the 18 year old me.

I kind of have the same type of attitude but I sometimes don't choose to show it. It all depends who I'm talking to. If I'm talking to a flat out neocon, I won't try to tell them that George W. Bush should be hanged for treason/mass murder, even though I do indeed believe that that would be justified. I start with trying to argue that the foreign policy is bad in the first place. On the other hand, if I find someone who already agrees with me on the foreign policy issue, I'll mention the idea of Nuremberg Trials. Online, of course, I'll say anything, because I assume I've got little to lose (If the government actually looks for me because of what I post, by then I'll have already been arrested for saying it IRL.)

What did you do, BTW, and what were the results?

If I were younger I might consider other options, but I can probably deal with this crap for 5 1/2 weeks. I still felt like posting my OP and discussing. Mostly for encouragement/advice purposes. I don't always know the right thing to do.

Christian Liberty
05-01-2013, 08:38 PM
Since this thread is so rapidly moving now... my last post for the night...

Thanks you guys. If/when possible, I'll gladly dole out more rep for more awesome comments. Thanks for the encouragement, it really does feel lonely in the rest of the world.

Be back on tomorrow, probably in the morning.

Anti Federalist
05-01-2013, 08:45 PM
Not sure what you mean there. I wouldn't be surprised if they WANT to be the Nazis but right now the people/constitution/states wouldn't let them do it yet. The System is biding its time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933

We are at the same place, IMO, the structure for the horror is all in place.

All it needs is somebody to set it off.

Maybe the next "unitary executive".

The Goat
05-01-2013, 08:46 PM
My kids are in elementary school. Plenty of programs to stay seated while most say the pledge. the last 2 they didn't do the pledge. I was kinda surprised. lol


I need to print out the Declaration so recite that next time i have the chance. I post this up on my FB every few months. lol


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIBNk2zXXM8

Carson
05-01-2013, 09:15 PM
Sometimes I said it. Sometimes I passed.

The real tough one for me was the singing in school. Then it was pretty much me just moving my lips.



P.S. Now that I think about it I'm thinking sometimes the God part is what I rejected. I've been pretty full spectrum on that issue also.

Jamesiv1
05-01-2013, 09:16 PM
Well, no, if I wanted to make that much trouble.

Might consider possible techniques to appear to be pledging without actually doing so, as a form of "Spite" or something. Admittedly, that's cowardly, but I'm waiting to really fight until I get through the silly system. I want to educate people, not to get in trouble for no reason. I want to become a professor and hopefully I can help correct ingrained statist thinking.
Choose your battles. Win the war.

kcchiefs6465
05-01-2013, 09:26 PM
I am patriotic because of what the country is supposed to stand for. I do pledge allegiance, which in my mind means when someone rolls up on these shores, I will be one of the first to pick up a rifle for defense. They have sullied the country's name. (and flag) It annoys me to no end. The unpatriotic are the ones who blindly follow and wish to bomb countries for reasons not pertaining to an imminent threat. (and I mean imminent, not that lawyer speak bullshit Obama and Holder can twist or contrive) It's a shame, really.

I suppose my mind must do some impressive gymnastics but I have no problem pledging allegiance. It is to the Constitution and to what the Flag stood for.

heavenlyboy34
05-01-2013, 09:42 PM
I am patriotic because of what the country is supposed to stand for. I do pledge allegiance, which in my mind means when someone rolls up on these shores, I will be one of the first to pick up a rifle for defense. They have sullied the country's name. (and flag) It annoys me to no end. The unpatriotic are the ones who blindly follow and wish to bomb countries for reasons not pertaining to an imminent threat. (and I mean imminent, not that lawyer speak bullshit Obama and Holder can twist or contrive) It's a shame, really.

I suppose my mind must do some impressive gymnastics but I have no problem pledging allegiance. It is to the Constitution and to what the Flag stood for.

Not even tacitly. I don't see where you're getting that. The flag as we know it is a post-republic/imperialist icon. The closest thing to a flag that represents the Constitution I've seen is this one: http://storiesofusa.com/images/first-american-us-flag-1777.jpg
I prefer this flag myself, if I were to care about symbolism (I generally leave symbols to the symbol-minded ;) ):
http://snarkybytes.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/gadsden-flag.png

WhistlinDave
05-01-2013, 09:46 PM
My son has gotten himself into minor trouble a few times at school for refusing to recite the pledge. He enjoys being a rebel and giving them reasons to call his mom and me. (He's gotten a little better these days, but for a while there we would get a phone call almost daily about some little thing. And when I say "he's gotten better" it's not that I want him to be a conformist or anything; we've always encouraged him to think for himself, within reason.)

Anyway, back to the pledge -- He would say to the teacher, "Do you realize how ironic it is that you want to force me say 'with Liberty and Justice for all' and then punish me if I don't?" Another time he said he wouldn't say it on religious grounds. He never did get in any actual trouble for it, but we would get phone calls about his "defiant attitude." LOL

kcchiefs6465
05-01-2013, 09:58 PM
Not even tacitly. I don't see where you're getting that. The flag as we know it is a post-republic/imperialist icon. The closest thing to a flag
....
I prefer this flag myself, if I were to care about symbolism (I generally leave symbols to the symbol-minded ;) ):
...
Snipped for space.

I have family that has fought for the flag. A couple maimed, one dead, and one with demons he can't come to terms with. I love this country. It very well could be a lot worse. The problem is that we have been monetarily hijacked. The wars aren't for defense. Our actions are usually despicable. That is not what the flag stands for to me. I am as proud to be an American. (as I can be, lately) The shit that the tptb do is unexcusable. I'll pledge to the flag. In my mind I'm pledging to the Constitution, the Rule of Law, the things America is supposed to stand for. I am not disillusioned by a false sense of our actions always being justified or being in the interest of the people. Monopolies and schemes of various super-rich men does not end my love for what this country was founded on.

heavenlyboy34
05-01-2013, 10:19 PM
Snipped for space.

I have family that has fought for the flag. A couple maimed, one dead, and one with demons he can't come to terms with. I love this country. It very well could be a lot worse. The problem is that we have been monetarily hijacked. The wars aren't for defense. Our actions are usually despicable. That is not what the flag stands for to me. I am as proud to be an American. (as I can be, lately) The shit that the tptb do is unexcusable. I'll pledge to the flag. In my mind I'm pledging to the Constitution, the Rule of Law, the things America is supposed to stand for. I am not disillusioned by a false sense of our actions always being justified or being in the interest of the people. Monopolies and schemes of various super-rich men does not end my love for what this country was founded on.

No, your family (and mine) fought for the government that flag represents. No one alive has fought for the country in the literal (or what most here consider moral) sense. You are perfectly free to imagine that flag represents the constitution, but the fact is it doesn't. It's very much post-republic in nature. The flags I posted above are as close to symbols of the Constitution as it gets.

ETA: It's incorrect to say "our" actions were wrong-they were wrong actions, but wrong actions of the regime and its cronies and its hired killers (soldiers)-not "us".

The Goat
05-01-2013, 10:47 PM
The fact that the pledge was written by a nationalism espousing socialist pretty much sums up the reasoning of my disdain for it. American exceptionalism at is best.

kcchiefs6465
05-01-2013, 10:56 PM
No, your family (and mine) fought for the government that flag represents. No one alive has fought for the country in the literal (or what most here consider moral) sense. You are perfectly free to imagine that flag represents the constitution, but the fact is it doesn't. It's very much post-republic in nature. The flags I posted above are as close to symbols of the Constitution as it gets.

I understand this. People are played like fiddles. Red scares and 'communism taking over the world' etc. That is not my point. They fought for what they thought they believe in. Or rather, what they thought the country stood for and what was supposedly at risk. Propaganda does numbers on a person's brain. I have family that is holier than the priests after what they did and saw. My main point is I do pledge allegiance to the republic, for which it stood. If a foreign army decided to roll up on one of our shores, we, as Americans, would defend our land.

The schemes and scams that are perpetrated mainly through propaganda and fear are besides the point. (though I do see the point) When I pledge allegiance, I am not pledging allegiance to the crony corporate banksters, the subsidized politicians and the evil they commit. I am pledging allegiance to the defense of this nation in the strictest sense of the word, defense. I know I am not alone in that, and would expect it to be a common reaction.


ETA: It's incorrect to say "our" actions were wrong-they were wrong actions, but wrong actions of the regime and its cronies-not "us".
True, true. I have been told this once or twice here. I use 'our' liberally. We (a good portion of Americans) damn sure aren't responsible for what is waged in our name. I get as annoyed as you when someone claims otherwise. It's hard to convey tone through text.

Christian Liberty
05-02-2013, 05:01 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933

We are at the same place, IMO, the structure for the horror is all in place.

All it needs is somebody to set it off.

Maybe the next "unitary executive".

Yeah, I know.


I am patriotic because of what the country is supposed to stand for. I do pledge allegiance, which in my mind means when someone rolls up on these shores, I will be one of the first to pick up a rifle for defense. They have sullied the country's name. (and flag) It annoys me to no end. The unpatriotic are the ones who blindly follow and wish to bomb countries for reasons not pertaining to an imminent threat. (and I mean imminent, not that lawyer speak bullshit Obama and Holder can twist or contrive) It's a shame, really.

I suppose my mind must do some impressive gymnastics but I have no problem pledging allegiance. It is to the Constitution and to what the Flag stood for.

Yeah, this is pretty much the same gymnastics I use.

The fact that the pledge was written by a nationalism espousing socialist pretty much sums up the reasoning of my disdain for it. American exceptionalism at is best.

And yeah, that doesn't help.

69360
05-02-2013, 05:55 AM
I don't mind saying the pledge, I don't really care where it came from or who wrote it, it's now evolved into simply being proud of our country. If you don't want to say it, I don't think you should or should have to. Whatever floats your boat.

Professor8000
05-02-2013, 06:12 AM
On principle, I agree with you...



I'm almost done. Senior this year. Graduating this year. Then college.

In my Senior year, I busted myself out and have been on the lam ever since. Doing pretty well for a 23 year old. No debt. 2 cars. Got a job I love. After I got out in 2008 I swiftly decided college was a stupid idea. Way too much money for such little pay. Everyone I currently work with is college educated and I seem to be one of the few who actually knows what they are doing. Leaving School was the best thing I ever did for myself. Check out http://schoolsucksproject.com/ they have awesome material for those currently serving time.

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
05-02-2013, 06:27 AM
What did you do, BTW, and what were the results?


Nothing spectacular.

What I did... ignored stupid requests, probably from 2nd grade on, refused homework on the basis that I already understood the material. I wasn't disrespectful toward teachers, but I wasn't willing to constantly jump through hoops, either.

Results... detention, in school suspension, failing grades while acing tests, eventually paying for college myself when there would have been other people willing to foot that bill otherwise.

Invi
05-02-2013, 08:27 AM
Around 3rd or 4th grade, I stopped including "under God" when reciting the pledge. Yeah, I was a young atheist.
In 5th or 6th grade, I think 6th, but I can't be sure because I remember the moment it dawned on me, but I wasn't looking at the teacher and I'm having trouble remembering the moments around it. I looked over and another child wasn't saying the pledge. He was standing, but not reciting anything. This is the first time I realized that NOT saying any of it was an option. Come to find out he was Jewish and that had something to do with why he didn't say it. After that, I just stopped. Sometimes I stood, sometimes not. Depended on how crowded the room was, and how awkward I thought it was going to be. Only had to deal with that until the end of 8th grade. They didn't announce the pledge in our high school.
No one ever made a fuss or said two words to me about not going along on the rare occasion that it was said at some event.

This was in a small, conservative town of about 2,000 people.

Weston White
05-02-2013, 09:25 AM
I bet a solid argument could be made that: (I) it is unconstitutional for a governmental instrument to compel one to enter into a contractual arrangement, (II) it is unlawful to coerce one that is below the age of majority to make an oath of allegiance or 'pledge', (III) it is outside of the intent of the Legslature to Pledge Allegiance to a United States Flag intended only for use by the President of the United States or within locales and by governmental personnel under the President's direct authority or command (i.e., a gold fringed U.S. Flag with a military finial atop the flag pole, e.g., eagle or spear, and hanging tassels), (IV) that the repetition of Pledging Allegiance provides no educational value and is thereby not within the lawful scope of administrative rule-making or student mandates of any public school system, and (V) one is entitled, as a matter of right, to a religious exemption in that pledging to a flag under any name is a form of idolary.

pcosmar
05-02-2013, 09:51 AM
Well, there is SOME difference. We aren't QUITE the Nazis yet.

I can't tell.

:(

KingNothing
05-02-2013, 10:03 AM
I can't remember the last time I recited the pledge. I very much love America and the opportunities and comfort that living here has afforded me, but I'm loyal to my family, my friends, and my humanity. Not a flag. Not a collection of politicians and bureaucrats.


"The World is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion." Neither flags nor arbitrary boundaries on maps enter into the equation.

KingNothing
05-02-2013, 10:14 AM
I love this country. It very well could be a lot worse.



I wish more people around here realized how true that statement is. As a nation we're losing our philosophical moorings. We've been shedding economic liberties and privacy. We've been waging wars abroad and at home. We do more damage to ourselves than any nation or group of nations could ever hope to do to us. And in spite of it all, we've maintained a level of wealth -not just debt, but real wealth creating by millions of educated, hard-working Americans- liberty, and safety that would have been completely unimaginable to nearly every human that has EVER lived! That means something! That's amazing and important.

Sam I am
05-02-2013, 10:17 AM
Really? What happens if you don't?

Well the typical pattern is

1. student refuses to pledge
2. school punishes student
3. school gets bad press
4. school gives the student a medal or something

fr33
05-02-2013, 10:22 AM
If I had it to do over again, I'd sit with my mouth shut during all the pledges.

I've been told that my old school now makes them recite the Texas pledge after the US pledge. So much statism.

JK/SEA
05-02-2013, 10:29 AM
the 'pledge' the star spangled banner, the red white and blue, all this 'patriotic' rah rah stuff, is all a brain washing tactic to keep all 'americans' in line.

Watched 'Why We Fight' this morning. I suggest you watch this.

That said, If we were truly under a REAL threat from outside forces hell bent on killing me and family and friends...i will take up arms. I don't need any rah rah crap to defend myself or country.

I could never understand why this so-called love it or leave it mentality is so in-grained in society.

pcosmar
05-02-2013, 10:55 AM
I could never understand why this so-called love it or leave it mentality is so in-grained in society.

It is called nationalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nationalism

And combined with Bellamy's (a rabid Socialist) Pledge it becomes National Socialism. (see, NAZI)

It really struck me a while back,, at a Fourth of July Parade..

very reminiscent of scenes from Germany in the late 30s.

AGRP
05-02-2013, 11:21 AM
Well, Ron is constitutionally correct that the states can regulate, or even ban, drugs. And I think using FedGov to stop them from doing so is a cure that's worse than the disease. Rothbard is at least usually correct that centralization = bad even if it looks good from a distance.

BTW I don't think you're a radical authoritarian at all. In fact, I've been silently wondering to myself why you put "Conservative" in your name at all, since you're definitely a libertarian, albeit more of a classical liberal than a Rothbardian ancap.



I've heard some people call the mainline Tea Party folks "Anarchists." I laughed to myself. Even Ron Paul isn't even nearly an anarchist, although he's certainly closer to that than anyone else. I think he's really a minarchist but frames his arguments in constitutional rhetoric since that is in fact the document that he swore to uphold.

