Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 121 to 150 of 174

Thread: Deregulating the banks?

  1. #121

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    Fact.
    If it is a fact, then you should be able to supply a legal document stating that fact. That is what I asked for. Until you prove your position, your claim is simply a claim.

    My claim is that banks took over our government in a coup in 1861. I provided a link for documentation. The bankers did indeed subvert the constitution to gain control in 1861. They completed their coup in 1913.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    If it is a fact, then you should be able to supply a legal document stating that fact.
    The Federal Reserve Act (ch. 6, 38 Stat. 251, enacted December 23, 1913, 12 U.S.C. ch.3) is an Act of Congress that created and set up the Federal Reserve System, the central banking system of the United States of America, and granted it the legal authority to issue Federal Reserve Notes (now commonly known as the U.S. Dollar) and Federal Reserve Bank Notes as legal tender. The Act was signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson.

  4. #123

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    , it is not the government that is the source of violence... it is the lack of government.
    Precisely the opposite.

    Law = Violence.

    When a law is created, it is an act of or threat of an act of violence to enforce an edict.

    The massive amount of law that is created is an enforcement of an edict on non-violent people.

    To apply violence on non-violent people increases the violence within society - it does not reduce it.
    You do not reduce violence by making more of it.

    Government claims the monopoly on creating violence on the non-violent, it is the single greatest source of the increase in violence within society.

    One need only to think of "war" as an example - it is bizarre to believe that war is the consequence of a lack of government....

  5. #124

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    My claim is that banks took over our government
    I suppose it is a matter of perspective, however, I'd suggest you take a step back and understand the situation.

    The government needed a way to pay for war. It was the government that created the issue, and accepted the solution to their problem

    Further, it is the government that can "undo" this as they created it. They won't of course because it is very profitable for government. Banks like the deal because it is profitable for them too.

    It is a symbiosis - but I believe it is an err to think it is the bank's fault.

    The banker do not have guns.
    They buy the guns of the provider of violence.

    The providers of violence are hungry and need to buy food.
    They sell their services to the highest bidder.

    Understanding this is key, I believe.

  6. #125

    Default

    I do not agree that law equals violence. But just to make sure we are on the same page, I consider the U.S. Constitution a legitimate document which established a republic form of government including the "Bill of Rights" by being ratified. Do you agree?

    Violence is a naturally occurring phenomena. Nature is violent. Appropriate laws should be written to provide restitution and justice for violations of natural right of persons. Laws themselves are not violent. Enforcement of the law may be violent but it doesn't have to be.
    Last edited by Travlyr; 03-07-2012 at 12:53 PM.

  7. #126

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    I suppose it is a matter of perspective, however, I'd suggest you take a step back and understand the situation.

    The government needed a way to pay for war. It was the government that created the issue, and accepted the solution to their problem

    Further, it is the government that can "undo" this as they created it. They won't of course because it is very profitable for government. Banks like the deal because it is profitable for them too.

    It is a symbiosis - but I believe it is an err to think it is the bank's fault.

    The banker do not have guns.
    They buy the guns of the provider of violence.

    The providers of violence are hungry and need to buy food.
    They sell their services to the highest bidder.

    Understanding this is key, I believe.
    The bankers instigated the war by funding the publishing of "Uncle Tom's Cabin" and John Brown's terrorist activities. All other countries ended slavery without war. The bankers saw the opportunity to take control of the United States by usurping the constitution, funding a war, and establishing themselves as rulers. Look at the 14th Amendment which was not lawfully ratified.
    Article. XIV.

    [Proposed 1866; Allegedly ratified 1868. See Fourteenth Amendment Law Library for argument it was not ratified.]
    Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

    Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

    Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

    Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
    See how the bankers did that? Shall not be questioned. And the amendment was never properly ratified. They funded the war with paper and got paid back in gold. It was very clever. Debasement of currency was a capital crime at the time that Jay Cooke and Salmon P. Chase started printing money. It was not the Federal government that expanded. It was the bankers who took control of the government because they knew the power of printing money. The bankers committed fraud at the risk of getting beheaded to take control of our republic. They legitimized that control in 1913, but it is still in direct violation of the constitution.

  8. #127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    I do not agree that law equals violence.
    A law is not a suggestion - it is a demand (edict) backed up by violence.

    Disobey a law, and review the consequences...

    But just to make sure we are on the same page, I consider the U.S. Constitution a legitimate document which established a republic form of government including the "Bill of Rights" by being ratified. Do you agree?
    No, I do not agree.

