Throw the Farce of July in the woods.

[Anti Federalist]

Uncomfortable Independence Day Questions

by eric • June 30, 2014 • 37 Comments

http://ericpetersautos.com/2014/06/30/independence-day-questions/

Here comes another Fourth of July - a good time to ask some serious questions – and ponder just how “free” we really are: Farce of July

* Why is it ok to celebrate violent resistance to a government by our wig-wearing ancestors, but “extremist” to say anything negative about government today?

* If people can’t be trusted to govern themselves, how is it that some people can be trusted to govern others?

* What’s so great about taxation with representation?

* Has anyone ever showed you the “social contract”?

* If we’re so “free,” why can’t we even celebrate our “freedom” by lighting off a few firecrackers and bottle rockets in our own backyards? They’re illegal in most states these days for ordinary citizens to even possess – let alone use.Uncle Sam pic

* If the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, why do the “interpretations” of that law by judges supersede the plain language of the Constitution?

* Why do civilian cops have military ranks? Sergeants, captains – even four-star “generals” . . . some of them have military flair (AKA “fruit salad”) too … as if they’d “served” in a war somewhere.

* If it’s wrong for me (an individual) to do something aggressively violent, how does it become right when a group does the same thing?

* Is morality merely a question of numbers and percentages?

* Does calling a thing by a different name change the nature of the thing? Does a cat become “not-cat” by dint of calling it “not-cat”? If it’s still a cat – no matter what I call it – how is it that taking someone else’s money (theft) becomes not-theft when it’s called “taxation”?

* If abortion is acceptable because it’s “the woman’s body” and thus, “her right to choose”- how come a man can’t choose to do what he likes with his body? Like choosing not to wear a helmet while riding his motorcycle, for instance?

* How come there are no “senile citizen checkpoints”?

* If the “right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” why are the people forced to get the government’s permission to keep and bear arms?

* How is it “reasonable” to stop people en masse and at random, and force them to submit to an interrogation/search?

* Why are we forced to transact our business with privately owned banks? Why is it illegal for us to exchange value for value among ourselves?

* If you have the right to not incriminate yourself, why is it considered a criminal act to decline to fill out a federal tax form?

* Did anyone ever ask you for your “consent” to be governed? What if you do not consent?

* Why is an officer’s “safety” more important than your safety?

* If the “civil” war was fought to free the slaves, how come the commanding general of the Union Army, Ulysses S. Grant, owned a black man while he waged war on the South? (He freed the poor man eventually)

* If corporations are “persons,” how come you can never get one on the phone – much less put “him” in prison when he defrauds you?

* Why is it ok for big cartels like Monsanto to sell genetically modified foods on their say-so that it’s ok, but a “crime” for a local farmer to sell unpasteurized milk?

* If slavery is against the law, why is it we’re compelled to work for the benefit of others?

* Shouldn’t everywhere – anywhere – be a “free speech zone”?

* If you own your home, why must you pay rent to the government every year in order to be allowed to continue to live there?

* How come other people choosing to have sex – and choosing to have kids – imposes a financial obligation on you that’s enforceable at gunpoint, but choosing to adopt a cat and figuring out how you’ll feed him and pay for his bills is entirely your own problem?

* Why don’t school busses have to have seat belts?

* If guns are so dangerous, how come politicians are surrounded by cordons of heavily armed men?

* How did the good ol’ USA become the “homeland”?

* If you believe it’s ok to fight off a mugger, how come it’s not ok to fight off a tax collector?

* If only “Congress may declare war,” how come we’ve been “at war” (on “terror”) for going on 13 years without a congressional declaration of war?

* Why can’t DMV (or IRS) “customers” say “no thanks” to the services offered?

* How can health care be a right if someone else is forced to provide it?

* Do you suppose motorcycles would be “allowed” if they were a new invention?

* If you’re a free man, why must you obtain permission to travel, marry or work?

* How is eminent domaining a man off his land any different than simply stealing his land?

* Why are we forced to do business with, feed, house – even hang out – with people we’d avoid if we were free to do so?

Answer – hell, even read – these questions and you’ll come to grips with just how unfree we actually are this Farce of July.

Better to stay home, wear black and mourn what we’ve lost – what some of us have freely given away – than to go through the sad pantomime of celebrating our enslavement.

Throw it in the Woods...

[Anti Federalist]

http://ericpetersautos.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/police-state-2-237x300.jpg

[heavenlyboy34]

Another one-
*Why is a fair trial before a jury of one's peers virtually non-existent anymore? And why hasn't the SCOTUS been checked by a jury for some 200 years?

Throw it in the fucking woods indeed. Nice purdy fireworks shows, though. :cool:

[nayjevin]

Yeah I'm not celebrating the bullshit when I celebrate. But I still celebrate. Cause I own myself?

[heavenlyboy34]

Yeah I'm not celebrating the bullshit when I celebrate. But I still celebrate. Cause I own myself?

In Soviet Amerika, government owns you!

[presence]

http://ericpetersautos.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/police-state-2-237x300.jpg

Concerts
Sporting Events
Government Buildings
The Mall

[puppetmaster]

Damn it. ....you done ruined it for me. But I don't worry because I know that we will get even.

[XNavyNuke]

It is far more likely that the Founders would consider it a national day of mourning given how its been squandered.

"Posterity! You will never know, how much it cost the present Generation, to preserve your Freedom! I hope you will make a good Use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven, that I ever took half the Pains to preserve it." - John Adams 4/26/1777

XNN

[phill4paul]

Can't wait to celebrate freedom with a real fireworks show!

http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/n8rEnUVSBHE/hqdefault.jpg

Wohoo! Now that was spectacular. <yawn>. Bed time.

[Suzanimal]

Yeah I'm not celebrating the bullshit when I celebrate. But I still celebrate. Cause I own myself?

I still celebrate too, gives me a chance to shoot off my illegal fireworks without drawing too much attention to myself.:(

[otherone]

*Why can't we travel with cash without fear of having it confiscated?

[Suzanimal]

http://i.imgur.com/nJ4IeU9m.jpg

[dude58677]

It is a real shame all the freedoms lost!:(

[ghengis86]

We celebrate the shit out of Independence Day around here. More illegal fireworks than you can shake a stick at. Kids don't wear helmets while riding bikes. We don't ask for permission or permits for our party.

I think Independence Day is a great time to talk about the above questions and topics. It's easy to weave it into conversation; people seem more receptive on this holiday; you can drop truth bombs left and right.

I used to get funny looks from my pinko, commie, liberal, republican, conservative, neocon, sheeple neighbors when I would tell them I'm sick of renting my property from the state or that our local cops should only have one bullet in their pocket and not Bearcats from the Pentagram. Now, they're the ones telling ME how sick and tired they are of the bank bailouts, the police state, the fascist cronyism, etc.

[pcosmar]

The last July 4 parade I went to (a few years ago) reminded me of the old news reels from Nazi Germany.

all the flag waving and cheering of the military,, and blatant nationalism and rampant socialism.