As for marijuana, I've gotten weird looks for saying I wanted to legalize it but insisting that it should not be taxed. Of course, if I were in any position of power I'd vote for a "Legalize and tax" bill in a state where marijuana was illegal, its still a start.



In theory, that's right. In practice, it just isn't. Maybe under President Traditional Conservative, this would be the case, and I can understand that, but the reality is, it just isn't. The reality is, however, we could probably persuade people that this policy is a good idea more easily than convincing them tat DWI should just be legalized is a good idea.



Yep. Where's their warrant? That, I have to ask, and will probably disagree with TC.



There's no debate on drugs other than marijuana either. Look, I do have my priorities and drunk driving really isn't on that list either way but just because something isn't up for debate doesn't mean we shouldn't support it anyway. I'm willing to let this one go, but I'm not willing to let drug legalization, absolute gun legislation (Meaning anything up to a missile launcher, RPG, tank, anything that can be pinpointed) or noninterventionist foreign policy go without a fight, even if those issues are not up for debate currently.

I didn't quote the comments, but I can't agree with a prohibition on minors drinking alcohol, especially since they do it all the time in Europe. I could support an absolute ban on teens using hard drugs like heroin, and I can support prohibiting teens from PURCHASING alcohol. I don't really think the NAP is a reasonable policy to apply to kids. But if a parent wants to let their kid drink a glass of wine with dinner or whatever, I think that's a right that the parent should have.

Holy crap. You sure are very knowledgeable and have a ton of worldly experiences for being 18. Also, using terms like "FedGov" by your 25th post?

You're a genius. Have you thought about running for office?

TruckinMike
05-02-2013, 12:01 PM
Or am I missing something...

.....

In a nut shell...

Understanding Francis Bellamy and Edward Bellamy is the key to understanding why the pledge was written in the first place.

Francis Bellamy: Author of the Pledge(1892), self proclaimed socialist, and first cousin to Edward Bellamy.

Edward Bellamy: Author of "Looking Backwards: 2000 to 1887" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Looking_Backward), an international best selling socialist utopian novel that inspired over 160 "national socialist" clubs all across America.

Why would a socialist want/need a National pledge?
Socialism requires a strong centralized top-down government in order to implement their ideology effectively. Our Pledge is/was simply a tool of the socialists.


Note1: Hitler was a fan of both Edward and Francis --->thus the NAZI salute.

Note2: "Under God" was not added until 1952.

edit/

TMike

James Madison
05-02-2013, 12:06 PM
I've been to churches that have the congregation recite the pledge during the service on occasions like Independence Day . It gave me teh sad. :(

I know that feel, bro.

heavenlyboy34
05-02-2013, 12:42 PM
In a nut shell...

Understanding Francis Bellamy and Edward Bellamy is the key to understanding why the pledge was written in the first place.

Francis Bellamy: Author of the Pledge(1892), self proclaimed socialist, and first cousin to Edward Bellamy.

Edward Bellamy: Author of "Looking Backwards: 2000 to 1887" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Looking_Backward), an international best selling socialist utopian novel that inspired over 160 "national socialist" clubs all across America.

Why would a socialist want/need a National pledge?
Socialism requires a strong centralized top-down government in order to implement their ideology effectively. Our Pledge is/was simply a tool of the socialists.


Note1: Hitler was a fan of both Edward and Francis --->thus the NAZI salute.

Note2: "Under God" was not added until 1952.

edit/

TMike
+rep

Czolgosz
05-02-2013, 12:50 PM
Today @ RPF I learned some stuff I didn't know about State conditioning.

pcosmar
05-02-2013, 01:02 PM
Today @ RPF I learned some stuff I didn't know about State conditioning.

And for continuing education,,,


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okPnDZ1Txlo

Christian Liberty
05-02-2013, 01:07 PM
Holy crap. You sure are very knowledgeable and have a ton of worldly experiences for being 18. Also, using terms like "FedGov" by your 25th post?

You're a genius. Have you thought about running for office?

Its not so much that I'm experienced in the world as it is that I've used the internet for most of my information, read LRC fairly regularly (Although I don't agree with them 100% of the time, its a huge counterbalance against the neo-progressive [THAT term I did coin, since the term "Neo-conservative" is kind of an oxymoron] nonsense I hear every day), and have actually talked to an ancap over private messenging on another forum a couple years ago. Ron Paul, of course, was a huge help. Even back when I really only agreed with him on economics and a few other issues, I admired him for his consistency. That also tremendously helped. I'm glad I'm not a few years younger, Rand Paul would never have converted me. What he's doing is great, some people are going to vote liberty because of him, but the halfway watered down message would never have done anything for me.

Unfortunately, not as experienced in the world as it probably appears on the internet.

I have considered the theoretical possibility of running for office, but the combination of social awkwardness because of Aspergers Syndrome, and being even more radical than Ron Paul is (Main differences being I've almost totally bought the whole "Nuremberg Trial" thing, my RADICALLY pro-life views, and my "Get rid of entitlements ASAP" view as opposed to Ron Paul's "Get rid of them humanely" view) have made me wonder if I could ever get elected ANYWHERE.

But yeah, I've considered it. Not in this state though. I definitely have no chance anywhere in NY, where even the Republicans are absolute, total progressives. (NYS isn't the ONLY place this is true.)

In a nut shell...

Understanding Francis Bellamy and Edward Bellamy is the key to understanding why the pledge was written in the first place.

Francis Bellamy: Author of the Pledge(1892), self proclaimed socialist, and first cousin to Edward Bellamy.

Edward Bellamy: Author of "Looking Backwards: 2000 to 1887" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Looking_Backward), an international best selling socialist utopian novel that inspired over 160 "national socialist" clubs all across America.

Why would a socialist want/need a National pledge?
Socialism requires a strong centralized top-down government in order to implement their ideology effectively. Our Pledge is/was simply a tool of the socialists.


Note1: Hitler was a fan of both Edward and Francis --->thus the NAZI salute.

Note2: "Under God" was not added until 1952.

edit/

TMike

Yeah, I knew it was written by a socialist. I don't particularly like it. As a devil's advocate though, does the fact that he wrote it give him a monopoly on defining its meaning?


Nothing spectacular.

What I did... ignored stupid requests, probably from 2nd grade on, refused homework on the basis that I already understood the material. I wasn't disrespectful toward teachers, but I wasn't willing to constantly jump through hoops, either.

Results... detention, in school suspension, failing grades while acing tests, eventually paying for college myself when there would have been other people willing to foot that bill otherwise.

That really sucks. I've always felt like tests (Or at least, something that is actually graded on merit, no "Completion" or "Participation" grades) should be 100% of the grade. Since I pretty much always did my homework up until this year, that wouldn't exactly have helped me, but I still think its right. If you can ace the test, good for you, they should either give you something more challenging or at least leave you alone. The public school system sucks. I'm radically libertarian enough to go for the "Separation of school and state" idea, but even if people insist on the state funding schools, the state should NOT be allowed to run them. They are total fails at it...


I can't tell.

:(

I'm not going to insult your intelligence with a "But we're so free" or something, but I still don't think we're anywhere near Nazi Germany level of tyranny. Not yet, anyhow. in 10, 20, 50 years, who knows? But right now, we aren't quite that level of bad.

Granted, if your an unborn child, it really sucks to be you right now (Did I mention that I'm radically pro-life? I believe killing a fetus in the womb is every bit as serious as killing a Jew [Or any other person] in a concentration camp, and I believe it should be punished exactly the same way, and I say that at the exact same time that I advocate polygamy, heroin, and grenade launchers being legalized and all of them being unregulated for any adult) but that's more because some non-sttate individuals are murderers, not because of our state itself (Funding does make it worse, of course.)

But if you can make it through the first six months, I don't think we're nazi germany level. I don't think we could get away with posting on here in Nazi Germany, for one thing.

I'll be the first to admit that the "Right to vote" is pretty much a crap freedom, a type of last resort more than an actual right, but we still do have plenty of rights that the Nazi Germans did not have. Granted, we also are being denied a ton of rights. What we have is not remotely acceptable. But ours is more a tyranny of a thousand laws than it is a tyranny in the traditional sense. I will note that that's FOR THE MOST PART. Four US citiens have indeed been murdered by drones, and probably at least several times as many more that they haven't told us about. NDAA 2012 also makes it very easy for the government to take away even more of our freedom.

Comparison to Nazi Germany doesn't seem fair though, even though I do sometimes compare the public school system to the Hitler Youth indirectly.

Christian Liberty
05-02-2013, 01:10 PM
Holy crap. You sure are very knowledgeable and have a ton of worldly experiences for being 18. Also, using terms like "FedGov" by your 25th post?

You're a genius. Have you thought about running for office?
BTW: What does the "honorable mentions" in your sig mean, and why is my name there?

I somehow missed the "FedGov" thing. I don't remember where I learned that appreviation. It let's me spend as few characters as I have to on a disgusting topic:)

mczerone
05-02-2013, 01:21 PM
(1) Ask your homeroom teacher what the response would be if you refuse the pledge. Either privately or publicly. Mention West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, where the Sup Ct said that it can't be mandated. Offer to read AF's pledge from the DOI.

(2) Turn your back and hold a peace sign. Don't give the impression that you're angry, just that you love peace more than the State.

(3) Talk to your classmates about what the pledge means, where it came from, and why even if you're a patriot it might be a good idea to question it. See if any are willing to follow you in some disobedience.

(4) Say it in Spanish (Juro lealtad a la bandera de los estados unidos de america, y a la republica que respresenta, una nacion, bajo dios, con libertad y justicia para todos).

Christian Liberty
05-02-2013, 01:25 PM
We don't actually recite it, we just pledge it, so saying it in Spanish wouldn't really work.

Someone recites it over the loudspeaker...

I've never really talked to anyone about the pledge but I do talk to people about libertarianism and freedom whenever I get the chance. Granted, I wish I had more than my limited knowledge of economics, so I don't usually focus on that as much as everything else.

pcosmar
05-02-2013, 01:26 PM
I'm not going to insult your intelligence with a "But we're so free" or something, but I still don't think we're anywhere near Nazi Germany level of tyranny.

Folks have attempted to insult my intelligence my whole life. I expect it.

How long did it take the Nazi Party, just observing history? From a free cosmopolitan industrial based society,, to a repressive war machine.

2 or three years.
It could be done here in less than 6 months.

Ender
05-02-2013, 01:30 PM
I'll be the first to admit that the "Right to vote" is pretty much a crap freedom, a type of last resort more than an actual right, but we still do have plenty of rights that the Nazi Germans did not have. Granted, we also are being denied a ton of rights. What we have is not remotely acceptable. But ours is more a tyranny of a thousand laws than it is a tyranny in the traditional sense. I will note that that's FOR THE MOST PART. Four US citiens have indeed been murdered by drones, and probably at least several times as many more that they haven't told us about. NDAA 2012 also makes it very easy for the government to take away even more of our freedom.

Comparison to Nazi Germany doesn't seem fair though, even though I do sometimes compare the public school system to the Hitler Youth indirectly.

Gotta remember that the Germans thought they were free- just like Americans think they are free, today.

You sound a lot like me. I was 14 when 911 happened.

Someone asked me then what I would do if I were pres. I said:

Bring the troops home, tighten the borders for a while and tell the rest of the world to live without us.

When none of this happened my gut told me that something wasn't right. I then heard this guy on the radio say that the Patriot Act was passed w/o anyone reading it. Turned out to be this old dude named Ron Paul. ;) I started following any news about him and then became convinced he was for real. Also became very interested in real history and the false BS most of us learn in public school.

The thing is to become awake and QUESTION EVERYTHING.

AGRP
05-02-2013, 01:33 PM
I somehow missed the "FedGov" thing. I don't remember where I learned that appreviation. It let's me spend as few characters as I have to on a disgusting topic:)

Maybe from one of your many other accounts which happens to have the same writing style as you?


It isn't all held by the FedGov. There were direct loans (FedGov owned) and guaranteed loans (private loans backed by the FedGov, but no FedGov money was actually used unless default) for a long time. Now though, I think subsidies to schools is the main way the FedGov pushes funds down for kids.

Christian Liberty
05-02-2013, 01:39 PM
Maybe from one of your many other accounts which happens to have the same writing style as you?

Oh, here I thought you were actually giving me a compliment and you were just accusing me of trolling:(

That accountt isn't mine. "FreedomFanatic" is my only account.

AGRP
05-02-2013, 01:43 PM
That accountt isn't mine. "FreedomFanatic" is my only account.

http://i1208.photobucket.com/albums/cc376/scottydoesit141/nxkih3jpg.gif

Christian Liberty
05-02-2013, 01:47 PM
Trolls gonna troll, I guess. once again, thanks to everyone who has been courteous and helpful...

TruckinMike
05-02-2013, 01:54 PM
Yeah, I knew it was written by a socialist. I don't particularly like it. As a devil's advocate though, does the fact that he wrote it give him a monopoly on defining its meaning?



We could play philosophical ping pong on this one but I'm just going to lay it on the line:
Anyone that supports the Pledge of Allegiance today is fostering tyranny. It does not matter what the pledge means to them. What matters is the effect of their actions. By accepting the pledge, and partaking in the pledge, they are directly empowering the collective powers of tyranny --->simply by influencing others to do the same --->Bellamy is smiling from the grave.

AF has it right --- In protest, recite the Declaration of Independence , or some other document of freedom in its place.

TMike

Czolgosz
05-02-2013, 02:00 PM
And for continuing education,,,


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okPnDZ1Txlo


Fantastic video, ty.

Christian Liberty
05-02-2013, 02:00 PM
We could play philosophical ping pong on this one but I'm just going to lay it on the line:
Anyone that supports the Pledge of Allegiance today is fostering tyranny. It does not matter what the pledge means to them. What matters is the effect of their actions. By accepting the pledge, and partaking in the pledge, they are directly empowering the collective powers of tyranny --->simply by influencing others to do the same --->Bellamy is smiling from the grave.

AF has it right --- recite the Declaration of Independence , or some other document of freedom in its place.

TMike

I wish that was as easy as you put it. I at least hope you GET how hard it is to be an 18 year old who basically doesn't know anyone else who "Gets it."

Thanks for the help/advice, however.

AGRP
05-02-2013, 02:08 PM
I wish that was as easy as you put it. I at least hope you GET how hard it is to be an 18 year old who basically doesn't know anyone else who "Gets it."

Thanks for the help/advice, however.

Isnt that the truth? Theres not many 18 year olds who gets much of anything, let alone at least 3-4 primary election cycles worth of detailed information. You must have been at least 10-12 years old when you started becoming involved in politics?

Christian Liberty
05-02-2013, 02:11 PM
Isnt that the truth? Theres not many 18 year olds who gets much of anything, let alone at least 3-4 primary election cycles worth of detailed information. You must have been at least 10-12 years old when you started becoming involved in politics?

Not just 18 year olds, people in general.

I had all the Presidents of the USA memorized when I was 8 years old or so, so I was always interested in History, but I didn't actually care much about politics until recently. Granted, I was scared to death of Obama in 2008 for completely irrational reasons, but I wouldn't say I knew a single thing of actual relevance until 2010 at the very least.

I've done some cursory study of past elections though.

AGRP
05-02-2013, 02:15 PM
Not just 18 year olds, people in general.