    I do not consider it "legitimate" no more than you signing a contract with someone else, and demand that I abide by that contract.

    I did not sign any declaration, constitution, nor any such document that trades my Rights away.

    The Constitution is a document that demands people forgo their human rights in trade for an authority to rule over them.

    Sorry, it's not for me.


    Violence is a naturally occurring phenomena. Nature is violent. Appropriate laws should be written to provide restitution and justice for violations of natural right of persons.
    All true, and I completely agree here.

    All Natural Law of Man are laws of self-defense:

    To prevent, mitigate, repair, provide restitution and dissuade the use and damage of the Initiation of Violence by men.


    Laws themselves are not violent. Enforcement of the law may be violent but it doesn't have to be.
    It is either the use or the threat of violence. Do not put blinkers up ignoring this.

    The only legitimate use of violence by men is to defend one's self from the application of violence.

    "True" Law is that - the use of violence to against the initiation of violence.

    It is this thing - the repulsion of the initiation of violence - that is the fundamental foundation of civilization.

    As such, government is the precise opposite of civilization.

    That is, the entity which claims the monopoly on the initiation of violence is at war with those that proclaims the initiation of violence is never legitimate.

  9. #128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    A law is not a suggestion - it is a demand (edict) backed up by violence.

    Disobey a law, and review the consequences...



    No, I do not agree.

    I do not consider it "legitimate" no more than you signing a contract with someone else, and demand that I abide by that contract.

    I did not sign any declaration, constitution, nor any such document that trades my Rights away.

    The Constitution is a document that demands people forgo their human rights in trade for an authority to rule over them.

    Sorry, it's not for me.




    All true, and I completely agree here.

    All Natural Law of Man are laws of self-defense:

    To prevent, mitigate, repair, provide restitution and dissuade the use and damage of the Initiation of Violence by men.




    It is either the use or the threat of violence. Do not put blinkers up ignoring this.

    The only legitimate use of violence by men is to defend one's self from the application of violence.

    "True" Law is that - the use of violence to against the initiation of violence.

    It is this thing - the repulsion of the initiation of violence - that is the fundamental foundation of civilization.

    As such, government is the precise opposite of civilization.

    That is, the entity which claims the monopoly on the initiation of violence is at war with those that proclaims the initiation of violence is never legitimate.
    There is a law on the books that states that I get my day in court if accused of a crime. That law comes from the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The fact that people can ignore that law is the problem. Since that law can be ignored, then I can be assassinated. Obeying the rule of law is the solution.
    Article the sixth [Amendment IV]

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    Article the seventh [Amendment V]

    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    Article the eighth [Amendment VI]

    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
    Personally, I prefer a lawful society to a lawless one.

  10. #129

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    The Federal Reserve Act (ch. 6, 38 Stat. 251, enacted December 23, 1913, 12 U.S.C. ch.3) is an Act of Congress that created and set up the Federal Reserve System, the central banking system of the United States of America, and granted it the legal authority to issue Federal Reserve Notes (now commonly known as the U.S. Dollar) and Federal Reserve Bank Notes as legal tender. The Act was signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson.
    Thank you.

    The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 is null and void of law because it is in direct violation of the supreme law.
    Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).
    This is one of the leading cases in the history of the U.S. The opinion of the court was “Anything that is in conflict is null and void of law; Clearly for a secondary law to come in conflict with the supreme was illogical; for certainly the supreme law would prevail over any other law, and certainly our forefathers had intended that the supreme law would be the basis for all laws, and for any law to come in conflict would be null and void of law. It would bear no power to enforce, it would bear no obligation to obey, it would purport to settle as though it had never existed, for unconstitutionality would date from the enactment of such a law, not from the date so branded by a court of law. No courts are bound to uphold it, and no citizens are bound to obey it. It operates as a mere nullity or a fiction of law, which means it doesn‟t exist in law.”
    "Everyone who believes in freedom must work diligently for sound money, fully redeemable. Nothing else is compatible with the humanitarian goals of peace and prosperity." -- Ron Paul

    Brother Jonathan

  11. #130

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    The bankers instigated the war
    I don't think politicians need much prodding to start a war.

  12. #131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    Thank you.

    The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 is null and void of law because it is in direct violation of the supreme law.
    You are more then welcome to test your theory in any court of the US.

    I will suggest that you not bother wasting your money trying.

  13. #132

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    You are more then welcome to test your theory in any court of the US.