It put me in a mood I never recovered from. :(

http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/2/1/8/152218_v1.jpg

Be this guy.

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

[CaptUSA]

Yeah I'm not celebrating the bullshit when I celebrate. But I still celebrate. Cause I own myself?
I agree with this. I celebrate the sacrifices and the courage of the Founders as well.

As far as the list goes... I don't pay much attention to the rules they have for us anyway.

http://37.media.tumblr.com/bb311cc58941bd125efbf9a2acf7e893/tumblr_mzbmpsA7Mt1r4cegso1_1280.png?.jpg

[donnay]

Happy Interdependence Day.

I have abstained from partaking in the festivities of this day for a few years now. I have a barbeque on the 5th with family and friends.

[Anti Federalist]

http://i.imgur.com/nJ4IeU9m.jpg

If a picture paints a thousand words...

[donnay]

If a picture paints a thousand words...


...then why can't I paint you? <S>

[Anti Federalist]

...then why can't I paint you? <S>

Because it would be a horror novel...

[JK/SEA]

think i'll raise the N. Korean flag this weekend in my backyard.........

[donnay]

Because it be a horror novel...

If a face could launch a thousand ships...

[thoughtomator]

On the bright side, for the first time in my life I live somewhere that I can safely set off fireworks.

[bunklocoempire]

I know how free I'm not (confirmed again by the article), so I think I'd better just practice some marksmanship in the back 40 and maybe invite neighbors.

[heavenlyboy34]

...then why can't I paint you? <S>
Because it would be a horror novel...
If a face could launch a thousand ships...
you kids crack me up. :D

[otherone]

If a face could launch a thousand ships...

Then where am I to go?

[limequat]

think i'll raise the N. Korean flag this weekend in my backyard.........

I've had similar ideas, but we'd only piss off our neighbors.
I like the idea of flying the US flag upside down. If people ask why, you have an in to talk about the state of the state.

[pcosmar]

think i'll raise the N. Korean flag this weekend in my backyard.........

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-vafzgoGOlGs/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAAAEE/RfrkUee5v9E/photo.jpg

H.L. Mencken

[DamianTV]

http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/a3b6biiaq0ovsot5k0trha.png

---

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-07-03/independence-day-79-americans-are-fine-current-level-tyranny

The Bad News

The bad news is that most of the country still appears to be deeply asleep. Our liberties and freedoms are eroding with each passing day, and most Americans simply do not care.

Most Americans don’t seem to care that the TSA is fondling thousands of women and children in airports all over the nation every single day.

Most Americans don’t seem to care that the NSA is recording billions of our phone calls and emails.

Most Americans don’t seem to care that our police are becoming increasingly militarized. As I wrote about the other day, there were only about 3,000 SWAT raids in the United States back in 1980. But today, there are more than 80,000 SWAT raids per year in this country.

Most Americans don’t seem to care that a baby was recently maimed for life when a police officer threw a grenade into his crib during a SWAT team raid.

Most Americans don’t seem to care that police recently tasered a man 18 times. In fact, it barely made a blip on the national news.

Most Americans don’t seem to care that the Obama administration has discussed making gun owners wear RFID tracking bracelets.

Most Americans don’t seem to care that a new California law would allow police to confiscate guns based on accusation alone.

Most Americans don’t seem to care that our public schools have been transformed into “Big Brother” indoctrination centers.

Most Americans don’t seem to care that the U.S. border is considered to be a “Constitution-free zone” where officials can freely grab your computer and copy your hard drive.

Most Americans don’t seem to care that people are being sent to prison for collecting rain water on their own property.

Most Americans don’t seem to care that facial recognition technology is being installed all over the nation.

Most Americans don’t seem to care that the Obama administration has expressed a desire to establish a national DNA database.

Most Americans don’t seem to care that our cell phones are essentially high tech surveillance devices.

Most Americans don’t seem to care that if you type the wrong thing into a search engine that the police could come knocking on your door.

Most Americans don’t seem to care that local governments all over the country are now using automated license plate readers to scan our license plates.

Most Americans don’t seem to care that the federal government is grabbing hundreds of thousands of acres of private land all over the country.

Most Americans don’t seem to care that Bible-believing Christians are regularly identified as “religious extremists” in official government training materials.

Most Americans don’t seem to care that the federal government has identified dozens of different categories of Americans as “potential terrorists“.

Most Americans don’t seem to care that we have a president that is treating the Constitution like a piece of toilet paper.

I could go on for hours, but I think that you get the point.

We are becoming a little bit more like tyrannical regimes such as Nazi Germany and North Korea with each passing day.

We aren’t there yet, but that is the path that we are on.

And once our liberties and freedoms are gone, they will be exceedingly difficult to ever get back.

...

[HOLLYWOOD]

My signature... read it ;)

BTW... want some sickening TV... the Military Channel, now revised to "American Heroes Channel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Heroes_Channel)" (AHCH) is airing 'The Revolutionary War' and it's narrated by Charles Kuralt. Well, all the commercial breaks are Military Worship... ZERO commercials or about the Revolutionary War, Independence, Constitution, fighting for individual rights, liberty, true freedom... nothing, just Military Nationalism commercials

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


So I did a check on the owners of the AHCH... lo and behold, it's owned by the USUAL propaganda SUSPECTS at THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL/COMMUNICATIONS. Discovery Communications, Inc. is an American global mass media (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_media) propaganda and entertainment company based in Silver Spring, Maryland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Spring,_Maryland).

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

Discovery Channel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Channel)
TLC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TLC_%28TV_network%29)
Hub Network (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hub_Network)
Animal Planet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Planet)
Science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_%28TV_network%29)
Investigation Discovery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigation_Discovery)
Destination America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destination_America)
Discovery Fit & Health (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Fit_%26_Health)
Velocity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_%28TV_channel%29)
Discovery en Español (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_en_Espa%C3%B1ol)
Discovery Familia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Familia)

[dude58677]

I guess I'll celebrate Cliven Bundy's victory against the BLM.:)

[pcosmar]

I guess I'll celebrate Cliven Bundy's victory against the BLM.:)

:)

[heavenlyboy34]

I guess I'll celebrate Cliven Bundy's victory against the BLM.:)

Good idea! :D

[dude58677]

I guess I'll also celebrate all the State Nullification laws being passed, the Gold Standard in Utah, having someone like Ron and Rand around esp in times like these, etc.

[Carson]

I've been getting bluer and bluer about the Fourth of July the last few years.

[nobody's_hero]

The last July 4 parade I went to (a few years ago) reminded me of the old news reels from Nazi Germany.

all the flag waving and cheering of the military,, and blatant nationalism and rampant socialism.

It put me in a mood I never recovered from. :(

http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/2/1/8/152218_v1.jpg

Be this guy.

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

+rep, I've seen that photo before but never knew the guy's name, thanks for sharing

[Deborah K]

If a face could launch a thousand ships...