I had all the Presidents of the USA memorized when I was 8 years old or so, so I was always interested in History, but I didn't actually care much about politics until recently. Granted, I was scared to death of Obama in 2008 for completely irrational reasons, but I wouldn't say I knew a single thing of actual relevance until 2010 at the very least.

I've done some cursory study of past elections though.

Wow, even using terms such as cursory, granted, and irrational? You write like someone who is at least 40 years of age. You must be the most intelligent 18 year old we've ever seen at RPF. Were very fortunate to have you here. Did you attend the Julliard School of Trolling?

Christian Liberty
05-02-2013, 02:22 PM
Wow, even using terms such as cursory, granted, and irrational? You write like someone who is at least 40 years of age. You must be the most intelligent 18 year old we've ever seen at RPF. Were very fortunate to have you here. Did you attend the Julliard School of Trolling?

Maybe the fact that I've only been in public school for two years (4 if you count charter school during grades 3-4) and was homeschooled for eight years helped. Perhaps having Asperger's as well.

I'm a lot economically dumber than the rest of you guys, but yes, I do have some basic vocabulary. That you think nobody under 40 would know those kinds of words (Not even really all that big ones, mind you) is insulting to me, Justin Amash, and plenty of other people.

How's this for my 18 year old side. You're a freaking imbecile. Of course, you're probably going to ask me how I knew the word "Imbecile". And you know why you're going to ask me that? Because you probably don't have a clue what it means. Which would only prove my point.

Reported. Third time's the charm.

mczerone
05-02-2013, 02:31 PM
I wish that was as easy as you put it. I at least hope you GET how hard it is to be an 18 year old who basically doesn't know anyone else who "Gets it."

Thanks for the help/advice, however.

Same could be said for people that are gay in HS. Or atheist. Or supported equal rights in the South. Or was an abolitionist.

The point is that, yes, It's hard to be different. But it's harder to stay closeted and torture yourself by knowing that you are being silenced. And no progress is made for the 12 year olds that will soon be in your situation.

It's scary to be different. But it's not hard to speak up. It's only hard to overcome the fear of doing so - and that's an entirely INTERNAL battle.

Someone else said "you're almost done, so shut up and tough it out." But I say:

You're almost done, so speak up and take what comes of it. They won't have any power to hurt you in another two months

SkepticalMetal
05-02-2013, 02:41 PM
To the OP - you shouldn't have to pledge your allegiance to any kind of government. Let's not forget that the Pledge of Allegiance was written by a man who was a staunch socialist, and who was inspired by the collectivist philosophy implemented by Lincoln.

jllundqu
05-02-2013, 02:55 PM
What I find even more disturbing is that the pledge is done in my CHURCH for the younger kids. I'm not usually there during their program, but on the occasions where I have, I have refused to participate in the pledge for a good while.

It is also done in most freemason lodges before stated meetings. Jus sayin

Christian Liberty
05-02-2013, 02:58 PM
It is also done in most freemason lodges before stated meetings. Jus sayin

I don't actually know much about the freemasons either way. Of course I've heard the conspiracies but I have no idea if any of its true or not.

Warrior_of_Freedom
05-02-2013, 04:26 PM
Give the salute that was orginally designed for the pledge...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-afhNihFrUQg/TsqBgMlurzI/AAAAAAAADHc/IbjBLV6xNfM/s1600/Bellamy1.jpg
That salute looks awfully familiar!

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
05-03-2013, 07:17 AM
Isnt that the truth? Theres not many 18 year olds who gets much of anything, let alone at least 3-4 primary election cycles worth of detailed information. You must have been at least 10-12 years old when you started becoming involved in politics?


An 18 year old today can research and learn in ways that were impossible 20 years ago. This is why the freedom movement has seen such growth, and why is comes from the youth.

Let's roll back to 1990. You were a super-geek if you could even make it to USENET. Your general political and historical knowledge would have come from government schools, media, or older relatives. Maybe a library, but plenty of fake shit to wade through there as well.

Technology is helping the tide turn.

PaulConventionWV
05-03-2013, 07:25 AM
I'm not a big fan of it, but of course, I'm stuck pledging to the flag in High School.

I was thinking about the pledge lately and it pledges "To the Republic for which (The flag) stands."

Most people don't think this way, but wouldn't you kind of have to oppose the empire we currently have in order to support the REPUBLIC for which the flag stands?

Or am I missing something...

I might not hate it so much were it not for the "Indivisible" line. Whenever possible I deliberately but casually slide my hand off my heart for that word. The nation is NOT indivisible. In fact, it was divided once before, by the heroic rebels in 1861.....

If I was back in school, I would not stand for the pledge. Come to think of it, there were a few punks (not judging, just referring to the style) who did not stand and looking back now, I wish I had joined them.

Matt McGuire
05-03-2013, 08:18 AM
Every morning we do pledges at my school. I just say "I pledge allegiance to...God..."

Christian Liberty
05-03-2013, 08:11 PM
If I was back in school, I would not stand for the pledge. Come to think of it, there were a few punks (not judging, just referring to the style) who did not stand and looking back now, I wish I had joined them.

I'll probably agree with you someday. But sorry to disappoint you guys, I don't feel like fighting this particular battle right now with so little time yet. If I wasn't about to graduate this year, or if my parents were on my side (Their opinion does matter to me, I do sometimes have to disappoint them but I don't enjoy it) I might consider it, but right now its too much to ask for so little benefit. It wouldn't influence anyone anyway. You've got to realize I'm in NYS. That, combined with high schoolers... let me just say this. the few who are already Ron Paul fans, I'm not worried about. They may say the pledge, but I'm ultimately not worried about them. The many, MANY collectivists (I've literally SHOCKED people with my views on the CRA) in my high school wouldn't be influenced at all. Its literally the worst battleground possible. I don't have anything to gain there.

I'm going to get through it, in hopes that I can have a positive influence later on, whether that be in college, and hopefully someday as a (libertarian) college professor.

Anti Federalist
05-03-2013, 08:16 PM
If I was back in school, I would not stand for the pledge. Come to think of it, there were a few punks (not judging, just referring to the style) who did not stand and looking back now, I wish I had joined them.

God Bless the Punks.

Christian Liberty
05-03-2013, 08:22 PM
God Bless the Punks.

If they're really taking a political stand, God bless them for being braver than I am...

mczerone
05-03-2013, 08:24 PM
I'll probably agree with you someday. But sorry to disappoint you guys, I don't feel like fighting this particular battle right now with so little time yet. If I wasn't about to graduate this year, or if my parents were on my side (Their opinion does matter to me, I do sometimes have to disappoint them but I don't enjoy it) I might consider it, but right now its too much to ask for so little benefit. It wouldn't influence anyone anyway. You've got to realize I'm in NYS. That, combined with high schoolers... let me just say this. the few who are already Ron Paul fans, I'm not worried about. They may say the pledge, but I'm ultimately not worried about them. The many, MANY collectivists (I've literally SHOCKED people with my views on the CRA) in my high school wouldn't be influenced at all. Its literally the worst battleground possible. I don't have anything to gain there.

I'm going to get through it, in hopes that I can have a positive influence later on, whether that be in college, and hopefully someday as a (libertarian) college professor.

Again, you have so little time left, SO WHAT IS THERE TO LOSE?

Stop delaying your life on the thin hopes of being able to do more in the future.

paulbot24
05-03-2013, 08:27 PM
I was raised a Jehovah's Witness and we were forbidden to pledge allegiance to the flag. In fact, Jehovah's Witnesses aren't even allowed to physically stand up from a seated position during the pledge or during the singing of our national anthem. If, for some reason, you were already standing when it started, you were "allowed" to remain standing, but we did not recite the pledge. The schools I went to were actually very understanding of this and I spent that time usually in the library until it was over and then I would get a pass to go back to my classroom. When they played the national anthem during sporting events, we would remain seated and our family would occasionally get some strange looks but I don't remember anybody ever being rude to us. Ironically,the only oath/pledge I've ever sworn was to the Constitution when I joined the USMC.

Christian Liberty
05-03-2013, 08:33 PM
Again, you have so little time left, SO WHAT IS THERE TO LOSE?

Stop delaying your life on the thin hopes of being able to do more in the future.

I suppose there's a chance I could be denied my graduation but that's not likely nor is that my concern. I'm more worried about my family. I'm trying to get them into the liberty movement and doing something stupid like this would just make my position look worse. Its just bad strategy at this point, both for me personally AND for the liberty movement. Maybe I'll be wrong. I'm not a perfect person. I'm trying to be smart.

heavenlyboy34
05-03-2013, 09:19 PM
God Bless the Punks. Amen.

Professor8000
05-03-2013, 09:59 PM
Touching on what I said before, school will only hurt you. The only reason to go to college is to gain the certifications needed for a specific job, if you know exactly what you want to do, and it is like an engineer or doctor or one of those highly skilled professions, then college may be worth your time. However, if you aren't planning on one of those jobs, then it is just a huge waste of time and money. Both of which can be spent to greater effect elsewhere. IT jobs don't need college any more and are highly lucrative if you specialize.

Christian Liberty
05-03-2013, 10:02 PM
I want to work in the education field. Probably teaching history or some other social studies course in college.

Galileo Galilei
05-03-2013, 10:43 PM
The Pledge promotes LIBERTY, and says we are a REPUBLIC, not a democracy.

It also promotes the ideal of JUSTICE, which is right up there in importance with liberty.

It also promotes the FLAG, implying the great flag that flew after the heroic siege of Baltimore, when the Republic fought off an empire.

Professor8000
05-03-2013, 10:50 PM
The Pledge promotes LIBERTY, and says we are a REPUBLIC, not a democracy.

It also promotes the ideal of JUSTICE, which is right up there in importance with liberty.

It also promotes the FLAG, implying the great flag that flew after the heroic siege of Baltimore, when the Republic fought off an empire.

It promotes statism, collectivism, and a warped idea of what the United States is. It is NOT "one nation". It is very much "divisible". And last time I checked, "justice for all" is the punchline in that sad joke.

Professor8000
05-03-2013, 10:52 PM
I want to work in the education field. Probably teaching history or some other social studies course in college.

You must really like compromising your principles because schools do not hire people who teach actual history, but rather people who teach the curriculum. If you stray from the path they have set, you will get replaced in a heartbeat with someone willing to toe the line.

SkepticalMetal
05-03-2013, 10:53 PM
The Pledge promotes LIBERTY, and says we are a REPUBLIC, not a democracy.

It also promotes the ideal of JUSTICE, which is right up there in importance with liberty.

It also promotes the FLAG, implying the great flag that flew after the heroic siege of Baltimore, when the Republic fought off an empire.
Are you aware that the Pledge was written by a staunch socialist inspired by Lincoln's rampages and collectivist policies?

Christian Liberty
05-03-2013, 10:54 PM
You must really like compromising your principles because schools do not hire people who teach actual history, but rather people who teach the curriculum. If you stray from the path they have set, you will get replaced in a heartbeat with someone willing to toe the line.

I do wonder how they'd find out. Walter Block and Tom Diolorenzo are still teaching college, so its not impossible.

SkepticalMetal
05-03-2013, 10:56 PM
I do wonder how they'd find out. Walter Block and Tom Diolorenzo are still teaching college, so its not impossible.
I think he thought you were talking about grade school. Many college professors hold heterodox views (god only knows the ridiculous amount of Marxists in the academic field) but if it's grade school than you'll be fired the very first day you start trying to give kids an unorthodox perspective on things.

Christian Liberty
05-03-2013, 11:03 PM
I think he thought you were talking about grade school. Many college professors hold heterodox views (god only knows the ridiculous amount of Marxists in the academic field) but if it's grade school than you'll be fired the very first day you start trying to give kids an unorthodox perspective on things.

I prefer the idea of doing college.

Speaking of grade school, I'm a senior now... I've talked to most of my teachers about politcs at least once, they don't all agree with each other but I've never seen any Rothbardians or anything so I don't know how much they can get away with. The closest thing I've seen to a libertarian is my public affairs teacher, he really likes Rand but despises Ron.

kcchiefs6465
05-03-2013, 11:04 PM
I do wonder how they'd find out. Walter Block and Tom Diolorenzo are still teaching college, so its not impossible.
I've had a few libertarian leaning professors.

Sure, you will be limited depending on where you are teaching, but I've talked politics with a couple different teachers and they basically had the same views as I. They planted some thoughts I'm sure.

As if you are some sort of traitor or 'statist' for trying to educate people. :rolleyes:

I stand for the Star Spangled Banner, I recite the Pledge. It's called having a little bit of common decency. I bow my head for prayer in church as well. :eek:

Galileo Galilei
05-03-2013, 11:05 PM
It promotes statism, collectivism, and a warped idea of what the United States is. It is NOT "one nation". It is very much "divisible". And last time I checked, "justice for all" is the punchline in that sad joke.

It promotes a very small government, not an anarchy, the government at the time had federal spending of just 2% of GDP, one of the smallest in all of human history.

Galileo Galilei
05-03-2013, 11:07 PM
Are you aware that the Pledge was written by a staunch socialist inspired by Lincoln's rampages and collectivist policies?

I'm concerned about what was written, not character assassination. George Orwell was a socialist, too, but he wrote great libertarian novels like 1984 and Animal Farm.

SkepticalMetal
05-03-2013, 11:07 PM
I prefer the idea of doing college.

Speaking of grade school, I'm a senior now... I've talked to most of my teachers about politcs at least once, they don't all agree with each other but I've never seen any Rothbardians or anything so I don't know how much they can get away with. The closest thing I've seen to a libertarian is my public affairs teacher, he really likes Rand but despises Ron.
Man, don't know what school you go to, but I'm in my Freshman year, and every school I've had the displeasure of attending cracks down without mercy on any sort of productive discussion, i.e. anything that isn't closely related to the status quo is explicitly off-limits. If what you say isn't going to be regarding the troops "defending our freedoms" in some country that most Americans can't even find on a map, then it's just too bad for you.

PaulConventionWV
05-03-2013, 11:10 PM
If they're really taking a political stand, God bless them for being braver than I am...

I'm kind of curious as to why you think it would cause that much trouble if you didn't stand? I remember the punks in my school getting a bit of "shame on you" but nothing much more than that.

SkepticalMetal
05-03-2013, 11:13 PM
I'm concerned about what was written, not character assassination. George Orwell was a socialist, too, but he wrote great libertarian novels like 1984 and Animal Farm.
At least George Orwell was against a tyrannical system when he wrote what he wrote (of course the system he advocated would result in tyranny as well, but you can't really blame him for that with all the distortions of capitalism in that day and age). Francis Bellamy on the other hand wrote the Pledge as a means of getting people into a "herd mentality" to comply with his socialist hocus-pocus nonsense. Now you have kids being forced to recite this Pledge before they reach the age to even know what they are saying, and more critically, they are pledging their allegiance to "one nation, under God, indivisible" meaning that the whole thing is one big anti-secession bandwagon stance that the Obama administration and any other collectivist cherishes. Ron Paul even talked about this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOxLLFPX_SA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOxLLFPX_SA)

better-dead-than-fed
05-03-2013, 11:14 PM
I haven't read this whole thread yet, but


... I'm stuck pledging to the flag in High School.

fyi: West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 US 624 - Supreme Court 1943 (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8030119134463419441&q=pledge+of+allegiance&hl=en&as_sdt=2,3):


We think the action of the local authorities in compelling the flag salute and pledge transcends constitutional limitations on their power and invades the sphere of intellect and spirit which it is the purpose of the First Amendment to our Constitution to reserve from all official control.