    I will suggest that you not bother wasting your money trying.
    The courts are not legitimate. I understand that. What most people call government is illegitimate because they have exceeded their enumerated powers. The bankers are in charge. Our rulers are a cabal of international elite oligarchs. They violate the supreme law of the land all the time. Laws do not matter to them. In order to get justice the people have to use common law grand juries. The banker's courts are not going to rule against the bankers just like they are not going to let Ron Paul be their president. Again, the rule of law is not the source of violence. Counterfeiting monopolies are the source of violence... they have to be violent to keep their monopoly. They must seek out competition and destroy them. That's the job of FBI, CIA, and the Secret Service.
    "Everyone who believes in freedom must work diligently for sound money, fully redeemable. Nothing else is compatible with the humanitarian goals of peace and prosperity." -- Ron Paul

    Brother Jonathan

  14. #133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    Again, the rule of law is not the source of violence
    But of course it is.

    If you make a law prohibiting bubble gum, you need to use violence to enforce it.

    Claiming "rule of law" is specious - it really all depends on what law is rule.

    The benefit of law is not that it is applied equally to all men -it is that threat that it is applied equally to all men.

    If I hate the color white, and make a law that prohibits white, and apply it to all men, including myself .... do you think I see such law as prohibitive or evil on me?

    Well, of course not. I'm a happy duck - but you will be disturbed. But what of your compliant - I dismiss it by saying "Everyone is equal under the law!"

    Thus, it must be more than merely equality of law - we must create the legitimacy of law's application, that is, it can only be applied against initiations of violence - otherwise, it becomes the single greatest tool at increasing violence.

  15. #134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    But of course it is.

    If you make a law prohibiting bubble gum, you need to use violence to enforce it.

    Claiming "rule of law" is specious - it really all depends on what law is rule.

    The benefit of law is not that it is applied equally to all men -it is that threat that it is applied equally to all men.

    If I hate the color white, and make a law that prohibits white, and apply it to all men, including myself .... do you think I see such law as prohibitive or evil on me?

    Well, of course not. I'm a happy duck - but you will be disturbed. But what of your compliant - I dismiss it by saying "Everyone is equal under the law!"

    Thus, it must be more than merely equality of law - we must create the legitimacy of law's application, that is, it can only be applied against initiations of violence - otherwise, it becomes the single greatest tool at increasing violence.
    The single greatest tool of violence is aggression. Again, counterfeiters must aggress against competitors in order to stay in business because if everybody was allowed to counterfeit money, then nobody's counterfeit money would be worth anything. Aggression is required.

    If I lay claim to a plot of land for me and my family, build a home, raise a garden, and operate a small airplane factory, then as a self-sufficient individual me and my family enjoy the fruits of my labor. Problem is that Roy L does not believe I have that right. That is concerning only because if he stops by to tell me that I don't have the right to own my land, then that will piss me off. I am not harming him in any way, but he has the nerve to come to my house and challenge my right to enjoy the fruits of my labor because he doesn't think I have the right to own my land.

    Thing is that me and my land owning neighbors have made a contract. Our contract states that we will respect each other's land boundaries, right to own land, and we further decide to make rules concerning those land rights. One of the rules is no one is allowed to steal from another. Another rule is no hitting or threats against another are allowed which include no slaves. Land laws are drawn and agreed upon.

    The laws are designed to enforce respect for property ownership. It is not a perfect world so the laws are not perfect, but they provide a written general understanding for all so that no one gets sucker punched for violating the rights of another.

    Laws of the land are not the main source of violence. Good land laws include protection of natural rights listed so that the laws of the land do not intrude on the natural rights of humans. The U.S. Constitution was a good start. Allowing for amendments was quite helpful to keep it as a living document while keeping it difficult to change on a whim.

    Your law against bubble gum and your laws against the color white violate my rights as listed in the 4th amendment.
    Amendment IV

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
    I have no obligation to obey, you have no power to enforce, your law is null and void of law. The only valid laws you can make can not be in conflict with the supreme law of the land.

    Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).
    This is one of the leading cases in the history of the U.S. The opinion of the court was “Anything that is in conflict is null and void of law; Clearly for a secondary law to come in conflict with the supreme was illogical; for certainly the supreme law would prevail over any other law, and certainly our forefathers had intended that the supreme law would be the basis for all laws, and for any law to come in conflict would be null and void of law. It would bear no power to enforce, it would bear no obligation to obey, it would purport to settle as though it had never existed, for unconstitutionality would date from the enactment of such a law, not from the date so branded by a court of law. No courts are bound to uphold it, and no citizens are bound to obey it. It operates as a mere nullity or a fiction of law, which means it doesn‟t exist in law.”
    "Everyone who believes in freedom must work diligently for sound money, fully redeemable. Nothing else is compatible with the humanitarian goals of peace and prosperity." -- Ron Paul

    Brother Jonathan

  16. #135

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    The single greatest tool of violence is aggression.
    Agreed - it is the initiaton of violence that creates evil

    Any law that initiates violence is equally evil, no matter how universal it is applied.

    Problem is that Roy L does not believe I have that right.
    Roy L holds an ego-centric world view, and his philosophy can be summed up thus:

    "Freedom for me, but not for you"

    The U.S. Constitution was a good start.
    I vehenmently disagree.

    The Declaration of Independence was a good start.

    The Constitution is violent force upon the innocent - it demands taxation; it removes your freedoms; it attacks your rights - all under the illusion it is protecting them.

    Jefferson said of the Constitution - which he opposed:

    "They have their King, but one of their own making"

    Your law against bubble gum and your laws against the color white violate my rights as listed in the 4th amendment.
    Whose opinion? Not mine, and by your vote, I have the guns to prove it.....

    you have no power to enforce
    You didn't notice the men in blue with badges and a fancy hat? ... oh, and guns.

  17. #136

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    Agreed - it is the initiaton of violence that creates evil

    Any law that initiates violence is equally evil, no matter how universal it is applied.



    Roy L holds an ego-centric world view, and his philosophy can be summed up thus:

    "Freedom for me, but not for you"


    I vehenmently disagree.

    The Declaration of Independence was a good start.

    The Constitution is violent force upon the innocent - it demands taxation; it removes your freedoms; it attacks your rights - all under the illusion it is protecting them.

    Jefferson said of the Constitution - which he opposed:

    "They have their King, but one of their own making"



    Whose opinion? Not mine, and by your vote, I have the guns to prove it.....


    You didn't notice the men in blue with badges and a fancy hat? ... oh, and guns.
    You go right back to the power of the weapon rather than rule by law. That is the problem... not the solution. Today we are ruled by weapons. It is chaotic. Police are not authorized in the supreme law of the land. Elected sheriffs are.

    War is Peace, Slavery is Freedom, Ignorance is Strength, Indoctrination is Education, Fake is Real.

  18. #137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    You go right back to the power of the weapon rather than rule by law.
    All human law is enforced by violence. There are no exceptions.

  19. #138

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    All human law is enforced by violence. There are no exceptions.
    Don't steal.
    Don't assault.

    If you do, then we will hunt you down.

    Don't chew bubble gum. No obligation to obey, no power to enforce... null and void of law.
    Same with industrial hemp. We have no obligation to obey, they have no power to enforce. Their law is null and void of law. They have guns on their side ... lawlessness, but not law.

  20. #139

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    Don't steal.
    Don't assault.

    If you do, then we will hunt you down.

    Don't chew bubble gum. No obligation to obey, no power to enforce... null and void of law.
    The same guys that are used to hunt down killers are the same guys who hunt down bubble gum chewers.

    You may say to them "You're wrong and null and void" and they will say:

    "You have the right to remain silent and we will use everything you say against you..."

  21. #140

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    The same guys that are used to hunt down killers are the same guys who hunt down bubble gum chewers.

    You may say to them "You're wrong and null and void" and they will say:

    "You have the right to remain silent and we will use everything you say against you..."
    Wrong! They don't give a flying fuck what you think. Your lawless society will shoot first, high five each other, and take a vacation. It sucks and we are living it.

  22. #141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    Wrong! They don't give a flying fuck what you think. Your lawless society will shoot first, high five each other, and take a vacation. It sucks and we are living it.
    Now your getting it...
    ...but there is no salvation in a piece of paper, friend.

    If the Constitution was worth anything, the US would not have degraded to the degree it has
    OR
    This is exactly what the Constitution was designed to provide.

    So it is either a dead letter or the cause of the stink - either way .....

  23. #142

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    Now your getting it...
    ...but there is no salvation in a piece of paper, friend.

    If the Constitution was worth anything, the US would not have degraded to the degree it has
    OR
    This is exactly what the Constitution was designed to provide.

    So it is either a dead letter or the cause of the stink - either way .....
    Or the Khazars Warriors are in charge and you are their slave. Just like the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence, and the U.S. Constitution ... the people have had to make their stand against oppressors.