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGfVOdTiUEc

I had to do it! :D Love this song btw

Happy 4th everyone! I'll spend this day aspiring to be like the people who freed us from tyranny and birthed this nation.

[donnay]

"When dictatorship is a fact, revolution becomes a right."
~ Victor Hugo

"There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world, and that is an idea whose time as come."
~ Victor Hugo

[dude58677]

I think the thing to ask ourselves is yes we did lose a lot of freedoms but who has the momentum? The freedom movement or the progressives? The last few years demonstrate that momentum shifted towards the freedom movement. There is Cliven Bundy and also the Gold Standard in Utah, etc.

[JK/SEA]

don't forget.....the progressive marxists will..and are..mobilizing as we speak...we have to crank it up....shits getting real....step up, or get the hell out of the way...

[limequat]

Just got back from my local 4th parade. There were no less than 3 groups of veterans marching. Every time, everyone as far as I could see got up on their feet and clapped. I was the only one sitting (other than my boy sitting on my lap). Blech.

I wonder if I could get the local Campaign for Liberty to march next year.

[mczerone]

The last July 4 parade I went to (a few years ago) reminded me of the old news reels from Nazi Germany.

all the flag waving and cheering of the military,, and blatant nationalism and rampant socialism.

It put me in a mood I never recovered from. :(

http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/2/1/8/152218_v1.jpg

Be this guy.

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

That mood gets reinforced for me at concerts, at parks, and restaurants, and even driving though my neighborhood.

So many flag-wavers, usa-chanters, World-Cup/Olympics-rooters-just-because-a-team-shares-MY-flag, and blind-pride-troop supporters.

They're everywhere, and that picture flashes through my head at least 5 times a day.

[Anti Federalist]

That mood gets reinforced for me at concerts, at parks, and restaurants, and even driving though my neighborhood.

So many flag-wavers, usa-chanters, World-Cup/Olympics-rooters-just-because-a-team-shares-MY-flag, and blind-pride-troop supporters.

They're everywhere, and that picture flashes through my head at least 5 times a day.

And it is not easy to "Be That Guy".

Going along with the crowd is always easier and usually more fun.

But I try, every single day.

Be that guy.

[mczerone]

Misconceptions about "the Fourth"

1) It's NOT "America's Birthday"

First, "America" is not a government. America is a landmass, specifically everything from Greenland and Nunavut in the North, down to Argentina and the Faukland Islands in the south. Part of America is North America. Part of North America is arbitrarily claimed by the United States. That's what you all are worshiping.

Second, the United States was not "born" on the 4th of July, 1776. That was a day of secession, a day that a group of individuals publicly denounced ties to the British Empire. The "United States" wasn't formed until after the war had been won, and then in a form that would be unrecognizable today: a confederation of 13 governments that centralized only foreign relations.

Please list more.

[jkr]

i am that guy!

[Deborah K]

Misconceptions about "the Fourth"

1) It's NOT "America's Birthday"

First, "America" is not a government. America is a landmass, specifically everything from Greenland and Nunavut in the North, down to Argentina and the Faukland Islands in the south. Part of America is North America. Part of North America is arbitrarily claimed by the United States. That's what you all are worshiping.

Second, the United States was not "born" on the 4th of July, 1776. That was a day of secession, a day that a group of individuals publicly denounced ties to the British Empire. The "United States" wasn't formed until after the war had been won, and then in a form that would be unrecognizable today: a confederation of 13 governments that centralized only foreign relations.

Please list more.

The "United States Government" wasn't formed until after the war was won. Our nation was formed when we decided to tell George to stick it.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

I agree with this. I celebrate the sacrifices and the courage of the Founders as well.

As far as the list goes... I don't pay much attention to the rules they have for us anyway.

http://37.media.tumblr.com/bb311cc58941bd125efbf9a2acf7e893/tumblr_mzbmpsA7Mt1r4cegso1_1280.png?.jpg
LOL is that a real show?

[SeanTX]

Just got back from my local 4th parade. There were no less than 3 groups of veterans marching. Every time, everyone as far as I could see got up on their feet and clapped. I was the only one sitting (other than my boy sitting on my lap). Blech.


It seemed like about one-third of the entries in our 4th of July parade were various armed tax ticks and their vehicles , complete with an MRAP (barf). At least the official theme wasn't "honoring our first responders" -- for a change.

[MelissaWV]

That mood gets reinforced for me at concerts, at parks, and restaurants, and even driving though my neighborhood.

So many flag-wavers, usa-chanters, World-Cup/Olympics-rooters-just-because-a-team-shares-MY-flag, and blind-pride-troop supporters.

They're everywhere, and that picture flashes through my head at least 5 times a day.

Weird. Around here there are plenty of those, but there are also a whole lot of people who sit and fold their arms just to be contrary. They want to "be that guy" without being able to provide an actual reason why they're upset at those soldiers in front of them, those fellow concertgoers, etc..

I use the holiday as a chance to show fireworks to my niece and nephew, and as a good opportunity to discuss the actual definitions of words like "patriot" and "hero" that get flung around so much. I'm aware of the arbitrary things associated with it being celebrated on July 4th, just as I'm aware of the misinformation. That's the same with every holiday. I guess I could just stick my nose up at them all, but that seems like being a contrarian asshole just to say I sat on my butt and did nothing and stuck it to the Man! ("the Man" will not know or care, but I can still strut!)

[PRB]

* Why is it ok to celebrate violent resistance to a government by our wig-wearing ancestors, but “extremist” to say anything negative about government today?


Because history is written by victors. Until teabaggers win a war, we'll always be bad guys



* If people can’t be trusted to govern themselves, how is it that some people can be trusted to govern others?


They can't, which is why anarchy is the best form of governing.



* What’s so great about taxation with representation?

Consent



* Has anyone ever showed you the “social contract”?


Nope.



* If we’re so “free,” why can’t we even celebrate our “freedom” by lighting off a few firecrackers and bottle rockets in our own backyards? They’re illegal in most states these days for ordinary citizens to even possess – let alone use.Uncle Sam pic


Exactly! Total farce. Giving up freedom to celebrate for one night of an illusion of safety. There's ZERO evidence fireworks causes deaths or injury, ZERO, yet the government continues to hassle the firecracker industry because they hate competition.



* If the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, why do the “interpretations” of that law by judges supersede the plain language of the Constitution?


That's precisely what it's the supreme law of the law, because it says Judges must interpret it.



* Why do civilian cops have military ranks? Sergeants, captains – even four-star “generals” . . . some of them have military flair (AKA “fruit salad”) too … as if they’d “served” in a war somewhere.


Because it's cool to have.



* If it’s wrong for me (an individual) to do something aggressively violent, how does it become right when a group does the same thing?


Because the majority decides what's right or wrong.



* Is morality merely a question of numbers and percentages?


Yes, otherwise anybody can say he can do anything he wants.



* Does calling a thing by a different name change the nature of the thing? Does a cat become “not-cat” by dint of calling it “not-cat”? If it’s still a cat – no matter what I call it – how is it that taking someone else’s money (theft) becomes not-theft when it’s called “taxation”?


According to Lincoln, no. Which is why sooner or later this country has to confront the reality of calling consensual sex with children "rape". It's not rape if there was no coercion.



* If abortion is acceptable because it’s “the woman’s body” and thus, “her right to choose”- how come a man can’t choose to do what he likes with his body? Like choosing not to wear a helmet while riding his motorcycle, for instance?


In fairness, women can't choose to not wear a helmet either. My guess is, when a person dies on a road he's trash for other people to clean up.



* How come there are no “senile citizen checkpoints”?


there should be!



* If the “right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” why are the people forced to get the government’s permission to keep and bear arms?


A bit too late to be asking now, it's been accepted for decades.



* How is it “reasonable” to stop people en masse and at random, and force them to submit to an interrogation/search?


I didn't say it was.



* Why are we forced to transact our business with privately owned banks? Why is it illegal for us to exchange value for value among ourselves?


It's not illegal to transact anonymously, just not with government issued dollars.



* If you have the right to not incriminate yourself, why is it considered a criminal act to decline to fill out a federal tax form?


It's not a criminal act, you can choose not to collect your paycheck and your employer can also withhold for you. also, filling in a tax form does not waive your 5th amendment right, courts have consistently ruled on this



* Did anyone ever ask you for your “consent” to be governed? What if you do not consent?


Nope.



* Why is an officer’s “safety” more important than your safety?


Nobody's safety is more important than mine



* If the “civil” war was fought to free the slaves, how come the commanding general of the Union Army, Ulysses S. Grant, owned a black man while he waged war on the South? (He freed the poor man eventually)


Because he freed him eventually and used him as needed.



* If corporations are “persons,” how come you can never get one on the phone – much less put “him” in prison when he defrauds you?


You can get owners and officers in prison.



* Why is it ok for big cartels like Monsanto to sell genetically modified foods on their say-so that it’s ok, but a “crime” for a local farmer to sell unpasteurized milk?


It's not legal for Monsanto to sell unpasteurized milk, try making an actual apple to apple comparison (no pun intended)

[PRB]

* If slavery is against the law, why is it we’re compelled to work for the benefit of others?


You're not, ever heard of unemployed people?



* Shouldn’t everywhere – anywhere – be a “free speech zone”?


Except private property, as in, you can't compell a person to tolerate your speech on his property.



* If you own your home, why must you pay rent to the government every year in order to be allowed to continue to live there?


Don't like it? Don't own it.



* How come other people choosing to have sex – and choosing to have kids – imposes a financial obligation on you that’s enforceable at gunpoint, but choosing to adopt a cat and figuring out how you’ll feed him and pay for his bills is entirely your own problem?


Because humans have rights, cats do not.



* Why don’t school busses have to have seat belts?


I didn't know they didn't.



* If guns are so dangerous, how come politicians are surrounded by cordons of heavily armed men?


What's the contradiction? They're surrounded by them BECAUSE they are dangerous.



* How did the good ol’ USA become the “homeland”?


it's not your homeland? go away then!



* If you believe it’s ok to fight off a mugger, how come it’s not ok to fight off a tax collector?


It is, both have consequences.



* If only “Congress may declare war,” how come we’ve been “at war” (on “terror”) for going on 13 years without a congressional declaration of war?


It wouldn't be the only time, it's only a legal semantic technicality.



* Why can’t DMV (or IRS) “customers” say “no thanks” to the services offered?


You can, you can refuse to drive and refuse to earn.



* How can health care be a right if someone else is forced to provide it?


It's PRECISELY a right if you are forced to provide it. If it was a luxury, privilege, or non-right, you'd be allowed to sell it for money.



* Do you suppose motorcycles would be “allowed” if they were a new invention?


Why wouldn't it be?



* If you’re a free man, why must you obtain permission to travel, marry or work?


Permission to travel, you don't.
Marry, only because you want the government granted benefits.
Work, only to protect citizens from foreigners and competition.



* How is eminent domaining a man off his land any different than simply stealing his land?


Taking requires just compensation, read the Constitution.



* Why are we forced to do business with, feed, house – even hang out – with people we’d avoid if we were free to do so?


Who? Homeless people? Illegal immigrants? Black people?

[Anti Federalist]

Here it is four years later, and Eric is just as right.

The Bolshevik left is wailing about losing rights that are not, and we are under just as much and more surveillance and government control.

Thankfully, there might be a little pushback, finally.

[devil21]

Most of the answers to the questions in the OP will start to become clear if these two things are read and comprehended.

http://www.stopthecrime.net/docs/THE-GREAT-AMERICAN-ADVENTURE.pdf

https://www.pdfdrive.net/fruits-from-a-poisonous-tree-e20167616.html

[A Son of Liberty]

Original text of the Declaration of Independence; in my view as an avowed anti-statist, the greatest political document ever penned.


Transcript of Declaration of Independence (Rough Draft)

A Declaration by the Representatives
of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in
General Congress assembled.

WHEN in the Course of human Events it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth the separate & equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.

WE hold these Truths to be self-evident: that all Men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with inherent and* [certain] inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, & 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 abolish it, & to institute new government, laying it's foundation on such principles, & organizing it's powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety & happiness. Prudence indeed will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light & transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses & usurpations begun at a distinguished period and 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, & to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; & such is now the necessity which constrains them to expunge [alter] their former systems of government. The history of the present king of Great Britain is a history of unremitting [repeated] injuries & usurpations, among which appears no solitary fact to contradict the uniform tenor of the rest but all have [all having]in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this let facts be submitted to a candid world for the truth of which we pledge a faith yet unsullied by falsehood.

HE has refused his assent to laws the most wholesome & necessary for the public good.

HE has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate & pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; & when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

HE has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them, & formidable to tyrants only.

HE has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

HE has dissolved representative houses repeatedly & continually for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

HE has refused for a long time after such dissolutions to cause others to be elected, whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise, the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without & convulsions within.

HE has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners, refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, & raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

HE has suffered [obstructed] the administration of justice totally to cease in some of these states [by] refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

HE has made our judges dependant on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, & the amount & paiment of their salaries.

HE has erected a multitude of new offices by a self assumed power and sent hither swarms of new officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

HE has kept among us in times of peace standing armies and ships of war without the consent of our legislatures.

HE has affected to render the military independent of, & superior to the civil power.

HE has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitutions & unacknowledged by our laws, giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

FOR quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

FOR protecting them by a mock-trial from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states

FOR cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:

FOR imposing taxes on us without our consent:

FOR depriving us [in many cases] of the benefits of trial by jury

FOR transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offences:

FOR abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging it's boundaries, so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these states [colonies]:

FOR taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:

FOR suspending our own legislatures, & declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in allcases whatsoever.

He has abdicated government here withdrawing his governors, and declaring us out of his allegiance & protection. [by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.]

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, & destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation & tyranny already begun with circumstanccs of cruelty and perfidy [scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, & totally] unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends & brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

He has [excited domestic insurection among us, & has] endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, & conditions of existence.

He has incited treasonable insurrections of our fellow-citizens, with the allurements of forfeiture & confiscation of our property.

He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobium of INFIDEL Powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce. And that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people on whom he also obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed against the LIBERTIES of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the LIVES of another.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injuries.

A prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant is unfit to be the ruler of a [free] people who mean to be free. Future ages will scarcely believe that the hardiness of one man adventured, within the short compass of twelve years only, to lay a foundation so broad & so undisguised for tyranny over a people fostered & fixed in principles of freedom.

Nor have we been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend a [an unwarrantable] jurisdiction over these our states [us]. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration & settlement here, no one of which could warrant so strange a pretension: that these were effected at the expense of our own blood & treasure, unassisted by the wealth or the strength of Great Britain: that in constituting indeed our several forms of government, we had adopted one common king, thereby laying a foundation for perpetual league & amity with them: but that submission to their parliament was no part of our constitution, nor ever in idea, if history may be credited: and, we [have] appealed to their native justice and magnanimity [and we have conjured them by] as well as to the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations which were likely to [would inevitably] interrupt our connection and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice & of consanguinity, and when occasions have been given them, by the regular course of their laws, of removing from their councils the disturbers of our harmony, they have, by their free election, re-established them in power. At this very time too they are permitting their chief magistrate to send over not only soldiers of our common blood, but Scotch & foreign mercenaries to invade & destroy us. These facts have given the last stab to agonizing affection, and manly spirit bids us to renounce forever these unfeeling brethren. We must endeavor to forget our former love for them, and hold them as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends. We might have been a free and a great people together; but a communication of grandeur & of freedom it seems is below their dignity. Be it so, since they will have it. The road to happiness & to glory is open to us too. We will tread it apart from them, and [We must therefore] acquiesce in the necessity which denounces our eternal separation! [and hold them as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.]

We therefore the representatives of the united States of America in General Congress assebled [appealing to the Judge of the World for the recititude of our intentions] do in the name & by authority of the good people of these states [colonies] reject and renounce all allegiance & subjections to the kings of Great Britain & all others who may hereafter claim by, through or under them: we utterly disolve all political connection which may heretofore have subsisted between us & the people or parliment of Great Britain: and finally we do assert and declare these colonies to be free and independent states, [solemly Publish and Declare that these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, Free and Independent States; that they are dissolved from allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political Connection between them and the State of Great-Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved;] and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract allies, establish commerce, & do all other acts & things which independent states may of right do.

And for the support of this declaration, [with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence] we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, & our sacred honor.

[Anti Federalist]

Original text of the Declaration of Independence; in my view as an avowed anti-statist, the greatest political document ever penned.


Prudence indeed will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light & transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses & usurpations begun at a distinguished period and 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, & to provide new guards for their future security.

Could not agree more.

The absolute right to rebel, being the cornerstone of all that follows.

[timosman]

Here we go!!

https://twitter.com/NRO/status/572814567316840449

As Russell Kirk once said, "as if some eminent Neoconservatives mistook Tel Aviv for the capital of the United States."

572814567316840449

[oyarde]

LOL is that a real show?

I have been using a similar permit for decades.

[A Son of Liberty]

Could not agree more.

The absolute right to rebel, being the cornerstone of all that follows.

:thumbs:

And that - the right to rebel: the RIGHT to overthrow a State - untangles ANY justification for the existence of a State, if one follows that logic to it's inevitable conclusion.

What underpins any rebellion/revolution is the inherent obviation of the authority of the State. There is no legitimate State except that one which is voluntarily so joined. Thus there is no legitimate State (because of course the State is the implementation of unprovoked force).

QED

[otherone]

:thumbs:

And that - the right to rebel: the RIGHT to overthrow a State - untangles ANY justification for the existence of a State, if one follows that logic to it's inevitable conclusion.

What underpins any rebellion/revolution is the inherent obviation of the authority of the State. There is no legitimate State except that one which is voluntarily so joined. Thus there is no legitimate State (because of course the State is the implementation of unprovoked force).

QED

IMO, the DOI was the first socialist manifesto, and unleashed that monster on the world.

[Aratus]

HAPPY UNGRATEFUL COLONIALs DAY EVERYONE!!!!!

[A Son of Liberty]

IMO, the DOI was the first socialist manifesto, and unleashed that monster on the world.

Hmm... I can't get there. I mean, as I said it's a political document, to be sure, and I'm not given to politics... but therein contains in my view the best case made in such a political document of individual sovereignty... "we hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness..."

From there, I digress. But I can't find it's equal in political documents of which I'm aware.

[Anti Federalist]

IMO, the DOI was the first socialist manifesto, and unleashed that monster on the world.

OK...defend...I'm curious to hear this.

[A Son of Liberty]

OK...defend...I'm curious to hear this.

Indeed - in my view, this statement:


"we hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness..."

Is the foundation of the libertarian movement, full stop. I'm open to the argument, but I'm awfully curious to see how it is constructed...

[otherone]

Hmm... I can't get there. I mean, as I said it's a political document, to be sure, and I'm not given to politics... but therein contains in my view the best case made in such a political document of individual sovereignty... "we hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness..."

From there, I digress. But I can't find it's equal in political documents of which I'm aware.




OK...defend...I'm curious to hear this.

The purpose of the document was to challenge the Divine Right of Kings, claiming that The People(tm) are sovereign. This shifted power from a Monarch, to a fanciful collective. It is this collective that is sovereign, whether by mob democracy or supposed representation. As it is The People who are purportedly in charge, revolt becomes difficult, if not impossible. Nowhere in the text is the individual given self-determination, except as part of the collective. It is the father of the French Revolution, and all subsequent socialist revolutions. Again, IMO.

[otherone]

Indeed - in my view, this statement:


"we hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness..."


Is the foundation of the libertarian movement, full stop. I'm open to the argument, but I'm awfully curious to see how it is constructed...

That Men are created equal means that no one is born to rule. We look at the Constitution as being a betrayal of the DOI, when it is an extension of it. Everything we have today is an extension of it. 'Cause, The People.

[Swordsmyth]

The purpose of the document was to challenge the Divine Right of Kings, claiming that The People(tm) our sovereign. This shifted power from a Monarch, to a fanciful collective. It is this collective that is sovereign, whether by mob democracy or supposed representation. As it is The People who are purportedly in charge, revolt becomes difficult, if not possible. Nowhere in the text is the individual given self-determination, except as part of the collective. It is the father of the French Revolution, and all subsequent socialist revolutions. Again, IMO.


That Men are created equal means that no one is born to rule. We look at the Constitution as being a betrayal of the DOI, when it is an extension of it. Everything we have today is an extension of it. 'Cause, The People.

Are you becoming a monarchist?

Usually anarchists like you would consider the declaration to have been a step in the right direction even if they thought it didn't go far enough.

[otherone]

Are you becoming a monarchist?

Usually anarchists like you would consider the declaration to have been a step in the right direction even if they thought it didn't go far enough.

Labels are often straw men.
The DOI proclaimed the Collective sovereign. Freedom and Liberty are slogans.

[heavenlyboy34]

The purpose of the document was to challenge the Divine Right of Kings, claiming that The People(tm) our sovereign. This shifted power from a Monarch, to a fanciful collective. It is this collective that is sovereign, whether by mob democracy or supposed representation. As it is The People who are purportedly in charge, revolt becomes difficult, if not possible. Nowhere in the text is the individual given self-determination, except as part of the collective. It is the father of the French Revolution, and all subsequent socialist revolutions. Again, IMO.
Interesting way to look at it. DoI (like TJ) is heavily influenced by Locke. If you read Locke, he was way more into Commonwealth than radical individualism/self-determinism.

[Ender]

That Men are created equal means that no one is born to rule. We look at the Constitution as being a betrayal of the DOI, when it is an extension of it. Everything we have today is an extension of it. 'Cause, The People.

Disagree. (And please know that I hold great respect for you.)

I think that the Declaration is THE most important American document and signifies true liberty.

The all men are created equal is, for me, a statement that means that we are each individuals and can personally control our own lives. That people can, if they wish & agree, have a government that follows natural law & the will of the people. That the government serves the people, not vs/vs.

Here's a great article by the Judge on this very thing.

]The Values Underlying Independence Day
By Andrew P. Napolitano

July 5, 2018

The Declaration of Independence — which was signed on July 3, 1776, for public release on July 4 — was Thomas Jefferson’s masterpiece. Jefferson himself wrote much about the declaration in the 50 years that followed.

Not the least of what he wrote offered his view that the declaration and the values that it articulated were truly radical — meaning they reflected 180-degree changes at the very core of societal attitudes in America. The idea that farmers and merchants and lawyers could secede from a kingdom and fight and win a war against the king’s army was the end result of the multigenerational movement that was articulated in the declaration.

The two central values of the declaration are the origins of human liberty and the legitimacy of popular government.

When Jefferson wrote that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, he was referring to the natural law. The natural law teaches that right and wrong can be discerned and truth discovered by the exercise of human reason, independent of any commands from the government. The natural law also teaches that our rights come from our humanity — not from the government — and our humanity is a gift from our Creator.

Even those who question or reject the existence of the Creator — was Jefferson himself among them? — can embrace natural rights, because they can accept that our exercise of human reason leads us all to make similar claims. These claims — free speech, free association, free exercise or non-exercise of religion, self-defense, privacy, and fairness, to name a few — are rights that we all exercise without giving a second thought to the fact that they are natural and come from within us.
The view of the individual as the repository of natural rights was not accepted by any governments in 1776. In fact, all rejected it and used violence to suppress it. To the minds of those in government in the mid-18th century, the king was divine and could do no wrong, and parliament existed not as the people’s representatives but to help the king raise money and to give him a read on the pulse of landowners and nobility.

Jefferson and his colleagues had no difficulty breaking from this type of ancient regime. Unlike the French, who destroyed their monarchy, the American colonists seceded from theirs — and they did so embracing natural rights. Regrettably, they did not recognize natural rights for African slaves or for women. We all know and profoundly lament the sorry history of those errors.

The idea that each human being possesses inherent natural rights by virtue of one’s humanity is not just an academic argument. It has real-life consequences, which Jefferson recognized. Those consequences are implicated when government seeks to curtail rights for what it claims is the protection of another’s individual rights, the common good or the good of the government itself.

Jefferson recognized that you can consent to the curtailment of your rights but you cannot consent to the curtailment of mine. To Jefferson, government can take away your rights without your consent only if you have violated someone else’s rights.

Surrendering rights is also implicated in the second radical idea that underscores the Declaration of Independence. It is the concept that no government is valid unless it enjoys the consent of the governed. This, too, was unheard of in 1776, because British kings did not claim consent of the governed as the basis for legitimacy.

Yet consent of the governed is perfectly consistent with natural law. Under natural law, what is yours is yours and what is mine is mine. If I attempt to take your land or car or cellphone, you can stop me, either directly or through the government we have both consented to. If one of us has not consented to the government’s existence, it can still enforce natural rights as the agent of the person whose rights are being violated — just as it does for bank depositors when it captures a bank robber.

This idea of consent of the governed was a serious issue in the days and years following July 4, 1776, because about one-third of the adults living in the United States in the last quarter of the 18th century remained loyal to the king of England after the Revolution, and they did not consent to the new popular form of government that took the British government’s place. The new government was thrust upon them without their consent.

The last letter Jefferson wrote was to his enemy-turned-friend John Adams, in anticipation of the 50th anniversary of the declaration — a day on which both Jefferson and Adams would die. In that letter, Jefferson argued that the greatest achievement of the declaration was its arousing men to burst free from the chains imposed upon them by superstition and myth by bringing about a recognition of their individual rights and an embrace of self-government.
Today the Jeffersonian ideals of individual natural rights and government’s legitimacy’s being conditioned upon the individual consent of the governed have themselves become myths.

In Jefferson’s day, the voters knew all that the government did, and it knew nothing about them. Today government operates largely in secrecy, and it knows our every move and captures our every communication.

In Jefferson’s day, the government needed the people’s permission to tax and regulate them. Today the people need the government’s permission to do nearly everything.

Do you know anyone who has consented to the government? Do you know anyone who could avoid the government by not giving consent? Do you consent to the government by voting? Do you consent to the government if it is run by those you voted against? Did you consent to a government that steals liberty and property and prosperity and gives them away?

Happy Fourth of July.

[Anti Federalist]

Today the Jeffersonian ideals of individual natural rights and government’s legitimacy’s being conditioned upon the individual consent of the governed have themselves become myths.

In Jefferson’s day, the voters knew all that the government did, and it knew nothing about them. Today government operates largely in secrecy, and it knows our every move and captures our every communication.

In Jefferson’s day, the government needed the people’s permission to tax and regulate them. Today the people need the government’s permission to do nearly everything.

Do you know anyone who has consented to the government? Do you know anyone who could avoid the government by not giving consent? Do you consent to the government by voting? Do you consent to the government if it is run by those you voted against? Did you consent to a government that steals liberty and property and prosperity and gives them away?

This.

[otherone]

Interesting way to look at it. DoI (like TJ) is heavily influenced by Locke. If you read Locke, he was way more into Commonwealth than radical individualism/self-determinism.

The purpose of the DOI becomes clear when it's hypocrisy is discovered. The founders did not believe in individual liberty. As Spooner points out, the Declaration, based on it's claim of "self-evident truths", freed the slaves. Apparently, some truths are more self-evident than others.
I see the DOI as an argument for regional self-governance, which is often confused with liberty. Local oligarchs defying a monarch.

[otherone]

In Jefferson’s day, the government needed the people’s permission to tax and regulate them.

In Jefferson's day, The Whiskey Tax caused a revolt, even though it was enacted with The People's permission.

[Ender]

In Jefferson's day, The Whiskey Tax caused a revolt, even though it was enacted with The People's permission.

The Whiskey Tax was pushed by Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, in 1790- after the Constitution was made the law of the land.

My POV is that the Constitution was a Hamiltonian coup that gave elites control of a strong central gov.

[AuH20]

Read Federalist #28 and it may revise the opinion on Hamilton.

[devil21]

Labels are often straw men.
The DOI proclaimed the Collective sovereign. Freedom and Liberty are slogans.

And now that collective voluntarily works for corporations known as the "United States" and subsidiaries called "State Of XXXXXXXX", "County of XXXXX" and "City of XXXXXX", after having voluntarily traded what freedom and liberty did exist for permissions and privileges.

Every time we sign something we are trading natural rights for privileges by creating a contract with various corporations posing as governments (municipal corporations) and agents of those corporations (police). So in a legal sense, it is all voluntary even if based in ignorance.

[Anti Federalist]

The purpose of the DOI becomes clear when it's hypocrisy is discovered. The founders did not believe in individual liberty. As Spooner points out, the Declaration, based on it's claim of "self-evident truths", freed the slaves. Apparently, some truths are more self-evident than others.
I see the DOI as an argument for regional self-governance, which is often confused with liberty. Local oligarchs defying a monarch.

Again, the slavery issue.

What a cluster fuck that has been, right up to today, over a century and a half after the fact...what I wouldn't give to go back in time with the power to absolutely prohibit any truck with chattel slavery in North America.

[otherone]

Again, the slavery issue.

What a cluster $#@! that has been, right up to today, over a century and a half after the fact...what I wouldn't give to go back in time with the power to absolutely prohibit any truck with chattel slavery in North America.

It's not simply slavery. They also didn't care about those who wished to remain loyal to the crown, allied savages, and the hoi-poloi with the Whiskey Tax, and have done so and worse, to this day. The Revolution was a coup. The bumper sticker was Freedom.

[otherone]

The Whiskey Tax was pushed by Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, in 1790- after the Constitution was made the law of the land.
My POV is that the Constitution was a Hamiltonian coup that gave elites control of a strong central gov.

Coup? But it was done with the permission of "The People". Worse offenses have happened along the way, and "The People" don't bat an eye. Because Democracy. Because we're Free. Because we have the "right" to vote. Don't be Mr. Contrarian . Go have a Bud and watch the game.

[Swordsmyth]

It's not simply slavery. They also didn't care about those who wished to remain loyal to the crown, allied savages, and the hoi-poloi with the Whiskey Tax, and have done so and worse, to this day. The Revolution was a coup. The bumper sticker was Freedom.

Anarchists don't know what they want, now your anarchism demands that those who wished to be loyal to the crown be allowed to?
There either is a government in control of an area or there isn't, that government is either more or less respectful of the local people's rights than another, even if we don't go into the point that an area without a government won't stay that way it has to be pointed out that more than one government can't exist in the area at a time.

Of course the revolution was a coup, it was a coup by those who intended to recognize the rights of the individual to a greater extent than those they took over from, to some extent they failed because we came to where we are but they also succeeded because we are better off than anywhere else.

[otherone]

Anarchists don't know what they want, now your anarchism demands that those who wished to be loyal to the crown be allowed to?
There either is a government in control of an area or there isn't, that government is either more or less respectful of the local people's rights than another, even if we don't go into the point that an area without a government won't stay that way it has to be pointed out that more than one government can't exist in the area at a time.

Of course the revolution was a coup, it was a coup by those who intended to recognize the rights of the individual to a greater extent than those they took over from, to some extent they failed because we came to where we are but they also succeeded because we are better off than anywhere else.

What is with you and the labels?

[Anti Federalist]

The Anti Federalists were right (again).

America Needs a New Independence Day

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/07/america_needs_a_new_independence_day.html

By Brandon J. Weichert
The Fourth of July weekend is a time when Americans celebrate the anniversary of the United States' independence. But, in the 242 years since achieving our liberty from the British Empire, our government has slowly become what it beheld. You see, while many erroneously claim that our move for independence from the British Empire was "revolutionary," it was, in fact, far from revolutionary (in the sense of other famous revolutions, such as those that befell France and Russia – or even the "Cultural Revolution" that swept across campuses and major cities in the United States in 1968).

At its core, America's war for independence was predicated upon the understandable desire for Americans to have equal and fair representation in Parliament. Initially, the colonists were generally opposed to separating from the Mother Country. But, as Andrew O'Shaughnessy documents in The Men Who Lost America: British Leadership, the American Revolution, and the Fate of Empire, King George III – far from the mad tyrant he's depicted as in popular history – began as sympathetic to the American calls for greater representation in Parliament.

Yet the Boston Tea Party was viewed by King George as a terrible waste of tea (and a clear sign of disloyalty), so his opinion on the situation in the American colonies changed from that of reluctant participant in the matter to the leading war hawk. Naturally, the more intractable the king's position became, the farther the Americans were pushed into full independence.

As the Founders wrote in the Declaration of Independence:

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United States are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.

What began as a serious – though entirely rectifiable – complaint rapidly devolved into what we (erroneously) call the Revolutionary War. It's a great tale we tell ourselves (and the world). To be sure, I would not have opted to remain a part of the British Empire. The values and beliefs that the Founding Fathers based this country upon, I believe, are superior to all other notions in the world.

Unfortunately for us, the story doesn't end there.

Writing in his 2013 magnum opus, The Once and Future King: The Rise of Crown Government in America, F.H. Buckley makes the controversial (though accurate) argument that the United States has mostly come full circle in its great experiment with democracy. (For the record, the United States is, technically, a constitutional republic, which is classified by most political scientists as a representative form of democracy.) While the country did start out as a relatively free system, it rapidly devolved into what George Mason famously called an "elective monarchy."

Buckley (evoking Mason's fears) believes that the United States revolted against crown rule only to revert back to crown rule in the form of an all-powerful executive branch that supersedes all other aspects of American life and government. Sure, we change presidents every four to eight years, but the drift into elective monarchy continues unabated. There are nearly 2.5 million federal employees (excluding military personnel) that serve in the executive branch, and the federal register of regulations numbers in the many thousands of pages. Meanwhile, thanks to a series of bipartisan spending bills over the years, the power and scope of the "elective monarchy" has only increased.

This was not what our Founders fought the British for!

The idea behind the American system of government was to diffuse as much power as possible away from Washington and into the hands of the local and state authorities. Within the federal government, while all three branches (the executive, legislative, and judicial) were equal, the authors of the American Constitution were obsessed with the potential for an "elective monarchy." James Madison wrote in Federalist no. 51 of the concept that having co-equal branches of government would counteract the ability of any one branch to supersede the other.