In that opinion you might find language to help you communicate with your family.

Galileo Galilei
05-03-2013, 11:28 PM
At least George Orwell was against a tyrannical system when he wrote what he wrote (of course the system he advocated would result in tyranny as well, but you can't really blame him for that with all the distortions of capitalism in that day and age). Francis Bellamy on the other hand wrote the Pledge as a means of getting people into a "herd mentality" to comply with his socialist hocus-pocus nonsense. Now you have kids being forced to recite this Pledge before they reach the age to even know what they are saying, and more critically, they are pledging their allegiance to "one nation, under God, indivisible" meaning that the whole thing is one big anti-secession bandwagon stance that the Obama administration and any other collectivist cherishes. Ron Paul even talked about this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOxLLFPX_SA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOxLLFPX_SA)

George Orwell was a statist.

The Articles of Confederation say they are perpetual, the Pledge of Allegiance is merely trying to evoke the decentralization of the AoC, when they talk of indivisible.

better-dead-than-fed
05-03-2013, 11:29 PM
Reported.

Can you get by without requesting coercive censorship, please. Your future freedom to speak could depend on it.

SkepticalMetal
05-03-2013, 11:35 PM
George Orwell was a statist.

The Articles of Confederation say they are perpetual, the Pledge of Allegiance is merely trying to evoke the decentralization of the AoC, when they talk of indivisible.
How does "indivisible" evoke decentralization? That sounds like an oxymoron - and Francis Bellamy wrote the Pledge a long time after the AoC had been thrown out the window as being "too decentralized." As I said, Bellamy was inspired by Lincoln's coercion of the Southern states back into the Union, i.e. his complete lack of respect for the basic right of secession, pointed out by Tom DiLorenzo in The Real Lincoln.

Professor8000
05-03-2013, 11:57 PM
I do wonder how they'd find out. Walter Block and Tom Diolorenzo are still teaching college, so its not impossible.

Economics isn't a subject many of the liberals in academia understand very well, so they are probably more forgiving in that area because of that.

Professor8000
05-04-2013, 12:08 AM
What does the Pledge of Allegiance accomplish? I would say it accomplishes a "'Merica! Fuck Yeah!" sort of attitude. It creates a false sense of security and idea that our government is benevolent because, "we are free, right?" It is nothing more than a cognitive lullaby, that fills you with a false idea of patriotism and keeps suspicion of the motivations of government to a minimum. Who recites the pledge the most? School children, who's minds are most flexible to what ever box you wish them to go in. The pledge is nothing more than wide spread mind control.

better-dead-than-fed
05-04-2013, 01:32 AM
people chanting anything in unison is just plain creepy.

Galileo Galilei
05-04-2013, 08:34 AM
How does "indivisible" evoke decentralization? That sounds like an oxymoron - and Francis Bellamy wrote the Pledge a long time after the AoC had been thrown out the window as being "too decentralized." As I said, Bellamy was inspired by Lincoln's coercion of the Southern states back into the Union, i.e. his complete lack of respect for the basic right of secession, pointed out by Tom DiLorenzo in The Real Lincoln.

Because it echoes the Articles of Confederation which were also indivisible, they used the word perpetual. Secession was illegal under the AoC.

Christian Liberty
05-04-2013, 08:51 AM
Can you get by without requesting coercive censorship, please. Your future freedom to speak could depend on it.

I don't report stuff very often, but RPF is private property. Moderators have the right to delete content as they wish. That doesn't mean I want the troll to be arrested.

That said, he's shut up and so will I, at least on that issues.


I've had a few libertarian leaning professors.

Sure, you will be limited depending on where you are teaching, but I've talked politics with a couple different teachers and they basically had the same views as I. They planted some thoughts I'm sure.

As if you are some sort of traitor or 'statist' for trying to educate people. :rolleyes:

I stand for the Star Spangled Banner, I recite the Pledge. It's called having a little bit of common decency. I bow my head for prayer in church as well. :eek:

SSB isn't as bad because at least it was written in 1812. We actually were fighting for our freedoms in that war. I don't recite the pledge but I stand for it.


It promotes a very small government, not an anarchy, the government at the time had federal spending of just 2% of GDP, one of the smallest in all of human history.

That would be great!


Man, don't know what school you go to, but I'm in my Freshman year, and every school I've had the displeasure of attending cracks down without mercy on any sort of productive discussion, i.e. anything that isn't closely related to the status quo is explicitly off-limits. If what you say isn't going to be regarding the troops "defending our freedoms" in some country that most Americans can't even find on a map, then it's just too bad for you.

I've gotten better than that in social studies classes, but its still not great. Hardline libertarian theory is tricky to defend, doubly so when I occasionally have to make a point in a matter of seconds.


I'm kind of curious as to why you think it would cause that much trouble if you didn't stand? I remember the punks in my school getting a bit of "shame on you" but nothing much more than that.

As I've said, its my family, not the government, that I'm more worried about. I don't want to disappoint my family by fighting a pointless battle at this stage in the game.

I haven't read this whole thread yet, but



fyi: West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 US 624 - Supreme Court 1943 (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8030119134463419441&q=pledge+of+allegiance&hl=en&as_sdt=2,3):



In that opinion you might find language to help you communicate with your family.

I'll look into it, but I have to admit as the decentralist that I am I'm uncomfortable invoking a case from the National Rubber Stamp for any purpose.

Christian Liberty
05-04-2013, 08:52 AM
Because it echoes the Articles of Confederation which were also indivisible, they used the word perpetual. Secession was illegal under the AoC.

I remember reading somewhere that that wasn't necessarily true and that "Perpetual" meant something different at the time and in the context...

Henry Rogue
05-04-2013, 09:06 AM
people chanting anything in unison is just plain creepy.
Always felt that way too. Can't explain why, I certainly had no clue about Liberty when I was in grade school. Guess i always had an individual streak in me.

better-dead-than-fed
05-04-2013, 09:07 AM
I don't report stuff very often, but RPF is private property. Moderators have the right to delete content as they wish. That doesn't mean I want the troll to be arrested....

I know it's private property, but why report stuff ever?


I'll look into it, but I have to admit as the decentralist that I am I'm uncomfortable invoking a case from the National Rubber Stamp for any purpose.

Whether or not you concede authority to them, they write well and attempt to support their conclusions with general principles.

Henry Rogue
05-04-2013, 09:30 AM
What does the Pledge of Allegiance accomplish? I would say it accomplishes a "'Merica! Fuck Yeah!" sort of attitude. It creates a false sense of security and idea that our government is benevolent because, "we are free, right?" It is nothing more than a cognitive lullaby, that fills you with a false idea of patriotism and keeps suspicion of the motivations of government to a minimum. Who recites the pledge the most? School children, who's minds are most flexible to what ever box you wish them to go in. The pledge is nothing more than wide spread mind control.
This. ^

heavenlyboy34
05-04-2013, 09:46 AM
Because it echoes the Articles of Confederation which were also indivisible, they used the word perpetual. Secession was illegal under the AoC.
The DoI establishes the right of secession which cannot be abolished by other documents. The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions also build the case for secession.
http://www.historyvortex.org/LegalitySecession.html
Included in the Resolutions was the notion that the federal government was a creation of the states, and as such the federal government did not have the authority to determine the extent of its own power; however, states certainly could determine the breath and scope of federal power. Professor Eaton illustrates this by stating, “Jefferson and Madison maintained in their resolutions that in the absence of an umpire between the states and the Federal government, the states or the people had this power – in the words of the Kentucky Resolution, ‘That the government created by this compact [italics added] was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of powers delegated to itself.’” [Ibid. 154-155]
The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions define the Constitution as a compact between the states, and reiterating the sentiments expressed in the Tenth Amendment, that the federal government did not possess the right to exercise any powers that weren’t delegated to it by the compact itself. Th

SkepticalMetal
05-04-2013, 10:41 AM
Because it echoes the Articles of Confederation which were also indivisible, they used the word perpetual. Secession was illegal under the AoC.
I'm sorry but this is simply a misinterpretation of the AoC. But regardless of whatever the AoC said, you don't need a governmental document to establish that every individual has the right of secession. Your rights come from self-evident axioms, and so even if the Pledge of Allegiance was interpreting the AoC the correct way (or the Constitution, whatever, I don't know why you brought up the AoC in the first place being that Bellamy lived a long time after the AoC was thrown out), it is still defending something which is morally repugnant - the idea that "we're all in it together" and we are "one nation." If you hold true to such a collectivist creed, than you are not a libertarian. The Pledge did NOT advocate decentralization. Now, as I said, children in schools are forced to say this crap before they even know what they are saying. If I were to sit down during the Pledge in school (or anywhere else for that matter), I would probably be sent to the Principal's office.

better-dead-than-fed
05-04-2013, 02:32 PM
West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 US 624 - Supreme Court 1943 (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8030119134463419441&q=pledge+of+allegiance&hl=en&as_sdt=2,3):


... Struggles to coerce uniformity of sentiment in support of some end thought essential to their time and country have been waged by many good as well as by evil men. Nationalism is a relatively recent phenomenon but at other times and places the ends have been racial or territorial security, support of a dynasty or regime, and particular plans for saving souls. As first and moderate methods to attain unity have failed, those bent on its accomplishment must resort to an ever-increasing severity. As governmental pressure toward unity becomes greater, so strife becomes more bitter as to whose unity it shall be. Probably no deeper division of our people could proceed from any provocation than from finding it necessary to choose what doctrine and whose program public educational officials shall compel youth to unite in embracing. Ultimate futility of such attempts to compel coherence is the lesson of every such effort from the Roman drive to stamp out Christianity as a disturber of its pagan unity, the Inquisition, as a means to religious and dynastic unity, the Siberian exiles as a means to Russian unity, down to the fast failing efforts of our present totalitarian enemies. Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.

It seems trite but necessary to say that the First Amendment to our Constitution was designed to avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings. There is no mysticism in the American concept of the State or of the nature or origin of its authority. We set up government by consent of the governed, and the Bill of Rights denies those in power any legal opportunity to coerce that consent. Authority here is to be controlled by public opinion, not public opinion by authority....

Anti Federalist
05-04-2013, 03:10 PM
George Orwell was a statist.

The Articles of Confederation say they are perpetual, the Pledge of Allegiance is merely trying to evoke the decentralization of the AoC, when they talk of indivisible.

Nothing is perpetual, except God in heaven.

Nothing man made lasts forever, and when you try to push something past its useful service life, you end up with trouble.

Galileo Galilei
05-04-2013, 03:36 PM
I'm sorry but this is simply a misinterpretation of the AoC. But regardless of whatever the AoC said, you don't need a governmental document to establish that every individual has the right of secession. Your rights come from self-evident axioms, and so even if the Pledge of Allegiance was interpreting the AoC the correct way (or the Constitution, whatever, I don't know why you brought up the AoC in the first place being that Bellamy lived a long time after the AoC was thrown out), it is still defending something which is morally repugnant - the idea that "we're all in it together" and we are "one nation." If you hold true to such a collectivist creed, than you are not a libertarian. The Pledge did NOT advocate decentralization. Now, as I said, children in schools are forced to say this crap before they even know what they are saying. If I were to sit down during the Pledge in school (or anywhere else for that matter), I would probably be sent to the Principal's office.

a republic is by definition, decentralized.

Galileo Galilei
05-04-2013, 03:36 PM
Nothing is perpetual, except God in heaven.

Nothing man made lasts forever, and when you try to push something past its useful service life, you end up with trouble.

death and taxes are perpetual.

mac_hine
05-04-2013, 03:37 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hIamv4Cams

SkepticalMetal
05-04-2013, 03:46 PM
a republic is by definition, decentralized.
You have not replied to hardly any of the points I make in my post.

Anti Federalist
05-04-2013, 03:51 PM
death and taxes are perpetual.

Primitive man, to this day, pays no taxes.

Death?...death is overcome by faith.

Galileo Galilei
05-04-2013, 04:06 PM
You have not replied to hardly any of the points I make in my post.

Each state has the power under the US Constitution to use the Pledge of Allegiance as they see fit. So the Pledge is consistent with a decentralized republic. The pledge never mentions socialism or a consolidated democracy. The term "indivisible" is simply a patriotic slogan, the nation is indivisible until someone secedes from it.

You are the one who has not responded to my points;

1) the Pledge promotes a REPUBLIC, not a democracy or socialism

2) the Pledge promotes LIBERTY.

3) the Pledge promotes JUSTICE.

4) each person has the right to quote the pledge or not, as does each state of the union. No one can be forced to say the Pledge in school, based upon the language of the Pledge. And the US Supreme Court agrees.

5) The Pledge promotes individualism, yet allows teamwork if that is your choice.

6) The Pledge opposes the disease of anarchism.

Galileo Galilei
05-04-2013, 04:09 PM
Primitive man, to this day, pays no taxes.

Death?...death is overcome by faith.

The Law of the Jungle is an indirect tax.

fr33
05-04-2013, 04:14 PM
death and taxes are perpetual.

Defeatist. Humankind predates taxation. We don't need it and never have.

Anti Federalist
05-04-2013, 04:15 PM
The Law of the Jungle is an indirect tax.

Ah, so, you do have the right to steal from me to erect a society.

Got it.

heavenlyboy34
05-04-2013, 04:18 PM
Each state has the power under the US Constitution to use the Pledge of Allegiance as they see fit. So the Pledge is consistent with a decentralized republic. The pledge never mentions socialism or a consolidated democracy. The term "indivisible" is simply a patriotic slogan, the nation is indivisible until someone secedes from it.

You are the one who has not responded to my points;

1) the Pledge promotes a REPUBLIC, not a democracy or socialism

2) the Pledge promotes LIBERTY.

3) the Pledge promotes JUSTICE.

4) each person has the right to quote the pledge or not, as does each state of the union. No one can be forced to say the Pledge in school, based upon the language of the Pledge. And the US Supreme Court agrees.

5) The Pledge promotes individualism, yet allows teamwork if that is your choice.

6) The Pledge opposes the disease of anarchism.
http://static.divbyzero.nl/facepalm/doublefacepalm.jpg
Sure it does. :rolleyes:
http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/bellamy-salute.jpg
(http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/whats-conservative-about-pledge-allegiance)What’s Conservative about the Pledge of Allegiance? (http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/whats-conservative-about-pledge-allegiance)It’s probably too much to ask politicians to reflect a little before they lunge for a political hot-button issue. But any conservatives so inclined should think about what they’re defending. What’s so conservative about the Pledge?
Very little, as it turns out. From its inception, in 1892, the Pledge has been a slavish ritual of devotion to the state, wholly inappropriate for a free people. It was written by Francis Bellamy, a Christian Socialist pushed out of his post as a Baptist minister for delivering pulpit-pounding sermons on such topics as “Jesus the Socialist.” Bellamy was devoted to the ideas of his more-famous cousin Edward Bellamy, author of the 1888 utopian novel Looking Backward. Looking Backward describes the future United States as a regimented worker’s paradise where everyone has equal incomes, and men are drafted into the country’s “industrial army” at the age of 21, serving in the jobs assigned them by the state. Bellamy’s novel was extremely popular, selling more copies than other any 19th century American novel except Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Bellamy’s book inspired a movement of “Nationalist Clubs,” whose members campaigned for a government takeover of the economy. A few years before he wrote the Pledge of Allegiance, Francis Bellamy became a founding member of Boston’s first Nationalist Club.
After leaving the pulpit, Francis Bellamy decided to advance his authoritarian ideas through the public schools. Bellamy wrote the Pledge of Allegiance for Youth’s Companion, a popular children’s magazine. With the aid of the National Education Association, Bellamy and the editors of Youth’s Companion got the Pledge adopted as part of the National Public School Celebration on Columbus Day 1892.
Bellamy’s recommended ritual for honoring the flag had students all but goosestepping their way through the Pledge: “At a signal from the Principal the pupils, in ordered ranks, hands to the side, face the Flag. Another signal is given; every pupil gives the Flag the military salute—right hand lifted, palm downward, to a line with the forehead and close to it… At the words, ‘to my Flag,’ the right hand is extended gracefully, palm upward, towards the Flag, and remains in this gesture till the end of the affirmation; whereupon all hands immediately drop to the side.” After the rise of Nazism, this form of salute was thought to be in poor taste, to say the least, and replaced with today’s hand-on-heart gesture.
Hands on their hearts, more than 100 Republican members of Congress gathered on the steps of the Capitol to recite the pledge shortly after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled for Newdow in June 2002. It was an effective photo-op, allowing the G.O.P. to cast itself as the defender of tradition. But not every tradition deserves defending. Though no one can be legally compelled to salute the flag, encouraging the ritual smacks of promoting a quasi-religious genuflection to the state. That’s not surprising, given that the Pledge was designed by an avowed socialist to encourage greater regimentation of society.
Regardless of the legal merits of Newdow’s case — which rests on a rather ambitious interpretation of the First Amendment’s Establishment clause — it’s ironic to see conservatives rally to such a questionable custom. Why do so many conservatives who, by and large, exalt the individual and the family above the state, endorse this ceremony of subordination to the government? Why do Christian conservatives say it’s important for schoolchildren to bow before a symbol of secular power? Indeed, why should conservatives support the Pledge at all, with or without “under God”?

Christian Liberty
05-04-2013, 04:19 PM
6) The Pledge opposes the disease of anarchism.

I'm not an anarchist but I think the ancaps have done enough for the cause of liberty to avoid being strawmanned like that. I definitely appreciate them and their radicalism way more than I appreciate "Libertarians" who are way too comfortable in the fluffy center...


Ah, so, you do have the right to steal from me to erect a society.


We don't, but I'd be willing to accept having a tiny bit stolen from me by the state (NOT talking about the current State here, talking about a theoretical minarchist State) in exchange for the assurance that anyone who tries to steal the other 95+% of my property, or kill me, or try to punish me for doing something that does not violate the NAP, is prevented by law from doing so.

Its a lesser of evils thing for me, but I'll agree with you that its still an evil. I can't really justify the State for you.
Got it.

SkepticalMetal
05-04-2013, 04:36 PM
Wait a minute, the "disease" of anarchism?

I have enough in front of me to not take your posts seriously any further.

Galileo Galilei
05-04-2013, 04:42 PM
Ah, so, you do have the right to steal from me to erect a society.

Got it.

You have confused rights with powers. Wild animals have the power to steal.

Anti Federalist
05-04-2013, 05:24 PM
You have confused rights with powers. Wild animals have the power to steal.

No, nothing of the sort.

You claim to have the right to steal from me to support a government that no longer has my consent to govern me.

Not that it cares in the least about my consent or not.

Officer Friendly will be by to make sure it has my consent.

Galileo Galilei
05-04-2013, 05:47 PM
No, nothing of the sort.

You claim to have the right to steal from me to support a government that no longer has my consent to govern me.

Not that it cares in the least about my consent or not.

Officer Friendly will be by to make sure it has my consent.

I'm sorry, but no one can change the laws of nature.

Christian Liberty
05-04-2013, 05:48 PM
No, nothing of the sort.

You claim to have the right to steal from me to support a government that no longer has my consent to govern me.

Not that it cares in the least about my consent or not.

Officer Friendly will be by to make sure it has my consent.

Would you consent to my government?;)


Just kidding, I don't want to rule anyway. I may acknowledge some government as a necessary evil, but I still personally want nothing to do with any kind of evil.

Still though, would you consent to a minarchist government?

Anti Federalist
05-04-2013, 05:54 PM
Would you consent to my government?;)


Just kidding, I don't want to rule anyway. I may acknowledge some government as a necessary evil, but I still personally want nothing to do with any kind of evil.

Still though, would you consent to a minarchist government?

Given no alternative but authoritarianism and minarchism, I'd certainly choose the latter.

Christian Liberty
05-04-2013, 06:20 PM
Given no alternative but authoritarianism and minarchism, I'd certainly choose the latter.

Given no alternative between authoritarianism and anarchy, I'd also choose the latter.

I remember you saying you're opposed to road privatization. How can you hold that position AND be opposed to all government?

heavenlyboy34
05-04-2013, 06:25 PM
Given no alternative between authoritarianism and anarchy, I'd also choose the latter.

I remember you saying you're opposed to road privatization. How can you hold that position AND be opposed to all government?
I sense a smackdown from AF coming soon...
http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/content/167278.gif

Christian Liberty
05-04-2013, 06:31 PM
I sense a smackdown from AF coming soon...
http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/content/167278.gif

Umm.... I was asking an honest question. I wasn't trying to win a point. "Smacking down" would probably be mean in that context...

Admittedly, I'm not the expert on the nuances of libertarian ideology. I usually leave that stuff to the more qualified.

heavenlyboy34
05-04-2013, 06:37 PM
Umm.... I was asking an honest question. I wasn't trying to win a point. "Smacking down" would probably be mean in that context...

Admittedly, I'm not the expert on the nuances of libertarian ideology. I usually leave that stuff to the more qualified.
Well, AF tends to provide dramatic, spectacular replies to this sort of thing. Popcorn-worthy. :) I was also kind of reading a bit of aggression/forum drama into your post. My fault, sorry.

fr33
05-04-2013, 06:38 PM
Umm.... I was asking an honest question. I wasn't trying to win a point. "Smacking down" would probably be mean in that context...

Admittedly, I'm not the expert on the nuances of libertarian ideology. I usually leave that stuff to the more qualified.

He just wanted to post that pic :D

Christian Liberty
05-04-2013, 06:39 PM
Well, AF tends to provide dramatic, spectacular replies to this sort of thing. Popcorn-worthy. :) I was also kind of reading a bit of aggression/forum drama into your post. My fault, sorry.

None intended. If you want to see what I look like when I'm aggressive, just check the eighth page...

I was just honestly curious how AF reconciles the two.

Professor8000
05-04-2013, 07:46 PM
Anarchy, the idea that being a decent human being doesn't require coercion.

Anti Federalist
05-04-2013, 07:50 PM
He just wanted to post that pic :D

I think so as well.

:D

Christian Liberty
05-04-2013, 07:52 PM
Anarchy, the idea that being a decent human being doesn't require coercion.

A notion which the high number of authoritarians in this world disproves...

Anti Federalist
05-04-2013, 07:52 PM
Umm.... I was asking an honest question. I wasn't trying to win a point. "Smacking down" would probably be mean in that context...

Admittedly, I'm not the expert on the nuances of libertarian ideology. I usually leave that stuff to the more qualified.

It would be mean...

To be honest, I really don't have a good answer for that right now.

And that is one of those stumbling blocks that I fall over when trying to embrace anarchy.

The idea of people being forced off their land for others to reap benefits is repugnant to me, no matter how it's sliced.

Professor8000
05-04-2013, 08:16 PM
A notion which the high number of authoritarians in this world disproves...

It disproves nothing. The high number of authoritarians only proves that the vast majority of people are conditioned to revere ignorance, sloth, and disrespect for others as virtues. The information revolution has seen a drastic shift as people now have resources to break free from this state instituted conditioning. People are conditioned to think that way, it is actually unnatural for people to involve third parties in their interpersonal interactions. Conflict resolution is one of the very few things that people involve third parties, and this can be done without government.

SkepticalMetal
05-04-2013, 08:32 PM
It disproves nothing. The high number of authoritarians only proves that the vast majority of people are conditioned to revere ignorance, sloth, and disrespect for others as virtues. The information revolution has seen a drastic shift as people now have resources to break free from this state instituted conditioning. People are conditioned to think that way, it is actually unnatural for people to involve third parties in their interpersonal interactions. Conflict resolution is one of the very few things that people involve third parties, and this can be done without government.
Agreed. A few hundred years ago, people never thought we'd get past the evils of monarchy and burning "infidels" at the stake, but knowledge gradually took us steps in the right direction. The fact that the majority of people at that time thought it was fine didn't prove it was right one bit.

Christian Liberty
05-04-2013, 08:32 PM
It would be mean...

To be honest, I really don't have a good answer for that right now.

And that is one of those stumbling blocks that I fall over when trying to embrace anarchy.

The idea of people being forced off their land for others to reap benefits is repugnant to me, no matter how it's sliced.

That's fine, I don't have a great answer to everything either. It probably doesn't matter either since we agree 95% of the time.

I don't see how privatizing the roads that currently exist would lead to anyone being pushed off their land.

SkepticalMetal
05-04-2013, 08:35 PM
It would be mean...

To be honest, I really don't have a good answer for that right now.

And that is one of those stumbling blocks that I fall over when trying to embrace anarchy.

The idea of people being forced off their land for others to reap benefits is repugnant to me, no matter how it's sliced.
...Where in the world does ANY anarcho-capitalist literature ever state that people must be forced off of their land? If anything, that is one of the most anti-Rothbardian notions ever.

Anti Federalist
05-04-2013, 08:37 PM
That's fine, I don't have a great answer to everything either. It probably doesn't matter either since we agree 95% of the time.

I don't see how privatizing the roads that currently exist would lead to anyone being pushed off their land.

Private means for profit.

People had their land taken from them to build them.

People had their taxes stolen from them to pay for them.

I'm opposed to now turning that over to "private" concerns to make profit off of.

Not to mention the fact that I have no recourse if the owner tosses me off his road because he doesn't like the color of my car.

Anti Federalist
05-04-2013, 08:38 PM
...Where in the world does ANY anarcho-capitalist literature ever state that people must be forced off of their land? If anything, that is one of the most anti-Rothbardian notions ever.

How do you build a road over land that somebody will not sell?

fr33
05-04-2013, 08:42 PM
How do you build a road over land that somebody will not sell?

You build it around them.

SkepticalMetal
05-04-2013, 08:45 PM
How do you build a road over land that somebody will not sell?
How will the poor get healthcare without someone being robbed at gunpoint by the IRS? How will gun violence be stopped without gun control? The point is that I don't pretend to know how a stateless society will play out. It's not about the planning of an organized society so much as it is what's right and what isn't. For further explanation of what it means to be an anarcho-capitalist, see here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/kinsella/kinsella15.html

Really, anarcho-capitalism exists in the sense that it doesn't, to quote DanMuff from the LibertyHQ forums. As an AnCap, you don't seek the full abolishing of rights violations as much as you seek to recognize their existence and speak out against them. We do this in the same way that nobody worth his or her salt thinks we're ever going to have a crime-free society, but nobody denies that we should try to prevent it.

Christian Liberty
05-04-2013, 08:47 PM
Or over it. You don't own everything up to space...

That said, AF is right that the land was already stolen. If we can actually figure out who it was stolen from, the least we can do is give that section of the road to the wronged party (Or their logical heirs.)

Just because a road owner COULD toss you off his road because he didn't like the color of your car doesn't mean he would. I highly doubt most people would like that road owner very much. He may well be boycotted. Same way any business owner that violated CRA 1964 would likely be boycotted even if the law was repealed.

I support getting rid of eminent domain completely but I don't know that we can right every single wrong that was already done. I'm willing to make an exception for certain political figures. Eminent domain everything the statists have and give it back to the people.

Anti Federalist
05-04-2013, 08:49 PM
Or over it. You don't own everything up to space...

That said, AF is right that the land was already stolen. If we can actually figure out who it was stolen from, the least we can do is give that section of the road to the wronged party (Or their logical heirs.)

Just because a road owner COULD toss you off his road because he didn't like the color of your car doesn't mean he would. I highly doubt most people would like that road owner very much. He may well be boycotted. Same way any business owner that violated CRA 1964 would likely be boycotted even if the law was repealed.

I support getting rid of eminent domain completely but I don't know that we can right every single wrong that was already done. I'm willing to make an exception for certain political figures. Eminent domain everything the statists have and give it back to the people.

I don't think so...he would have a monopoly.

There would be no market incentive for the owner to "do the right thing".

It's not like you have a 100 competetitors to choose from.

Christian Liberty
05-04-2013, 08:52 PM
Who says we sell all of the roads to one person?

Anti Federalist
05-04-2013, 08:54 PM
Who says we sell all of the roads to one person?

Well, OK, then I'm good until I reach XYZ Corp's road, who insists that I install a GPS tracking device to monitor me the whole time.

Christian Liberty
05-04-2013, 09:00 PM
Well, OK, then I'm good until I reach XYZ Corp's road, who insists that I install a GPS tracking device to monitor me the whole time.

Why couldn't you choose a different road?

Why would he insist on that?

Granted, I still acknowledge the problem you describe, and I don't really know what to do about it. The government obviously agresses against innocent people on the roads all the time, and that's even by my somewhat less hardcore standards of what should be allowed on the roada.

Nothing's perfect, but State power is NOT a solution. I'm curious what your solution would be, if you devised one?

Henry Rogue
05-04-2013, 09:11 PM
FreedomFantastic, To me roads are not the argument. The bigger government gets the more involved it gets in our society (economy). Bigger government means bigger roads. The thing is, roads can come about if it's mutually beneficial to people, much like an exchange between two people. Let me give an example, I come from a farming community. Farm has been in the family since the 1850s, the surrounding farms also have been there as long. The roads where placed by the early farmers along their borders and sometimes right between the house and the barn. The farmers had produce and that produce had to get to market. They cooperated. Maybe some stubborn hermit didn't want the road, so they went around him. Things got done. Not the most efficient, effective or straightest roads, but so what it worked. Even today when the winter winds are constantly filling large drifts across the roads and the county just gives up on plowing them until the wind dies down. Farmers are blowing paths through to keep the roads open and pulling commuters (who are driving home from their jobs in the city) out of the drifts in the center of the roads. They don't get reimbursed for it and they still pay their taxes on the roads. They just do it. To me the argument is this, can human nature allow for a governance vacuum? There will always be people who want to control others and there will always be people who will give up there self control to satisfy envies, fears, greed etc. But instead of concerning yourself with definitions of every subgroup in the liberty movement, Know that we are all working in whatever way we can to shrink this Goliath and restore as much individual Liberty as we can and that is the truly important thing here.