  24. #143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    Just like the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence, the people have had to make their stand against oppressors.
    Up to there, I'd generally agree - but the last one does not fit.

  25. #144

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    Up to there, I'd generally agree - but the last one does not fit.
    Unless you are a land owner.
    "Everyone who believes in freedom must work diligently for sound money, fully redeemable. Nothing else is compatible with the humanitarian goals of peace and prosperity." -- Ron Paul

    Brother Jonathan

  26. #145

    Default

    The U.S. Constitution was the greatest national constitution instituted in history, but that doesn't mean it was a great document. Many parts were written too vaguely and have helped along the massive growth of the federal government. There are great parts of it too. It is debatable how effective written constitutions can be anyway. The most important point made in the thread is that the constitution means nothing if the people won't defend it, by any means necessary.

    We harp on the Constitution here because it is supposed to be the law, and we are the people trying to defend it. Not because it is some magical document.

  27. #146

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Gold Standard View Post
    The U.S. Constitution was the greatest national constitution instituted in history, but that doesn't mean it was a great document. Many parts were written too vaguely and have helped along the massive growth of the federal government.
    The most astounding, amazing aspect to me is how the very vaguest parts (Commerce, Necessary and Proper) could expand and be interpreted in such a way as to give power to completely disregard the parts that aren't vague in the slightest (Art. 1, Sections 8 & 10)!

    I don't see that as the fault of the Constitution, but rather a string of treasonous criminals who didn't like being constrained by the Constitution, but didn't have the ability to change it legitimately. Hence, the exceptions are always the rule, as the most important rules, especially specific prohibitions, are made to be ignored - treated as if they didn't exist.

  28. #147

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Gold Standard View Post
    The U.S. Constitution was the greatest national constitution instituted in history, but that doesn't mean it was a great document. Many parts were written too vaguely and have helped along the massive growth of the federal government. There are great parts of it too. It is debatable how effective written constitutions can be anyway. The most important point made in the thread is that the constitution means nothing if the people won't defend it, by any means necessary.

    We harp on the Constitution here because it is supposed to be the law, and we are the people trying to defend it. Not because it is some magical document.
    +1

    Exactly, it's not about pieces of paper & what's written on it, they don't defend freedom but people who believe in freedom defend it
    A lot is said about the "evil banksters" but the fact remains that they've the power because government gave them the power & government gave them the power because they're self-interested people & the voters are not voting them out despite the fact that they're misusing their power

    Fed can be ended, liberties can be restored IF people demand it but they're too stupid & ignorant & have too much faith in government & their promises of "free lunch" & too little faith in liberty & that's what it comes down to, not documents or "laws", it's about people & their belief in freedom, if that's not there then little point in blaming just the "evil banksters", people & their short-sightedness & ignorance must be blamed too

    And precisely due to this short-sightedness & ignorance of the masses, governments chosen by them should NEVER have the power to rob & violate others' liberties

    "To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people is a chimerical idea."
    - James Madison


    If a nation expects to be ignorant and free ... it expects what never was and never will be
    - Thomas Jefferson
    There is enormous inertia — a tyranny of the status quo — in private and especially governmental arrangements. Only a crisis — actual or perceived — produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable
    - Milton Friedman

  29. #148

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Douglas View Post
    I don't see that as the fault of the Constitution
    Whereas I do.

    Either the Constitution had no real power to constrain the government or it was designed to do exactly what we have.

    Either way ....

  30. #149

    Default

    Paul
    There is enormous inertia — a tyranny of the status quo — in private and especially governmental arrangements. Only a crisis — actual or perceived — produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable
    But are you ready with new ideas?

    Or are they more rehash of old ideas, tried over and over again over the last 10,000 years with pretty much the same result?

  31. #150

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    Either the Constitution had no real power to constrain the government
    True. The US Constitution by itself holds no power. The power of the Constitution comes from the enforcement of its laws. The power comes from the people who enforce Article VI.

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    Law = Violence.
    The Constitution (the supreme law of the land) which had no real power to constrain the government is not violent. Law by itself is not violent. That is what I was getting at yesterday.

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    or it was designed to do exactly what we have.
    False. Much of what we endure is illegitimate unconstitutional governance in direct conflict with the supreme law of the land which renders it null and void of law.

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    Either way ....
    No. The first statement is true and the second statement is false. Either way suggests it can be both true and false which is not possible.

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast




« Previous Thread | Next Thread »


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •