Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 151 to 174 of 174

Thread: Deregulating the banks?

  1. #151
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    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 ....
    No constitution has the power to do anything unless the people enforce it.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #152
    Quote Originally Posted by The Gold Standard View Post
    No constitution has the power to do anything unless the people enforce it.
    Ah, you and Travelyr come to the fundamental contradiction of Constitutions.

    The Constitution, a document proported to constrain government is governed, articulated into law, and enforced by the entity the Constitution was meant to constrain.

    The entity that makes law is also exactly the same one that enforces the law, and do you really believe such an entity will ever enforce a law upon itself that actually constrains itself fundamentally?

    Or will it selectively enforce laws that will extend itself beyond any constraint?

    Do you expect you can bury evil with paperwork and bind the devil with his own rope?



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #153
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    No such thing as an intrinsic value.
    Just saw this.

    That's because you can't get your mind beyond your decidedly limited definitions of the word value. You insist that "intrinsic value" is a fiction based on some implied reference to value that really is extrinsic (like desirability, market/exchange value, etc.,). Within that narrow but entirely false context, I would agree wholeheartedly: There is no such thing as intrinisc market value, or intrinsic desirability (to a desirable object), or any other such stupidity.

    ...If'n I was thinking along the lines of such narrow stupidities. Which I am not.

    That price will be its market value
    Not true.
    It will be some PRICE a whole lot higher than HIS value.
    Wrong. Market value is determined each and every time a price is paid and a transaction is consummated. A single transaction may not reflect average market value - in the aggregate, but it is very much a part of the whole from which such an average is determined.

    (in that particular market, should you pay that price) times its intrinsic value
    That apple is priced to whatever the owner wishes it to be and he needs no calculator to figure it out (though he may use a calculator)
    You are missing something. Firstly, the seller's price is the ASK. Some will pay it, some won't. If the price is too high, more people will avoid it, shopping elsewhere or making substitutions. The seller has his own curve to deal with in that regard. There are limits to what he can dictate, and buyers in a free market are always free.

    Secondly, a calculator by itself will show you a number - NOT what that number represents. If I punch in 1 (QTY) times .79 (PRICE = Ea. or Per lb.). I get $0.79 as a total. However, what the calculator does not say, and what is instead known or implied, is "1 OF WHAT?" "0.79 each OF WHAT"? Well, apples to dollars, naturally.

    A calculator doesn't have a description column - the description is known, or implied, just as the UNIT of currency. But modern cash registers do. A Safeway receipt will imply nothing - it will actually itemize - and read 1 Golden Delicious Apple, $.79 per lb. .... $0.79

    See? When you think "intrinsic value", just translate in your head, because "quantity times certain physical properties" are described by physical/mathematical "values". Those "values" exist completely independent of ANYTHING market related. If an apple wasn't for sale, or nobody wanted to buy apples, it would not cease to be "One Golden Delicious Apple, weight .3765 lbs." (and other properties which describe its intrinsic value).

    No need to dig your heals in and try to force-fit a definition of value that was never intended. You aren't being charged a price for nothing - otherwise, why are you even there? You are being charged for:

    (QTY X DESCRIPTION) X PRICE PER QTY = TOTAL PRICE (FOR A GIVEN THING OF A GIVEN QUANTITY)

    OR...another way of saying the same thing:

    (INTRINSIC VALUE=QTY X DESCRIPTION) X (PRICE PER QTY) = TOTAL

    Now, you can dig in your heals, and lock onto a definition of value that doesn't apply and isn't intended. That would be your brain locked in its own cell. It would be like me saying, "I threw the ball 85 MPH", and you come back with, "You can't throw a ball. A ball is a dance!", to which I explain, "That's not the kind of ball I meant", to which you reply, "Like I said, a ball is a dance. You cannot throw it. Period. "
    Last edited by Steven Douglas; 03-09-2012 at 06:59 AM.

  6. #154
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    Ah, you and Travlyr come to the fundamental contradiction of Constitutions.

    The Constitution, a document proported to constrain government is governed, articulated into law, and enforced by the entity the Constitution was meant to constrain.

    The entity that makes law is also exactly the same one that enforces the law, and do you really believe such an entity will ever enforce a law upon itself that actually constrains itself fundamentally?

    Or will it selectively enforce laws that will extend itself beyond any constraint?