Christian Liberty
05-04-2013, 09:14 PM
FreedomFantastic, To me roads are not the argument. The bigger government gets the more involved it gets in our society (economy). Bigger government means bigger roads. The thing is, roads can come about if it's mutually beneficial to people, much like an exchange between two people. Let me give an example, I come from a farming community. Farm has been in the family since the 1850s, the surrounding farms also have been there as long. The roads where placed by the early farmers along their borders and sometimes right between the house and the barn. The farmers had produce and that produce had to get to market. They cooperated. Maybe some stubborn hermit didn't want the road, so they went around him. Things got done. Not the most efficient, effective or straightest roads, but so what it worked. Even today when the winter winds are constantly filling large drifts across the roads and the county just gives up on plowing them until the wind dies down. Farmers are blowing paths through to keep the roads open and pulling commuters (who are driving home from their jobs in the city) out of the drifts in the center of the roads. They don't get reimbursed for it and they still pay there taxes on the roads. They just do it. To me the argument is this, can human nature allow for a governance vacuum? There will always be people who want to control others and there will always be people who will give up there self control to satisfy envies, fears, greed etc. But instead of concerning yourself with definitions of every subgroup in the liberty movement, Know that we are all working in whatever way we can to shrink this Goliath and restore as much individual Liberty as we can and that is the truly important thing here.

I was just honestly curious how AF reconciled his views on those two things. Ultimately this issue doesn't matter nearly as much as ending the War on Drugs, sending our troops home, repealing all the gun "laws", destroying the FED, destroying the ponzi scheme entitlements system, and rolling back our Federal Government (At least) to its constitutional limits.

Henry Rogue
05-04-2013, 09:28 PM
I was just honestly curious how AF reconciled his views on those two things. Ultimately this issue doesn't matter nearly as much as ending the War on Drugs, sending our troops home, repealing all the gun "laws", destroying the FED, destroying the ponzi scheme entitlements system, and rolling back our Federal Government (At least) to its constitutional limits. I understand that and that's okay. I just wanted to give you my perspective and personal dilemmas I face. I also hope that you and others don't get sidetracked on whats important. Liberty Youth is our Liberty future.

heavenlyboy34
05-04-2013, 09:30 PM
I don't think so...he would have a monopoly.

Their would be no market incentive for the owner to "do the right thing".

It's not like you have a 100 competetitors to choose from.
Nope. The road owner sells billboard space next to the road. Keeping people off the road for no good reason causes income loss, as advertisers will go elsewhere.

Besides, what's the incentive for municipalities, etc to "do the right thing"? Nothing happens to them despite the fact that US infrastructure is falling apart. (http://www.marketplace.org/topics/economy/us-infrastructure-gets-d)

Christian Liberty
05-04-2013, 10:04 PM
I understand that and that's okay. I just wanted to give you my perspective and personal dilemmas I face. I also hope that you and others don't get sidetracked on whats important. Liberty Youth is our Liberty future.

Yeah, I agree. I talk about the foreign wars and War on Drugs (Against both) all the time. I rarely bother to address this one. If the only illegitimate power the government possessed was to own the roads, I could live with that.

As for the bolded part: Yeah, thanks to Ron Paul and the internet on my part. Its sometimes a lonely journey, which is why I love this forum so much.

Henry Rogue
05-04-2013, 10:36 PM
Yeah, I agree. I talk about the foreign wars and War on Drugs (Against both) all the time. I rarely bother to address this one. If the only illegitimate power the government possessed was to own the roads, I could live with that.

As for the bolded part: Yeah, thanks to Ron Paul and the internet on my part. Its sometimes a lonely journey, which is why I love this forum so much. You should have been here when RoyL was here. You'd really have your work cut out for you then. :D

paulbot24
05-04-2013, 11:13 PM
There usually is not a compelling "incentive" to do the right thing. That doesn't mean that people wouldn't under the right conditions because none of us have lived under the right conditions. We have never really been free. Too many laws and the hopelessness that comes from knowing we're purposely limited to a very narrow set of options to keep us numb and controlled is slowly turned humans into cold, detached, arrogant and selfish little creatures who bicker and backstab, and would rather squabble with each other than know each other. The astronomical number of laws, codes, rules, and regulations, combined with the associated guilt and fears that we are programmed to feel when we do not abide by them causes many to spend much of their time looking for tiny loopholes and creative ways to sneak by, circumvent, and exploit the system and those that are always telling us what we can and can not eat/drink/ingest/think/believe/enjoy/attempt.....It is our adult defense mechanism that is being repressed and trying to surface but can't because we are treated like children our whole lives. This "You must love your masters and ask for a permission slip for everything" society also churns out another large group of people that are not encouraged or taught the satisfaction and confidence that you only get from sustained effort and achievement. Instead they learn to sit in the corner and let somebody else handle things, pay for things, do things for them, and eventually unable or unwilling to contribute because they have no belief in themselves. Many in the first group that wind up getting into trouble quickly wind up in the second group. The State not only doesn't seem bothered by this disturbing trend, it embraces it. Petty superficial people and hopeless people are easily manipulated. They might be surprised to see what humans are capable of and are willing to do for each other when we are finally given the chance to choose for themselves. Maybe that is what they fear the most.

heavenlyboy34
05-04-2013, 11:34 PM
There usually is not a compelling "incentive" to do the right thing. That doesn't mean that people wouldn't under the right conditions because none of us have lived under the right conditions. We have never really been free. Too many laws and the hopelessness that comes from knowing we're purposely limited to a very narrow set of options to keep us numb and controlled is slowly turned humans into cold, detached, arrogant and selfish little creatures who bicker and backstab, and would rather squabble with each other than know each other. The astronomical number of laws, codes, rules, and regulations, combined with the associated guilt and fears that we are programmed to feel when we do not abide by them causes many to spend much of their time looking for tiny loopholes and creative ways to sneak by, circumvent, and exploit the system and those that are always telling us what we can and can not eat/drink/ingest/think/believe/enjoy/attempt.....It is our adult defense mechanism that is being repressed and trying to surface but can't because we are treated like children our whole lives. This "You must love your masters and ask for a permission slip for everything" society also churns out another large group of people that are not encouraged or taught the satisfaction and confidence that you only get from sustained effort and achievement. Instead they learn to sit in the corner and let somebody else handle things, pay for things, do things for them, and eventually unable or unwilling to contribute because they have no belief in themselves. Many in the first group that wind up getting into trouble quickly wind up in the second group. The State not only doesn't seem bothered by this disturbing trend, it embraces it. Petty superficial people and hopeless people are easily manipulated. They might be surprised to see what humans are capable of and are willing to do for each other when we are finally given the chance to choose for themselves. Maybe that is what they fear the most.
This is a great post! The bolded reminds me very much of my sister. She is perfectly capable of getting more work, becoming independent, and self-actualizing. However, she prefers to work part time, take various types of welfare, and mooch off our parents (and makes a mess of our parents' house, btw). It's really sad. From my observation (totally biased and unscientific), there will be at least one new Lost Generation in the sense that the vast majority will be under-achievers and slackers.

jclay2
05-05-2013, 12:11 AM
there will be at least one new Lost Generation in the sense that the vast majority will be under-achievers and slackers.

So does this mean that active learners and productive workers will see more relative benefit than the past?

Shikari
05-05-2013, 12:20 AM
I usually remain silent during the "indivisible" part. Sometime I don't pledge in general but my allegiance is to liberty NOT a flag.

Professor8000
05-05-2013, 01:29 AM
Well, OK, then I'm good until I reach XYZ Corp's road, who insists that I install a GPS tracking device to monitor me the whole time.

Simple toll systems would be far cheaper to manage than dealing with gps and its massive data flows. There wouldn't be much value in tracking specific individuals but rather aggregate data could be used in by various research companies without the need for the identification information. Driving is much different than shopping habits.

Professor8000
05-05-2013, 01:44 AM
Private means for profit.

People had their land taken from them to build them.

People had their taxes stolen from them to pay for them.

I'm opposed to now turning that over to "private" concerns to make profit off of.

Not to mention the fact that I have no recourse if the owner tosses me off his road because he doesn't like the color of my car.

The privatization of the Road System would be the most humane thing to do in the current situation. It would end the use of the "Imminent Domain" excuse to steal people's land, it would end the funding by theft system that keeps the roads maintained, and most importantly, it would allow the market to decide how to efficiently manage the roadways. It really sucks either way for the people who's lands and money were stolen, but I'll be damned if someone uses that as a fucking excuse to continue this bullshit. Honestly AF, if you are going to support socialism, get a better fucking argument.

P.S. the recourse for the owner tossing you off of his road would be to not drive on his road, it is a shitty business model to exclude people from your business.

I'm not hating on you AF, but that is a really shitty argument.

bolil
05-05-2013, 01:52 AM
Let us get away from pragmatism, and back to principle. I own me? Right? I, alone, can lift my hand. I, alone, can speak my voice. Should I, alone, not be benefactor of my effort?

I pledge allegiance, to the bullshit
that pervades this aberration
and to the system, that is built upon
One lie, under surveillance
with liberty and justice for few.

Every day I get closer to anarchy.

Professor8000
05-05-2013, 03:12 AM
Let us get away from pragmatism, and back to principle. I own me? Right? I, alone, can lift my hand. I, alone, can speak my voice. Should I, alone, not be benefactor of my effort?

I pledge allegiance, to the bullshit
that pervades this aberration
and to the system, that is built upon
One lie, under surveillance
with liberty and justice for few.

Every day I get closer to anarchy.

Go ahead and take the leap. You will find that your morals will no longer be compromised by systems you support. Besides, we have the most amazing cookies. ;)

SkepticalMetal
05-05-2013, 07:56 AM
The privatization of the Road System would be the most humane thing to do in the current situation. It would end the use of the "Imminent Domain" excuse to steal people's land, it would end the funding by theft system that keeps the roads maintained, and most importantly, it would allow the market to decide how to efficiently manage the roadways. It really sucks either way for the people who's lands and money were stolen, but I'll be damned if someone uses that as a fucking excuse to continue this bullshit. Honestly AF, if you are going to support socialism, get a better fucking argument.

P.S. the recourse for the owner tossing you off of his road would be to not drive on his road, it is a shitty business model to exclude people from your business.

I'm not hating on you AF, but that is a really shitty argument.
Nothing he says justifies his views.

Henry Rogue
05-05-2013, 08:25 AM
Nothing he says justifies his views.
That seems harsh and unnecessary.

Danan
05-05-2013, 08:30 AM
You build it around them.

Here is how "communist" China dealt with that issue:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-V1l0CCAAxrI/ULrE_qoXGfI/AAAAAAAAKT4/zOik0KHf9Jw/s640/China%2Bhome%2Bin%2Bthe%2Bmiddle%2Bof%2Bthe%2Bhigh way%2B1.jpg

:D

Still way better than what Western "capitalist" countries are doing (which is dragging you out of your home and flat out stealing it from you.)

MelissaWV
05-05-2013, 08:32 AM
http://www.mikechurch.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/bugs-bunny-freeway2-612x300.jpg?84cd58

Danan
05-05-2013, 08:47 AM
Well, OK, then I'm good until I reach XYZ Corp's road, who insists that I install a GPS tracking device to monitor me the whole time.

The real question is if the government or the private road owner is more likely to require that from you. And whom you'd be more likely to escape.

I can also imagine a scenario where local governments own roads and the regulations on those roads are based on majority vote of it's owners - the citizens of that town/district. However, it would have to be funded voluntarily to be in line with anarcho-capitalism, which I believe could be possible. A poll or voting tax as the sole revenue stream for this kind of government could work. Or as "charity" in a kickstarter-esque way where money can be pledged and is only transfered once a certain sum is reached, maybe publically to get some kind of recognition for your high contribution, or whatever.

There are also other options, like local business man and maybe home owners each owning the piece of road next to their property and managing it with some common sense ("enforced" by social pressure), or whatever.

Also, if both a government and a private road owner would install a GPS tracking system, it's much more likely that the government would use it for other, evil purposes, whereas the private road owner likely wouldn't care for your driving habits unless it's really about paying for the road.

Of course an anarcho-capitalist society would be far from perfect too. I'm 100% certain that it would be better than what we have today. At least if we could reach it peacefully by slowly progressing from a minarchist state.

Danan
05-05-2013, 08:54 AM
Also, don't forget that without governments, we'd already have flying cars. :p

Henry Rogue
05-05-2013, 09:25 AM
The privatization of the Road System would be the most humane thing to do in the current situation. It would end the use of the "Imminent Domain" excuse to steal people's land, it would end the funding by theft system that keeps the roads maintained, and most importantly, it would allow the market to decide how to efficiently manage the roadways. It really sucks either way for the people who's lands and money were stolen, but I'll be damned if someone uses that as a fucking excuse to continue this bullshit. Honestly AF, if you are going to support socialism, get a better fucking argument.

P.S. the recourse for the owner tossing you off of his road would be to not drive on his road, it is a shitty business model to exclude people from your business.

I'm not hating on you AF, but that is a really shitty argument.
You could point out, that if there wasn't any government, businesses could not use imminent domain to force people to sell. since that tool is manufactured by government. IMHO there is a false dichotomy played out every time roads are brought up. The choice is either government or business operated roads. I think there are four or five choices each with its own positives and negatives. Government with its large extensive network, but overpriced, unfair and tyrannical. Business owned which could be manifested in two ways one with a government in place and one without. The first a possibly manipulated market and the second a Free Market. The first could be a better run, better maintained and cheaper but, still tyrannical since imminent domain could still exist and government could put pressures on the business to comply to the governments will. I think the second would look more closely to what you envision. Next the commons owned and operated by no one, which I believe is the worst solution as no one has stake in its upkeep or success and if its truly voluntary then it would probably be very segmented. The last is a cooperative network, arising through needs of the property owners. Where Property owners network together for mutual benefit. This could be somewhat chaotic as one property owner may have a paved road, kept plowed in the winter and the next may have a dirt road that is drifted over. I think this is a likely choice in a frontier location and time where and when government was unnoticeable. People had to rely on themselves and cooperate.

bolil
05-05-2013, 09:42 AM
You could point out, that if there wasn't any government, businesses could not use imminent domain to force people to sell. since that tool is manufactured by government. IMHO there is a false dichotomy played out every time roads are brought up. The choice is either government or business operated roads. I think there are four or five choices each with its own positives and negatives. Government with its large extensive network, but overpriced, unfair and tyrannical. Business owned which could be manifested in two ways one with a government in place and one without. The first a possibly manipulated market and the second a Free Market. The first could be a better run, better maintained and cheaper but, still tyrannical since imminent domain could still exist and government could put pressures on the business to comply to the governments will. I think the second would look more closely to what you envision. Next the commons owned and operated by no one, which I believe is the worst solution as no one has stake in its upkeep or success and if its truly voluntary then it would probably be very segmented. The last is a cooperative network, arising through needs of the property owners. Where Property owners network together for mutual benefit. This could be somewhat chaotic as one property owner may have a paved road, kept plowed in the winter and the next may have a dirt road that is drifted over. I think this is a likely choice in a frontier location and time where and when government was unnoticeable. People had to rely on themselves and cooperate.
I think that even without government, roads would become collectively owned. It is just the most efficient way. Of course, without government, money TAKEN ostensibly to fix potholes here wouldn't actually be spent to create potholes there.

Henry Rogue
05-05-2013, 09:54 AM
I think that even without government, roads would become collectively owned. It is just the most efficient way. Of course, without government, money TAKEN ostensibly to fix potholes here wouldn't actually be spent to create potholes there.
Collectively owned is government or at least a major component of government. Which goes back to my previous question in a post, can human nature allow for a governance vacuum?

bolil
05-05-2013, 10:06 AM
Collectively owned is government or at least a major component of government. Which goes back to my previous question in a post, can human nature allow for a governance vacuum?

No its not. Government is defined best not by collectivism but by possessing a monopoly of 'sanctioned' force/violence.

I've no issue with a communist, or any sort of collectivist for that matter, so long as they don't attempt to force me into their commune. This is where Rothbard really hits the nail on the proverbial head. A steady wrist that man had.

Stocks are a form of collectivism, allbeit a voluntary form.

satchelmcqueen
05-05-2013, 10:12 AM
both of my kids have refused to stand and say it since about the 7th grade. theyve never had a problem although 1 teacher did ask them to explain why, to which she responded "and that is your right to not do so."

a few of my sons friends joined him over the years by not standing. both kids told me it weas because they always heard me listening to ron paul videos and it made them think about what allegiance to a bad government meant. all of this when they were 13!!

i have smart kids.

edit: my sons explanation was because he didnt believe our government was for the people so he wasnt going to be a part of pledging to them.

MelissaWV
05-05-2013, 10:16 AM
both of my kids have refused to stand and say it since about the 7th grade. theyve never had a problem although 1 teacher did ask them to explain why, to which she responded "and that is your right to not do so."

a few of my sons friends joined him over the years by not standing. both kids told me it weas because they always heard me listening to ron paul videos and it made them think about what allegiance to a bad government meant. all of this when they were 13!!

i have smart kids.

I tended to treat it like I would a prayer when I'm visiting someone else's house of worship. I stood, but I did not hand-over-heart, and I did not say the Pledge. I do respect the idea of the Republic, and those who died to create it, and those who have genuinely died to defend it (note: I do not mean every single "hero soldier" here), so even now I would probably just stand, quietly.

I'm glad your kiddos not only sat, though, but had explanations for it. Some will sit just to make a statement, or because they don't feel like standing up. The explanation is the part that makes me so proud of your children!

Anti Federalist
05-05-2013, 11:24 AM
That seems harsh and unnecessary.

It was, but I'm used to it...

I remain unconvinced...projects such as this would require the use of eminent domain and I refuse to support such action for the benefit of private individuals.

The "private" can tyrannize you as easily as the government can.

The notion that a nominal government venture cannot provide good, cheap service, is not true.

My electricty is provided through a town run electric grid co-op, where our rates and black out times are much lower than surrounding towns served by the private monopoly.

I'm always, at all times, about maximizing the liberty of the individual. That includes disallowing the seizure of private property for private profit.

heavenlyboy34
05-05-2013, 11:32 AM
It was, but I'm used to it...

I remain unconvinced...projects such as this would require the use of eminent domain and I refuse to support such action for the benefit of private individuals.

The "private" can tyrannize you as easily as the government can.

The notion that a nominal government venture cannot provide good, cheap service, is not true.

My electricty is provided through a town run electric grid co-op, where our rates and black out times are much lower than surrounding towns served by the private monopoly.

I'm always, at all times, about maximizing the liberty of the individual. That includes disallowing the seizure of private property for private profit.
Well, if the public service is sponsored by voluntary donations and such (like NPR), it doesn't bother me so much. As long as the option for opting out exists, fine and dandy. :)

Henry Rogue
05-05-2013, 01:35 PM
No its not. Government is defined best not by collectivism but by possessing a monopoly of 'sanctioned' force/violence.

I've no issue with a communist, or any sort of collectivist for that matter, so long as they don't attempt to force me into their commune. This is where Rothbard really hits the nail on the proverbial head. A steady wrist that man had.

Stocks are a form of collectivism, allbeit a voluntary form.
+ rep, You got me there, but then I must ask is the stock market efficient? People can't even inside trade.

Galileo Galilei
05-05-2013, 03:14 PM
There is a big difference between the words of the Pledge, and the fact that the government has children read it in school. But you can;t blame the words of the Pledge for that.

SkepticalMetal
05-05-2013, 03:55 PM
There is a big difference between the words of the Pledge, and the fact that the government has children read it in school. But you can;t blame the words of the Pledge for that.
So the fact that kids are forced to say it every morning in school by the state has nothing to do with it's contents regarding the state? That flag that the Pledge talks about also flew over Hiroshima and Nagasaki as the two cities were bombed. If you truly believe what the Pledge says, then that is, as I said before, statism. It may preach a republic but what does this have to do with anything? Numerous tyrannical states have been republics.

You have barely responded to any of the points I have made. Again, nothing you say justifies your views.

heavenlyboy34
05-05-2013, 04:13 PM
So does this mean that active learners and productive workers will see more relative benefit than the past?
It's certainly possible if they tap into clever ways of working around the multitude of barriers the regime has erected. And technology seems to be making that easier. :D Decentralization FTW!

heavenlyboy34
05-05-2013, 04:15 PM
So the fact that kids are forced to say it every morning in school by the state has nothing to do with it's contents regarding the state? That flag that the Pledge talks about also flew over Hiroshima and Nagasaki as the two cities were bombed. If you truly believe what the Pledge says, then that is, as I said before, statism. It may preach a republic but what does this have to do with anything? Numerous tyrannical states have been republics.

You have barely responded to any of the points I have made. Again, nothing you say justifies your views.
Not to mention the horrifying firebombing in Germany. :(

Galileo Galilei
05-05-2013, 04:17 PM
So the fact that kids are forced to say it every morning in school by the state has nothing to do with it's contents regarding the state? That flag that the Pledge talks about also flew over Hiroshima and Nagasaki as the two cities were bombed. If you truly believe what the Pledge says, then that is, as I said before, statism. It may preach a republic but what does this have to do with anything? Numerous tyrannical states have been republics.

You have barely responded to any of the points I have made. Again, nothing you say justifies your views.

The Pledge says the state should be a republic, not a democracy or a monarchy or socialist or Communion or a military dictatorship. You got a problem with that?

SkepticalMetal
05-05-2013, 04:20 PM
If it says it should be some sort of government that taxes it's people, then yes, I do see a problem with it.

Galileo Galilei
05-05-2013, 04:29 PM
If it says it should be some sort of government that taxes it's people, then yes, I do see a problem with it.

In the 1880s, there were hardly any taxes at all, it was one of the smallest governments known in human history, federal spending was only 2% of GDP.

SkepticalMetal
05-05-2013, 04:39 PM
In the 1880s, there were hardly any taxes at all, it was one of the smallest governments known in human history, federal spending was only 2% of GDP.
We don't appear to be going anywhere here. I'm sorry but I can't continue to respond to your short posts which rarely seem to respond to my posts in whole.

Professor8000
05-05-2013, 06:04 PM
It was, but I'm used to it...

I remain unconvinced...projects such as this would require the use of eminent domain and I refuse to support such action for the benefit of private individuals.

The "private" can tyrannize you as easily as the government can.

The notion that a nominal government venture cannot provide good, cheap service, is not true.

My electricty is provided through a town run electric grid co-op, where our rates and black out times are much lower than surrounding towns served by the private monopoly.

I'm always, at all times, about maximizing the liberty of the individual. That includes disallowing the seizure of private property for private profit.

A system that requires the "right" people to work well is not a good system. This is why the government sucks at every good thing they try to do. Road projects do not require imminent domain. They require adjacent strips of land only. With a free market system, it would probably take a very long time to plan long stretches of new road, but that is the price of voluntarism. Like I said before, running a business by being a tyrant to your customers is not a good way to do business. I highly doubt owners of roads would ever deny access to their roads to vehicles that aren't too big/heavy for the road. People who break the rules set by the owner will probably be charged more, but that is better than being taken to court by the government for breaking the traffic code.

Galileo Galilei
05-05-2013, 07:03 PM
We don't appear to be going anywhere here. I'm sorry but I can't continue to respond to your short posts which rarely seem to respond to my posts in whole.

You have launched an attack on the United States as it was post-civil war and pre-1913. That is unacceptable.

Ender
05-05-2013, 07:11 PM
The Pledge says the state should be a republic, not a democracy or a monarchy or socialist or Communion or a military dictatorship. You got a problem with that?

The Pledge was written by a socialist to take advantage of the results of the "Civil War" (actually the War Between the States). The united States that had come together after the Revolution was destroyed because of the Civil War and this country became a corporate mercantile institution. The FED in 1913, sealed the fate of Americans.

The pledge has nothing to do with being a republic and everything to do with being in The Matrix.

So- yeah, I got a problem with that.

Galileo Galilei
05-05-2013, 07:24 PM
The Pledge was written by a socialist to take advantage of the results of the "Civil War" (actually the War Between the States). The united States that had come together after the Revolution was destroyed because of the Civil War and this country became a corporate mercantile institution. The FED in 1913, sealed the fate of Americans.

The pledge has nothing to do with being a republic and everything to do with being in The Matrix.

So- yeah, I got a problem with that.

The United States, after the civil war and pre-1913, was the freest, most prosperous society that ever existed. The Pledge celebrates that fact.

Ender
05-05-2013, 07:43 PM
The United States, after the civil war and pre-1913, was the freest, most prosperous society that ever existed. The Pledge celebrates that fact.


SOCIALIST ROOTS OF THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Pledging Allegiance to the Omnipotent Lincolnian State

by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

The US Supreme Courtís recent decision to review the constitutionality of the "under God" wording in the Pledge of Allegiance provides an occasion to educate Americans about the ideological purpose of the Pledge. A good place to start would be John Baerís book, The Pledge of Allegiance: A Centennial History, 1892-1992 (Free State Press, 1992). In it one would learn that the author of the Pledge was one Francis Bellamy, a defrocked Baptist minister from Boston who identified himself as a Christian Socialist and who preached in his pulpit that "Jesus was a socialist."

Bellamy was the cousin of Edward Bellamy, author of the extremely popular 1888 socialist fantasy, Looking Backward. In this novel the main character, Julian West, falls asleep in 1887 and awakens in the year 2000 when the socialist "utopia" has been achieved: All industry is state owned, Soviet style; everyone is an employee of the state who is conscripted at age 21 and retires at age 45; and all workers earn the same income.

Francis Bellamy said that one purpose of the Pledge of Allegiance was to help accomplish his lifelong goal of making his cousinís socialist fantasy a reality in America. He further stated that the "true reason for allegiance to the Flag" was to indoctrinate American school children in the false history of the American founding that was espoused first by Daniel Webster and, later, by Abraham Lincoln.

Lincoln falsely claimed that the states were never sovereign and that the union created the states, not the other way around. (But as Joe Sobran has remarked, the notion that the union is older than the states makes as much sense as the idea that a marriage can be older than either spouse. It is impossible for a union of two things to be older than either of the things it is a union of).

The truth is that in all of the American founding documents, including the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution, the states refer to themselves as "free and independent." The Treaty of Paris that ended the Revolutionary War was a treaty with the individual, free and independent states, not "the whole people" of the United States.
The citizens of the states understood that they were sovereign over the federal government, not the other way around, as Lincoln absurdly claimed. The sovereign states delegated a few enumerated powers to the central government, as their agent, while maintaining sovereignty for themselves.

Despite Lincolnís effort to destroy the system of federalism and statesí rights that was championed by Jefferson and other founders by waging total war on the South, many Americans still believed in the Jeffersonian statesí rights ideal as of the 1880s. Despite all the death and destruction of the war, and several subsequent decades of Lincolnian propaganda about the alleged evils of statesí rights, many Americans still viewed federalism and statesí rights as a safeguard against federal tyranny Ė just as the American founding fathers, especially Jefferson, had done.

Francis Bellamy was alarmed by this, for he understood perfectly well that the first step along the way to his socialist utopia was a consolidated or unitary state, just like the one Bismarck had created in Germany through "blood and iron," and the one Abraham Lincoln championed in the U.S. Monopoly government, in other words, was a necessary first step on the road to socialism. All semblances of the Jeffersonian philosophy of federalism and statesí rights must be destroyed.

In Bellamyís own words:

The true reason for allegiance to the Flag is the "republic for which it
stands." ... And what does that vast thing, the Republic mean? It is the concise
political word for the Nation Ė the One Nation which the Civil War was fought to
prove. To make that One Nation idea clear, we must specify that it is
indivisible, as Webster and Lincoln used to repeat in their great speeches. (See
John W. Baer, "The Pledge of
Allegiance: A Short History)."

Bellamy considered the "liberty and justice for all" phrase in the Pledge to be an Americanized version of the slogan of the French Revolution: "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity." The French revolutionaries believed that mass killing by the state was always justified if it was done for the "grand purpose" of achieving "equality." In an 1876 commencement speech Francis Bellamy praised the French Revolution as "the poetry of human brotherhood." And "what we call the Civil War," Donald Livingston has remarked, "was in fact Americaís French Revolution, and Lincoln was the first Jacobin president" (Donald Livingston, "The Litmus Test for American Conservativism," Chronicles, Jan. 2001).

Bellamy intended the Pledge of Allegiance to be a vow of allegiance to the state, a quintessentially un-American idea. He stated that he got the idea from the "loyalty oaths" that were imposed on Southerners during Lincolnís invasion of the Southern states and afterward, during Reconstruction. During the war, adult male civilians in the South were compelled to take a loyalty oath to the federal government or be shot. During Reconstruction almost all Southern white adult males were disenfranchised by the requirement that in order to vote or hold political office, they must take the following oath: "I ______ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I have never voluntarily borne arms against the United States since I have been a citizen thereof; that I have voluntarily given no aid, countenance, counsel, or encouragement to persons engaged in armed hostility thereto . . ." (Baer, The Pledge of Allegiance, Chapter 4). Few if any Southern men would dare to take this public pledge in the post-war years.

Francis Bellamy first published the Pledge of Allegiance in the September 1892 issue of The Youthís Companion, which has been described as "the Readerís Digest of its day." By that time, Bellamy had been forced to leave his Boston pulpit because of his practice of preaching socialism rather than the Gospel.

In addition to his work at the magazine, Francis Bellamy was the vice president in charge of education for the "Society of Christian Socialists," a national organization that advocated income taxation, central banking, nationalized education, nationalization of industry, and other features of socialism. In his classic book, Socialism (p. 223), Ludwig von Mises characterized Christian socialism as "merely a variety of State Socialism." Its advocates, like the Bellamy cousins, held that

Agriculture and handicraft, with perhaps small shopkeeping, are the only
admissible occupations. Trade and speculation are superfluous, injurious, and
evil. Factories and large-scale industries are a wicked invention of the "Jewish
spirit"; they produce only bad goods which are foisted on buyers by the large
stores and by other monstrosities of modern trade to the detriment of
purchasers.

The Bellamy cousins decided that American youth needed to be taught "loyalty to the state" because they realized that the individualism and the love of liberty of the American founding fathers would always stand in the way of achieving the socialist utopia that was described in Looking Backward. America supposedly suffered from too much liberty and not enough equality, said the author of the Pledge of Allegiance.

The "one nation, indivisible" wording was especially important to the Bellamy cousins, for if secession were legitimized, their pipe dream of socialism through a consolidated, monopoly government would be destroyed. This was the thinking of all the worst tyrants of the twentieth century, including Hitler and Stalin. (Hitler even quoted approvingly Lincolnís "union created the states" theory from his first inaugural address in Mein Kampf in order to make his own case for destroying federalism and statesí rights in Germany.)

The public schools must be used to teach blind obedience to the state, the Bellamys reasoned, and the National Education Association was pleased to help them accomplish this goal. They planned a "National Public School Celebration" in 1892, which was the first national propaganda campaign on behalf of the Pledge of Allegiance. It was a massive campaign that involved government schools and politicians throughout the country. The government schools were promoted, along with the Pledge, while private schools, especially parochial ones, were criticized.

Students were taught to recite the Pledge with their arms outstretched, palms up, similar to how Roman citizens were required to hail Caesar, and not too different from the way in which Nazi soldiers saluted their FŁhrer. This was the custom in American public schools from the turn of the twentieth century until around 1950, when it was apparently decided by public school officials that the Nazi-like salute was in bad taste.

The Pledge of Allegiance is an oath of allegiance to the omnipotent, Lincolnian state. Its purpose was never to inculcate in children the ideals of the American founding fathers, but those of two eccentric nineteenth-century socialists. (Not surprisingly, among its staunchest contemporary defenders and promoters are the Straussian neocon Lincoln idolaters at the Claremont Institute.)

If the Supreme Court decides that the "under God" wording in the Pledge is unconstitutional, it will be doing the right thing for the wrong reason (it does not "establish a religion"). The Pledge itself is an oath of allegiance to the central state, and the "under God" language only serves to deify the state. From the perspective of a Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, or James Madison, nothing could be more un-American. After all, they and their contemporaries had fought a long and bloody war of secession to sever their forced allegiance, complete with loyalty oaths, to another overbearing and tyrannical state, namely the British empire.

http://wwwcamdencountypatriots.blogspot.com/2010/03/socialist-roots-of-pledge-of-allegiance.html

Galileo Galilei
05-05-2013, 08:04 PM
http://wwwcamdencountypatriots.blogspot.com/2010/03/socialist-roots-of-pledge-of-allegiance.html

Bellamy really blew it then, he used the word 'republic', not socialist state.

Socialists don't set up republics, silly.

Ender
05-05-2013, 09:06 PM
Bellamy really blew it then, he used the word 'republic', not socialist state.

Socialists don't set up republics, silly.

Bellamy didn't set up the Republic.

Lincoln destroyed it and Bellamy was excited to continue with the socialist ideology.

heavenlyboy34
05-05-2013, 09:45 PM
Bellamy really blew it then, he used the word 'republic', not socialist state.

Socialists don't set up republics, silly.
LMFAO! Ever heard of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, young man?

Galileo Galilei
05-06-2013, 07:25 AM
Bellamy didn't set up the Republic.

Lincoln destroyed it and Bellamy was excited to continue with the socialist ideology.

Yeah, life really sucked in the 1880s, didn't it.

Galileo Galilei
05-06-2013, 07:26 AM
LMFAO! Ever heard of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, young man?

That was a union of republics, not an actual republic. And that cane AFTER the Pledge of allegiance. The word republic had its meaning changed by then.

pcosmar
05-06-2013, 07:38 AM
And that cane AFTER the Pledge of allegiance.

It came from the same place. Socialist/communist philosophy.

TruckinMike
05-06-2013, 07:47 AM
It came from the same place. Socialist/communist philosophy.Yep, and lets not forget Plato's Republic

Galileo Galilei
05-06-2013, 07:50 AM
It came from the same place. Socialist/communist philosophy.

The US was not a socialist/communist republic in the 1880s, federal spending was only 2% of GDP and on the way down each year.

Galileo Galilei
05-06-2013, 07:56 AM
Yep, and lets not forget Plato's Republic

Plato was pro-science, while Aristotle was anti-science. That's why Galileo destroyed Aristotle, but praised Plato. If not for Galileo, we'd still be living in the Middle Ages, and there would be no Internet.

TruckinMike
05-06-2013, 08:07 AM
Plato was pro-science, while Aristotle was anti-science. That's why Galileo destroyed Aristotle, but praised Plato. If not for Galileo, we'd still be living in the Middle Ages, and there would be no Internet.:rolleyes:


That has nothing to do with my point. For that matter it has nothing to do with pcosmar's either, to which I was responding. So blather on 'til your hearts content.

Uhg.

heavenlyboy34
05-06-2013, 09:38 AM
That was a union of republics, not an actual republic. And that cane AFTER the Pledge of allegiance. Irrelevant. Re-read your claim which I quoted.


The word republic had its meaning changed by then.
False.

re∑pub∑lic [ri-puhb-lik] Show IPA
noun1.a state in which (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/which) the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised byrepresentatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.

2.any body of persons viewed as a commonwealth.

3.a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state.

4.( initial capital letter ) any of the five periods of republican government in France. Compare First Republic (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/First%20Republic), Second Republic (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Second%20Republic), Third Republic (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Third%20Republic), Fourth Republic (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Fourth%20Republic), Fifth Republic (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Fifth%20Republic).

5.( initial capital letter, italics ) a philosophical dialogue (4th century b.c.) by Plato dealing with thecomposition and structure of the ideal state.





That word never lost its meaning. The old USSR started out with all the machinations of any other republic. That they weren't maintained is irrelevant.

Galileo Galilei
05-06-2013, 11:47 AM
Irrelevant. Re-read your claim which I quoted.


False.

re∑pub∑lic [ri-puhb-lik] Show IPA
noun1.a state in which (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/which) the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised byrepresentatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.

2.any body of persons viewed as a commonwealth.

3.a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state.

4.( initial capital letter ) any of the five periods of republican government in France. Compare First Republic (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/First%20Republic), Second Republic (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Second%20Republic), Third Republic (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Third%20Republic), Fourth Republic (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Fourth%20Republic), Fifth Republic (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Fifth%20Republic).

5.( initial capital letter, italics ) a philosophical dialogue (4th century b.c.) by Plato dealing with thecomposition and structure of the ideal state.





That word never lost its meaning. The old USSR started out with all the machinations of any other republic. That they weren't maintained is irrelevant.

The Founding Fathers did not consider a 'republic' to be a socialist state.

heavenlyboy34
05-06-2013, 12:24 PM
The Founding Fathers did not consider a 'republic' to be a socialist state.
They used the word "commonwealth" instead of socialist State. The term "socialism" hadn't been coined yet, but it had been used in one form or another throughout history prior. You're playing semantics.

ETA: The Constitution always has allowed the government to issue debt at the expense of the citizenry. This is by nature socialism. (costs and benefits are all or partially socialized). See especially article I, section 8.

helmuth_hubener
05-06-2013, 01:02 PM
I'm not a big fan of it, but of course, I'm stuck pledging to the flag in High School. If I were you, I personally would refuse to say it, refuse to stand up, and just refuse the whole farce. Have some gumption. Sit down for what you believe in.

helmuth_hubener
05-06-2013, 01:05 PM
Plato was pro-science, while Aristotle was anti-science. That's why Galileo destroyed Aristotle, but praised Plato. If not for Galileo, we'd still be living in the Middle Ages, and there would be no Internet. You are living in an extremely small fish bowl of historical facts and figures, Galileo, all of which you have blown completely out of all semblance of proportion.

Christian Liberty
11-15-2014, 04:08 PM
I'll probably agree with you someday. But sorry to disappoint you guys, I don't feel like fighting this particular battle right now with so little time yet. If I wasn't about to graduate this year, or if my parents were on my side (Their opinion does matter to me, I do sometimes have to disappoint them but I don't enjoy it) I might consider it, but right now its too much to ask for so little benefit. It wouldn't influence anyone anyway. You've got to realize I'm in NYS. That, combined with high schoolers... let me just say this. the few who are already Ron Paul fans, I'm not worried about. They may say the pledge, but I'm ultimately not worried about them. The many, MANY collectivists (I've literally SHOCKED people with my views on the CRA) in my high school wouldn't be influenced at all. Its literally the worst battleground possible. I don't have anything to gain there.

I'm going to get through it, in hopes that I can have a positive influence later on, whether that be in college, and hopefully someday as a (libertarian) college professor.


Again, you have so little time left, SO WHAT IS THERE TO LOSE?

Stop delaying your life on the thin hopes of being able to do more in the future.

I really regret some of the things I said back in 2013. The fact that I went along with the pledge and justified it would be one of those things. I did not salute the flag at my HS graduation (a month and a half after this thread) though I did stand. I became an anarcho-capitalist just a couple months after this thread.

heavenlyboy34
11-15-2014, 04:15 PM
Bellamy really blew it then, he used the word 'republic', not socialist state.

Socialists don't set up republics, silly.

The Soviets would have been surprised to learn this. (USSR=Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) I've explained this on teh forums before, but I'll do it again briefly. "Republic" is a value-free term that describes a general style of hierarchical civil government. The exact machinations of any given republic are subject to the whims of TPTB.

republic

[ri-puhb-lik]



Examples (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/source-example-sentences)
Word Origin (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/source-word-origin)


noun 1. a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.

2. any body of persons viewed as a commonwealth.

3. a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state.

4. (initial capital letter) any of the five periods of republican government in France. Compare First Republic (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/First%20Republic), Second Republic (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Second%20Republic), Third Republic (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Third%20Republic), Fourth Republic (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Fourth%20Republic), Fifth Republic (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Fifth%20Republic).


5. (initial capital letter, italics) a philosophical dialogue (4th century b.c.) by Plato dealing with the composition and structure of the ideal state.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/republic?s=t

Galileo Galilei
11-15-2014, 06:28 PM
[QUOTE=heavenlyboy34;5702138]The Soviets would have been surprised to learn this. (USSR=Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) I've explained this on teh forums before, but I'll do it again briefly. "Republic" is a value

There were no Soviets when the Pledge was written.

heavenlyboy34
11-15-2014, 06:31 PM
[QUOTE=heavenlyboy34;5702138]The Soviets would have been surprised to learn this. (USSR=Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) I've explained this on teh forums before, but I'll do it again briefly. "Republic" is a value

There were no Soviets when the Pledge was written.
So? Doesn't affect my point. We can go through history and find all sorts of socialist, fascist, and otherwise tyrannical republics if you want. Most like to start with Rome.

Galileo Galilei
11-15-2014, 06:51 PM
[QUOTE=Galileo Galilei;5702255]
So? Doesn't affect my point. We can go through history and find all sorts of socialist, fascist, and otherwise tyrannical republics if you want. Most like to start with Rome.

It does affect your point. The Pledge of Allegiance has nothing to do with socialism. Teaching that it is, is part of the liberal agenda. What you are actually doing is promoting the liberal agenda that is destroying America.

heavenlyboy34
11-15-2014, 07:09 PM
[QUOTE=heavenlyboy34;5702258]

It does affect your point. The Pledge of Allegiance has nothing to do with socialism. Teaching that it is, is part of the liberal agenda. What you are actually doing is promoting the liberal agenda that is destroying America.

Nonsense. The fascism (what he considered Christian Socialism) that Bellamy's pledge was designed to promote is promoting the statist agenda that is destroying America and the rest of the world.

heavenlyboy34
11-15-2014, 07:09 PM
[QUOTE=heavenlyboy34;5702258]

It does affect your point. The Pledge of Allegiance has nothing to do with socialism. Teaching that it is, is part of the liberal agenda. What you are actually doing is promoting the liberal agenda that is destroying America.

Nonsense. The fascism (what he considered Christian Socialism) that Bellamy's pledge was designed to promote is promoting the statist agenda that is destroying America and the rest of the world.

heavenlyboy34
11-15-2014, 07:10 PM
[QUOTE=heavenlyboy34;5702258]

It does affect your point. The Pledge of Allegiance has nothing to do with socialism. Teaching that it is, is part of the liberal agenda. What you are actually doing is promoting the liberal agenda that is destroying America.

Nonsense. The fascism (what he considered Christian Socialism) that Bellamy's pledge was designed to promote is promoting the statist agenda that is destroying America and the rest of the world.

heavenlyboy34
11-15-2014, 07:10 PM
[QUOTE=heavenlyboy34;5702258]

It does affect your point. The Pledge of Allegiance has nothing to do with socialism. Teaching that it is, is part of the liberal agenda. What you are actually doing is promoting the liberal agenda that is destroying America.

Nonsense. The fascism (what he considered Christian Socialism) that Bellamy's pledge was designed to promote is promoting the statist agenda that is destroying America and the rest of the world.

heavenlyboy34
11-15-2014, 07:12 PM
[QUOTE=heavenlyboy34;5702258]

It does affect your point. The Pledge of Allegiance has nothing to do with socialism. Teaching that it is, is part of the liberal agenda. What you are actually doing is promoting the liberal agenda that is destroying America.

Nonsense. The fascism (what he considered Christian Socialism) that Bellamy's pledge was designed to promote is promoting the statist agenda that is destroying America and the rest of the world.

Galileo Galilei
11-15-2014, 07:37 PM
[QUOTE=Galileo Galilei;5702282]

Nonsense. The fascism (what he considered Christian Socialism) that Bellamy's pledge was designed to promote is promoting the statist agenda that is destroying America and the rest of the world.

The "State" aka the federal government budget at the time of Bellamy was only 2% or 3% of GDP and trending smaller. A small state like that is a good thing.

heavenlyboy34
11-15-2014, 07:43 PM
[QUOTE=heavenlyboy34;5702309]

The "State" aka the federal government budget at the time of Bellamy was only 2% or 3% of GDP and trending smaller. A small state like that is a good thing.Relative to what? Relative to being decapitated, having one's legs smashed can be considered a "good" thing. That doesn't make it absolutely good. (remember "good" and "bad" are value statements and must be justified to be considered valid claims)

Galileo Galilei
11-15-2014, 07:52 PM
[QUOTE=Galileo Galilei;5702344]Relative to what? Relative to being decapitated, having one's legs smashed can be considered a "good" thing. That doesn't make it absolutely good. (remember "good" and "bad" are value statements and must be justified to be considered valid claims)

I said a very small central government with a budget of only 2% is a good thing.

heavenlyboy34
11-15-2014, 07:56 PM
[QUOTE=heavenlyboy34;5702351]

I said a very small central government with a budget of only 2% is a good thing.

And I asked you "relative to what?". I can haz answer?

TruckinMike
11-15-2014, 10:37 PM
[QUOTE=heavenlyboy34;5702309]

The "State" aka the federal government budget at the time of Bellamy was only 2% or 3% of GDP and trending smaller...

And precisely the reason that Francis Bellamy's socialist cousin Edward Bellamy wrote "Looking Backward: 2000-1887" ...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Looking_Backward
From wiki...
"Looking Backward: 2000-1887 is a utopian science fiction novel by Edward Bellamy, a lawyer and writer from Chicopee Falls, Massachusetts; it was first published in 1888. According to Erich Fromm, Looking Backward is "one of the most remarkable books ever published in America".[1]

It was the third-largest bestseller of its time, after Uncle Tom's Cabin and Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ.[1] It influenced a large number of intellectuals, and appears by title in many of the major Marxist writings of the day. "It is one of the few books ever published that created almost immediately on its appearance a political mass movement".[2] In the United States alone, over 162 "Bellamy Clubs" sprang up to discuss and propagate the book's ideas.[3] Owing to its commitment to the nationalization of private property, this political movement came to be known as Nationalism, not to be confused with the political concept of nationalism.[4] The novel also inspired several utopian communities."

helmuth_hubener
11-17-2014, 09:53 AM
The Pledge of Allegiance has nothing to do with socialism. Well, the author of it was a socialist. He wrote it to further a socialist agenda. These are demonstrable historical facts. Do they affect your opinion on the matter?

heavenlyboy34
11-17-2014, 09:58 AM
Well, the author of it was a socialist. He wrote it to further a socialist agenda. These are demonstrable historical facts. Do they affect your opinion on the matter?

This^^