Yet, as Buckley rightly points out, "the legislature is composed of many people, and the executive of only one," and "it is more difficult for a group of people to coordinate on a course of action than it is for a single person."

The Framers believed that the Congress was the best antidote to the evils of an "elective monarchy" in the executive branch. The same holds true today.

Ever since the rise of the Progressive movement at the turn of the twentieth century, the American presidency has become increasingly imperial in its disposition. By the middle of the last century, the president's power was so great that he could effectively take the country into a ruinous war (Vietnam) with little congressional oversight. As the president's power has reached epic new levels, congressional power has faded. Thus, we have begun to look more like the British Empire of yesteryear than the liberty-loving republic of our Founders.

Just as the Continental Congress guided us through the last Independence Day, today's Congress will have to chart a course away from the monarchical presidency. God help us all. Yet it is a fight worth waging – if only because we risk embodying the tyranny that our Founders bled to free us from.

A new Independence Day is needed – not one delivered by force of arms, but one heralded by enlightened legislation. Otherwise, the republic will be lost forever, and a new sort of empire – an incoherent one that preaches liberty but tyrannizes its citizenry – will be unleashed upon the world.

[Anti Federalist]

A new Independence Day is needed – not one delivered by force of arms, but one heralded by enlightened legislation. Otherwise, the republic will be lost forever, and a new sort of empire – an incoherent one that preaches liberty but tyrannizes its citizenry – will be unleashed upon the world.

https://russia-insider.com/sites/insider/files/styles/w726xauto/public/users/72/4-Jun-2015/youwantitwhen_2.jpg?itok=E_ZuiQO4

[timosman]

The purpose of the DOI becomes clear when it's hypocrisy is discovered. The founders did not believe in individual liberty. As Spooner points out, the Declaration, based on it's claim of "self-evident truths", freed the slaves. Apparently, some truths are more self-evident than others.
I see the DOI as an argument for regional self-governance, which is often confused with liberty. Local oligarchs defying a monarch.

Mafia's code of honor?:eek:

[Swordsmyth]

The Anti Federalists were right (again).

America Needs a New Independence Day

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/07/america_needs_a_new_independence_day.html

By Brandon J. Weichert
The Fourth of July weekend is a time when Americans celebrate the anniversary of the United States' independence. But, in the 242 years since achieving our liberty from the British Empire, our government has slowly become what it beheld. You see, while many erroneously claim that our move for independence from the British Empire was "revolutionary," it was, in fact, far from revolutionary (in the sense of other famous revolutions, such as those that befell France and Russia – or even the "Cultural Revolution" that swept across campuses and major cities in the United States in 1968).

At its core, America's war for independence was predicated upon the understandable desire for Americans to have equal and fair representation in Parliament. Initially, the colonists were generally opposed to separating from the Mother Country. But, as Andrew O'Shaughnessy documents in The Men Who Lost America: British Leadership, the American Revolution, and the Fate of Empire, King George III – far from the mad tyrant he's depicted as in popular history – began as sympathetic to the American calls for greater representation in Parliament.

Yet the Boston Tea Party was viewed by King George as a terrible waste of tea (and a clear sign of disloyalty), so his opinion on the situation in the American colonies changed from that of reluctant participant in the matter to the leading war hawk. Naturally, the more intractable the king's position became, the farther the Americans were pushed into full independence.

As the Founders wrote in the Declaration of Independence:

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United States are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.

What began as a serious – though entirely rectifiable – complaint rapidly devolved into what we (erroneously) call the Revolutionary War. It's a great tale we tell ourselves (and the world). To be sure, I would not have opted to remain a part of the British Empire. The values and beliefs that the Founding Fathers based this country upon, I believe, are superior to all other notions in the world.

Unfortunately for us, the story doesn't end there.

Writing in his 2013 magnum opus, The Once and Future King: The Rise of Crown Government in America, F.H. Buckley makes the controversial (though accurate) argument that the United States has mostly come full circle in its great experiment with democracy. (For the record, the United States is, technically, a constitutional republic, which is classified by most political scientists as a representative form of democracy.) While the country did start out as a relatively free system, it rapidly devolved into what George Mason famously called an "elective monarchy."

Buckley (evoking Mason's fears) believes that the United States revolted against crown rule only to revert back to crown rule in the form of an all-powerful executive branch that supersedes all other aspects of American life and government. Sure, we change presidents every four to eight years, but the drift into elective monarchy continues unabated. There are nearly 2.5 million federal employees (excluding military personnel) that serve in the executive branch, and the federal register of regulations numbers in the many thousands of pages. Meanwhile, thanks to a series of bipartisan spending bills over the years, the power and scope of the "elective monarchy" has only increased.

This was not what our Founders fought the British for!

The idea behind the American system of government was to diffuse as much power as possible away from Washington and into the hands of the local and state authorities. Within the federal government, while all three branches (the executive, legislative, and judicial) were equal, the authors of the American Constitution were obsessed with the potential for an "elective monarchy." James Madison wrote in Federalist no. 51 of the concept that having co-equal branches of government would counteract the ability of any one branch to supersede the other.

Yet, as Buckley rightly points out, "the legislature is composed of many people, and the executive of only one," and "it is more difficult for a group of people to coordinate on a course of action than it is for a single person."

The Framers believed that the Congress was the best antidote to the evils of an "elective monarchy" in the executive branch. The same holds true today.

Ever since the rise of the Progressive movement at the turn of the twentieth century, the American presidency has become increasingly imperial in its disposition. By the middle of the last century, the president's power was so great that he could effectively take the country into a ruinous war (Vietnam) with little congressional oversight. As the president's power has reached epic new levels, congressional power has faded. Thus, we have begun to look more like the British Empire of yesteryear than the liberty-loving republic of our Founders.

Just as the Continental Congress guided us through the last Independence Day, today's Congress will have to chart a course away from the monarchical presidency. God help us all. Yet it is a fight worth waging – if only because we risk embodying the tyranny that our Founders bled to free us from.

A new Independence Day is needed – not one delivered by force of arms, but one heralded by enlightened legislation. Otherwise, the republic will be lost forever, and a new sort of empire – an incoherent one that preaches liberty but tyrannizes its citizenry – will be unleashed upon the world.

Actually an "elective monarchy" would be superior to what we have, it is all the protections given to the bureaucracy against executive power that create the deepstate, it is the independence of the judiciary that makes us submit to the rule of 9 dictators who can't be voted out of office, it is the size and red tape of the legislative branch that allows them to ignore the will of the people and end up with everyone hating congress but loving their congresscritter because "it isn't his fault".
Everyone in government has hundreds of other people to blame and most of them are protected from being thrown out of office if they do get stuck with the blame for something.
In an "elective monarchy" as this author chooses to call it the buck stops with the "king" (or whatever title he is given), if someone else is actually to blame it is still his fault for not firing them and reversing whatever they did, if he fails to deal with too many problems or with one big problem he can be replaced with somebody who will.