    Do you expect you can bury evil with paperwork and bind the devil with his own rope?
    It is not the constitution that is contradictory. The contradiction was in your statement. The people are duty bound to enforce the constitution. The people have ignored their duty to self-govern. That is one lesson that Ron Paul is teaching across this great land. Get involved. If you don't do politics, then politics will do you.
    "Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you." - Pericles, 430 B.C.
    If, or when, you face a judge in a court of law, your first objective should be to determine if the judge has proper jurisdiction. Ask the judge: "What binds your decision to the U.S. Constiution?"
    Article. VI.

    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

    The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
    Once upon a time everybody that swore the oath to be duty bound to uphold and defend the constitution purchased a penal bond which could taken from them if they disobeyed their oath. They do not purchase the penal bond anymore which makes them personally liable for their actions.

    And you know,
    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.”
    Now that only works in a court of law that respects the law of the land. Current law is run by bankers. That is what we are trying to put an end to. That is what Ron Paul means when he says, "Obey the Constitution." A lot of people reject the Constitution but they shouldn't they should stand up for their rights, enforce the law, and work to make it even better.

    The point is that the people who want self-governance must become actively involved in their governance. It is the job of the people to enforce the supreme law of the land.

  7. #155
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Douglas View Post
    Within that narrow but entirely false context, I would agree wholeheartedly
    We are talking economics.

    If you wish to dialogue about this with physicists or chemists, their offices are down the hall.

    Market value is determined each and every time a price is paid and a transaction is consummated. A single transaction may not reflect average market value - in the aggregate, but it is very much a part of the whole from which such an average is determined.
    Such a value is wholly irrelevant here.

    The market works simply "Highest bid wins".

    The iPad is coming out at $499. Do you believe the consumer of the first iPads will be paying $499? I know they will not.
    The iPad3 was being sold at up to $1500 each for the first few weeks and I expect this will be no different for this product.

    Firstly, the seller's price is the ASK. Some will pay it, some won't. If the price is too high, more people will avoid it, shopping elsewhere or making substitutions. The seller has his own curve to deal with in that regard. There are limits to what he can dictate, and buyers in a free market are always free.
    Didn't miss a thing.

    I never said every transaction is completed.
    Transactions that do not complete change nothing.

    The buyer still has his money - as he had before the attempt.
    The seller still has his goods - as he had before the attempt.

    Well, apples to dollars, naturally.
    True

    When you think "intrinsic value", just translate in your head, because "quantity times certain physical properties" are described by physical/mathematical "values".
    Not one bit.

    What I see is that someone at Safeway placed a value of X on that item and quantified it in relation to money - it concerns me not one wit how he came to that value - whether using a Ouija board, rolled dice, or used some arcane calculation - but I do know he placed a value of that item a lot LOWER than the value he placed on money.

    He imputed HIS value to that item

    The buyer placed a value on that item, and again it concerns me not one wit how he came to that value - whether using a Ouija board, rolled dice, or used some arcane calculation - but I know he placed a HIGHER value on that good then the money in his pocket

    And the buyer imputed HIS value to that item - and the value so imputed by the buyer and the seller are not the same at all.

    There can be no such thing as an intrinsic value if it imputed to that thing, and that the imputing is completely different depending on who does it.

    There are about 7 billion different values for that apple - one per person.

  8. #156
    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    It is not the constitution that is contradictory. The contradiction was in your statement. The people are duty bound to enforce the constitution.
    Pray tell me how YOU will enforce yourself on the Government.

  9. #157
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    Pray tell me how YOU will enforce yourself on the Government.
    Like this,


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpvE...eature=related

  10. #158
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Douglas View Post

    ...If'n I was thinking along the lines of such narrow stupidities. Which I am not.


    Now, you can dig in your heals, and lock onto a definition of value that doesn't apply and isn't intended. That would be your brain locked in its own cell. It would be like me saying, "I threw the ball 85 MPH", and you come back with, "You can't throw a ball. A ball is a dance!", to which I explain, "That's not the kind of ball I meant", to which you reply, "Like I said, a ball is a dance. You cannot throw it. Period. "
    You come up with some epic write-ups +1 to that
    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

  11. #159
    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    Indeed, by holding up a piece of paper claiming the government is wrong will most certainly convince these guys to back down and go home.


  12. #160
    Question: “You’re frequently an advocate for the Constitution. What are your thoughts of the Lysander Spooner statement: “But whether the Constitution really be one thing or another, this much is certain: that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.”

    Ron Paul: “I’ll tell you what: I don’t criticize Lysander. His point is very well taken, and someday maybe we will mature to that point. His claim was that if he himself didn’t agree to the Constitution, why should somebody in a remote body agree to the Constitution and he be pushed under it? It is a good idea, but under today’s circumstances, I have to work with the best that we have. Because who knows, I might have been an anti-Federalist at the time the Constitution was being written."
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhugbnLi4Ps

    The Constitution is only valid upon those who signed it. At best you could stretch it to those who voted for it, or those adults who have taken an oath to it. This should not be in dispute. The question among those who believe in freedom is: how do we mature society to the point that it no longer feels the need for government overlords? Or, at least, no longer feels the need to force their form of government upon everyone.

    Henry David Thoreau said something along the same lines at the start of Civil Disobedience:

    Quote Originally Posted by Henry David Thoreau
    I HEARTILY ACCEPT the motto, — "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe, — "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have."
    Last edited by enoch150; 03-09-2012 at 03:52 PM.
    "Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."
    Ronald Reagan, 1981



  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #161
    Quote Originally Posted by enoch150 View Post
    The question among those who believe in freedom is: how do we mature society to the point that it no longer feels the need for government overlords? Or, at least, no longer feels the need to force their form of government upon everyone.
    Ah, the answer is simple.

    We achieved civilization by understanding and upholding this idea:

    It is always wrong to do violence on non-violent people.


    This one concept sets the foundation of all true, human law and the foundation by which people can live together.

    The only, very small step left to do is:

    Enforce this upon our institutions to the same degree we enforce it upon ourselves individually.

  15. #162
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    We are talking economics.

    If you wish to dialogue about this with physicists or chemists, their offices are down the hall.
    That's the funniest part of all, since modern economists attempt to (mis)apply the laws of physics and mathematics to economies (read=HUMAN BEHAVIOR).

    Such a value is wholly irrelevant here.
    Incorrect. In the absolute. You might personally be operating in a strange, nebulous vacuum where numbers signify nothing but themselves, and only Monopoly money is real, but physical commodities and products, as part and parcel and a major component of entire economies, are driven by physical reality, where physical properties (intrinsic values) very much apply. Without intrinsic values, how do you know what you are paying for?

    The market works simply "Highest bid wins".
    Oh, is that how the market works? I thought it was a tad more complicated than that. You know, floors and ceilings, yins and yangs, optimal price versus volume, quid pro quos and all that back and forth stuff.

    The iPad is coming out at $499. Do you believe the consumer of the first iPads will be paying $499? I know they will not.

    The iPad3 was being sold at up to $1500 each for the first few weeks and I expect this will be no different for this product.
    See? It is more complicated, isn't it? And interesting that you said that. I have a first gen. iPad, and I will be buying an iPad 3, having passed on 2 -- AFTER all those "highest bidder" leading-edge suckers get flushed out. And that extra money will not have been charged by Apple stores anyway, who won't be changing their prices at all. That price difference is for resale over retail, the profits going to scalping intermediaries who fight to get in line first - but DO pay $499.

    After all that short-lived nonsense, the lines will settle down and Apple will still want to sell to me - a holdout who isn't dealing with scalpers, or bidding any higher. And sure enough, with just a TEENSY bit of patience, I won't "outbid" anyone. Making you wrong. I am a consumer of the first iPad, and I will be paying $499 for the next one.

    Meanwhile, something you failed to mention: Apple will not be selling to those who thought that even $499 was too high, which affects their overall volume of sales, and Apple, being the clever marketers they are, know this - and have taken this fact, among others into account. Their market wasn't driven solely by the DECIDED MINORITY of highest bidders willing to pay 300% to scalpers.

    Think about something. If Apple held out, it could get $3,000 for an iPad3. Just make it a limited edition, and hold firm on the ASK price. It would be stupid for Apple to do this, but some would pay it. And furthermore, when they DID pay it - that would be its market value. Not because of high bidders or high askers, but simply because someone actually paid the price.

    What I see is that someone at Safeway placed a value of X on that item and quantified it in relation to money - it concerns me not one wit how he came to that value - whether using a Ouija board, rolled dice, or used some arcane calculation - but I do know he placed a value of that item a lot LOWER than the value he placed on money.
    Yep, I knew it. Like a honey badger on an old boot, you're still locked into economic value only - and still in the mindset of thinking that I am claiming anything market or price related to intrinsic value.

    So let's approach this another way - one where words do not get in the way. Not apples to dollars, but Apples to Oranges.


    You have two bushels of apples from your tree, I have two bushels of oranges from mine. We decide to trade. Which is to say barter. Which is to say that I will "buy" your apples with oranges, and you will simultaneously "buy" my oranges using your apples.

    Your money:
    QTY: 1 bushel
    DESCRIPTION: Red Delicious Apples

    My money:
    QTY: 1 bushel
    DESCRIPTION: Delicious Navel Oranges

    See that? Nothing but intrinsic values. A quantity of a specific thing in exchange for a quantity of a specific (but unlike) thing.

    Now, we might flip a coin, use a Ouija board, or just employ some hard-ass negotiating skills to change the exchange quantity. But that's irrelevant. The quantity referred to is still in reference to something physical, and therefore an intrinsic value. Not a market value -- because how much to exchange one unlike thing for another is a different matter altogether, and not intrinsic to the fruit.


    There can be no such thing as an intrinsic value if it imputed to that thing, and that the imputing is completely different depending on who does it.

    There are about 7 billion different values for that apple - one per person.
    You just don't get it. You are locked on. Exchange value (anything imputed) is NOT intrinsic. NOR is it what is being referred to by "intrinsic value". Cough up that nasty stupid hairball you keep putting in your mouth, I didn't feed it to you!

    The only relevant value that is intrinsic to ONE APPLE in this case is that it is ONE APPLE. That's it. Nothing imputed, no giving a $#@! about what it might exchange for, or how someone else might look at it. It is what it is, and whatever it is (QTY X DESCRIPTION) is its "intrinsic value". Other "intrinsic values" might get in the way of me selling it. It might be a "sour" apple. A rotten apple. An apple with a wormhole. Those are also physical properties, and therefore INTRINSIC values.
    Last edited by Steven Douglas; 03-10-2012 at 01:10 AM.

  16. #163
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Douglas View Post
    That's the funniest part of all, since modern economists attempt to (mis)apply the laws of physics and mathematics to economies (read=HUMAN BEHAVIOR).
    True enough

    Incorrect. In the absolute.
    No, correct.
    In the free market, every time
    You might personally be operating in a strange, nebulous vacuum where numbers signify nothing but themselves, and only Monopoly money is real, but physical commodities and products, as part and parcel and a major component of entire economies, are driven by physical reality, where physical properties (intrinsic values) very much apply. Without intrinsic values, how do you know what you are paying for?
    Because i desire it now - it has no value until I give.

    Something can not be both intrinsic, and need it given the same thing.
    It either has it or it doesn't
    And it doesn't have it until I give.

    There is no such thing as intrinsic value - period.
    No matter how much myth you believe otherwise.

    you're still locked into economic value only
    Yes because we are talking economics, not physics.

    Thought you had that clear a moment ago.

    See? It is more complicated, isn't it?
    In this, it is not.

    Nothing but intrinsic values.
    No, Nothing has intrinsic value.

    Only those that hold economic theories that are not well thought out believe in intrinsic value.

    What school do you adhere to, Steve? Most certainly not Austrian.

  17. #164
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    Because i desire it now - it has no value until I give.
    No, an apple doesn't need your worthless thoughts of economic exchange value to be an apple. In fact, it doesn't even require the human race to exist be an apple.

    I have to go with your flow on this, realizing that you're stuck in your own definition mire, thinking that by me claiming that a thing has intrinsic value, I'm referring to market (READ = EXCHANGE) or some other abstract concept of value - which I am not, but you keep gravitating back to la-la land to assume.

    Something can not be both intrinsic, and need it given the same thing.
    Grammatically clumsy, but I got your intent (see how nifty that is - I can actually translate and clarify what I think is your intent)

    If you had to "give" or "impute" something (mentally) to a thing, it cannot be said to be intrinsic to that thing. See how easy that is? Total agreement. That is not intrinsic value. That does not mean that intrinsic value does not exist - only that what you gave as an example is not it.

    QUESTIONER: "Black Flag, what is the intrinsic value of 10 lbs. of Red Delicious Apples?"

    BLACK FLAG: "The apples have no value until it is given or imputed. There is no such thing as intrinsic value."

    QUESTIONER: "Steven Douglas, same question: What is the intrinsic value of 10 lbs. of apples?"

    STEVEN DOUGLAS: "You answered your own question. That's like asking me how much does ten pounds of pure water weigh, and what does it contain?"

    But let's say you want more intrinsic values.

    A medium red apple averages 154 g., or 0.34 lbs., (INTRINSIC WEIGHT)
    They are usually red in color (INTRINSIC COLOR)
    Have a core, seeds, stem (INTRINSIC CHARACTERISTICS)

    Ten pounds of such apples will contain, on average:
    648 Total Carbohydrates
    501 grams sugars
    147.2 grams dietary fiber
    Trace amounts of Vitamin A, Vitamin C, Calcium and Iron.

    All these are intrinsic values, none of which were "given" by any human being, let alone required their existence or knowledge to have.

    If there is a myth, it's that you are required for a thing to have intrinsic value. Again, cough up the hairball you keep trying to swallow. Market value is not intrinsic value.

    What school do you adhere to, Steve? Most certainly not Austrian.
    Economics: Austrian
    Physics: Mainstream, mostly Newtonian

    Knowledge of integrated circuit technology is not required for computer programming, even though computer programming would be meaningless, and would not have been possible, without integrated circuits. Likewise, intrinsic value is not an economic theory, even though it is used and taken for granted every day in economics, and without which the very field of economics would be entirely meaningless.

    Jump out of your tree, stand back, and look at the forest. Every physical thing in the universe has intrinsic value(s), without which there would be no existence, let alone universe, let alone Earth, let alone humans, markets, or (much, MUCH later) a study of economics, and creation of economic theories.
    Last edited by Steven Douglas; 03-10-2012 at 03:22 AM.

  18. #165
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    The only, very small step left to do is:

    Enforce this upon our institutions to the same degree we enforce it upon ourselves individually.
    Article VI?

  19. #166
    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Douglas View Post
    Every physical thing in the universe has intrinsic value(s), without which there would be no existence, let alone universe, let alone Earth, let alone humans, markets, or (much, MUCH later) a study of economics, and creation of economic theories.
    So you agree with Black Flat that Paul Or Nothing II (and Voltaire, apparently) was wrong when he said

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Or Nothing II View Post
    Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value -- zero.
    Black Flag just said nothing had intrinsic value, while you think everything has intrinsic value, including paper money. Got it.

    It still looks like you're using the word 'value' when 'properties' is what you really mean. These definitions work for me:

    Intrinsic: belonging to a thing by its very nature http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intrinsic
    Value: relative worth, merit, or importance http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/value

    The definition of value requires at least three things: a thing, another thing to be measured against, and a being to determine the relative importance of the items in question. A thing can not have relative worth, by its very nature. It is the characteristics of one thing when compared to another that a person can use to assign value. I'm sure you can see how this is important when talking about something like substitute products.

    "Intrinsic value" only makes sense as an idiom.
    "Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."
    Ronald Reagan, 1981

  20. #167
    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    Article VI?
    What enforcement exists in a constitution?

  21. #168
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    What enforcement exists in a constitution?
    Article. VI.

    This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

    The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
    ... shall be bound thereby...

    Ever hear of a Penal Bond?



  22. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  23. #169
    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    ... shall be bound thereby...

    Ever hear of a Penal Bond?
    So where does it say that the law as applied to a man shall be applied equally upon all the institutions of men?

    To me it say some foreign law created by treaty is the supreme law.

    And the Constitution does not equate the law that applies to you, Travlyr, applies to any government - foreign or domestic. Indeed, the Constitution specifically claims the government can do things that you by law could never do, such as steal someone's land.

  24. #170
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    So where does it say that the law as applied to a man shall be applied equally upon all the institutions of men?

    To me it say some foreign law created by treaty is the supreme law.

    And the Constitution does not equate the law that applies to you, Travlyr, applies to any government - foreign or domestic. Indeed, the Constitution specifically claims the government can do things that you by law could never do, such as steal someone's land.
    I am not sure to what you are referring, but there is an amendment process. I am so glad that our ancestors listed our rights in the 'Bill of Rights' because I may have never become aware of my rights otherwise. Certainly, the U.S. Constitution is a flawed document. Yet, it initiated a great experiment in liberty that if we could somehow agree to reinstate the rule of law, then we could again enjoy liberty, peace, and prosperity while making governance even better. We have all the tools and knowledge.
    "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

  25. #171
    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    I am not sure to what you are referring, but there is an amendment process.
    Pray tell why I would agree to a Constitution that destroys my rights so that I can appeal to this device -by which has defeated the very right I wish to enforce by my agreement to the destruction of my rights - so to reverse the very essence of the very thing I agreed with in the first place.

    In other words, why would I agree to something that destroys the thing I want so I can change that something, thus my necessary agreement to it so not destroy the thing I want?

    Why not just throw the mess in the trash?
    I am so glad that our ancestors listed our rights in the 'Bill of Rights' because I may have never become aware of my rights otherwise.
    Read a book - I can suggest dozens of profound thinkers - you don't have to read it in a document that was created to destroy those very rights.


    Certainly, the U.S. Constitution is a flawed document. Yet, it initiated a great experiment in liberty that if we could somehow agree to reinstate the rule of law, then we could again enjoy liberty, peace, and prosperity while making governance even better. We have all the tools and knowledge.
    Yep, the knowledge that believing you can constrain evil by paperwork is -now proven- fundamentally ridiculous and foolhardy.

  26. #172
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    Pray tell why I would agree to a Constitution that destroys my rights so that I can appeal to this device -by which has defeated the very right I wish to enforce by my agreement to the destruction of my rights - so to reverse the very essence of the very thing I agreed with in the first place.
    Because they will kill you with a drone locked on your cell phone GPS if you refuse to stand up for yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    In other words, why would I agree to something that destroys the thing I want so I can change that something, thus my necessary agreement to it so not destroy the thing I want?
    Have you read the 'Bill of Rights?' Have you read the Magna Carta?

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    Why not just throw the mess in the trash?
    If you know your rights, then you can enforce your rights. Did you even bother to watch what Carl Miller had to say?


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_CAtNqtbic
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    Yep, the knowledge that believing you can constrain evil by paperwork is -now proven- fundamentally ridiculous and foolhardy.
    Because ignoring the Constitution has worked so well? Explain what the hell you mean by that.
    "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

  27. #173
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Flag View Post
    Pray tell why I would agree to a Constitution that destroys my rights so that I can appeal to this device -by which has defeated the very right I wish to enforce by my agreement to the destruction of my rights - so to reverse the very essence of the very thing I agreed with in the first place.

    In other words, why would I agree to something that destroys the thing I want so I can change that something, thus my necessary agreement to it so not destroy the thing I want?

    Why not just throw the mess in the trash?
    Because the last time that was tried resulted in a War Between the States.

    I do think that the US Federal Government failing in some manner to that of the former Soviet Union, i.e. a catastrophic economic collapse, is pretty much inevitable, but I'm not desirous of another Civil War, my State fared rather poorly in the last one, and I would rather there be a much more peaceful solution this time around.

    Unfortunately I don't know if my rathers have much to do with what will actually happen, but as long as there is a chance I'm willing to work towards it.

    As far as I can tell Ron Paul is, if not the last chance, then the last best chance we have of getting ourselves in order as a Nation, we might still be able to "work through this" as he says. I don't know if I agree that it will be too late by 2016, but the longer the United States keeps operating with a bankrupt monetary system the worse the inevitably correction will be for everyone.
    Ron Paul: He irritates more idiots in fewer words than any American politician ever.

    NO MORE LIARS! Ron Paul 2012

  28. #174
    Quote Originally Posted by WilliamC View Post
    Because the last time that was tried resulted in a War Between the States.
    Oh, I am not advocating doing such a thing now - because you are correct.

    There are too many people who like the way government runs now, so they would fight - and there are a bunch who want to re-establish some parts of the Constitution and they would fight ... though these two are natural enemies, they would work together to fight anyone who dares touch the Constitution.


    No one - not even Paul - can restore the American Dream - the best he and those like him might do (on a very outside chance) is to delay this current form from inevitable decay.

    But the US will not disappear - it will decentralize.

    When Washington's check no longer clear the bank, the politics of Washington will be ignored - and return to its more local and adept roots - your town, city or county.

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456


Similar Threads

  1. There's a flaw in deregulating corporations
    By Xhin in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 66
    Last Post: 03-12-2012, 04:38 PM
  2. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-14-2012, 09:22 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-28-2010, 02:31 PM
  4. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-14-2010, 01:32 PM
  5. Replies: 32
    Last Post: 11-14-2008, 08:37 PM

Posting Permissions

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