Your crazy. My money is the result of me contracting out my labor to others.
Where do you think they got *their* money from?
So what? *They* whomever they are, be it my customers, or an employer, got it from their labor or some other source of exchange of wealth or service they provide.
You don't think people pay to drive on roads? They do every time they fill up.
They are paying for gas, not roads. Gas stations don't use that money to pay for the road system.
Gas taxes. You forgot about the bloody gas taxes. I believe it's a relatively fair way to tax. You pay a tax on the gas you use that is spent to upkeep the road system. (you should not pay a tax on lawnmower gas). Now.. I would prefer a private system with no gas taxes but perhaps another way of providing for upkeep but.. if this is the system we *must* have and they *only* charged the amount necessary to upkeep the roads (they don't) then I think there are worse things the states are doing to complain about.
Key word *choice*. Others lack of bathing is the reason I chose to drive. Should I be forced to buy them showers? Yes, certain factors cause us to make voluntary economic choices, that's good.. the problems start occurring when opinionated bastards like yourself force others to pay for things you like at gun point all because you make a certain choice and they don't. You like the bus then YOU pay for it and stop having your tax goons take my money to do it, forcing others to pay for something you like is barbaric and wrong.
Wow, now I'm an opinionated bastard. Rid yourself of your overzealous ideology and then you might be able to look at things a bit more deeply.
No, I said it's barbaric and wrong to force people to do things they do not want to do. Didn't your mother ever teach you stealing is wrong? Why do you think its ok to steal from me to pay for your bus system, if I don't want it and wont use it?
Good point! Why should I pay for schools? I have no children. You wouldn't pay for telephone service if you did not own a telephone, right? I think it is perfectly fair for someone to opt-out of a government "service" they do not use. It is fair to pay for what you use. It is not fair to pay for something you will never use.
Somehow I think you disagree.. now before you start spouting off about "society" and other collectivist terms like the last guy, ask yourself this:
If garbage service *was* optional in your area and provided by the city, but also by a private contractor that you preferred and used, would you voluntarily help your well off neighbor pay for his city garbage collection service? If you would, how much would you voluntarily pay him, what level of burden would you take on? If you wouldn't voluntarily do it, then why do you think it is it ok to make it law and force someone to?
Who is "we"? You use a lot of collectivist terms, I get around just fine and feel safe when I do so.
Yes, there is such a thing as private roads. and not just race tracks and parking lots. Disney and Microsoft (and probbly many others) have huge areas and complex where they have private roads.
Well you can say.. that works for things like that but not for cities right? Wrong. When I was a kid my grandparents lived in a rural area that had private roads. They use to pay a guy to go around and fill in pot holes. The city of North Oaks, Michigan does not own the roads, or any property at all. Residents property lines extend to half way across the road.
Just because you can't think of other ways it can be done.. doesn't mean it's impossible. Many people have been able to figure out how to get by on private road networks.. probbly because those people wanted to.. oh I don't know.. leave their freeking houses and go somewhere or something like that.. and the market responds to that desire.
First off.. its my money, I should be able to do with it what I want.
Not entirely. It's a product of an economy that you've had a marginal affect on.
Your crazy. My money is the result of me contracting out my labor to others.
Secondly.. why does government even take care of roads at all?
Not profitable.
You don't think people pay to drive on roads? They do every time they fill up.
Thirdly.. I don't even take the bus, why should I pay for it?
Because your vehicle out on the roads is part of the reason people choose to take the bus.
Key word *choice*. Others lack of bathing is the reason I chose to drive. Should I be forced to buy them showers? Yes, certain factors cause us to make voluntary economic choices, that's good.. the problems start occurring when opinionated bastards like yourself force others to pay for things you like at gun point all because you make a certain choice and they don't. You like the bus then YOU pay for it and stop having your tax goons take my money to do it, forcing others to pay for something you like is barbaric and wrong.
[quote]Put the damn money into comprehensive public transportation!![/quote]
First off.. its my money, I should be able to do with it what I want. Secondly.. why does government even take care of roads at all? Thirdly.. I don't even take the bus, why should I pay for it?
Government is really worried that there are a lots of dumb people out there that won't be able to figure out why their TV's don't work. These people do probbly exist, although I have no idea about the numbers (I would assume the high and mighty politicians are overestimating because they think they are smarter than most people anyhow.) They have been attempting to run an education campaign, and have endless advertisements for converter boxes.
Trouble is.. people who actually needed to get the ad's probably don't have any idea *what* they have, and sales show people have not been buying converter boxes even with the coupons.
And here we see the nature of how government operates in everything, it's slow, expensive, inefficient, and bureaucratic.. in technology matters those "qualities" make it that much worse.. Everything must be held back because those wizards in government think a handful of rubes out there might get pissed if they miss Oprah. Progress is being held back to the lowest common denominator. Trust me, this isn't going to be the last delay either, we will be lucky if we see that spectrum open up in 5-10 years, and they will probably start mailing those converters to people for free even if they don't know if they need them or not...The spectrum shouldn't even be "owned" by government in the first place. Somehow the market was able to figure out how to make everything from Bluetooth, to microwave ovens, to wi-fi work in the tiny little 2.4Ghz band.
Rule of Law is still preferable to rule by tyranny of the majority. The Law and the judges sworn to uphold that law are the only things that protect minority and individual rights.
No way.. your all confused..
It is preventing the government from being able to create law that protects rights. "Congress shall make no law.." Law is not liberty, law (or the requirement of receiving government permission to do something) is the opposite of liberty.
The Constitutionally Limited Representative Republic we live in is SERIOUSLY BROKEN today (it might be difficult to tell you what kind of government it actually even is anymore) but.. by design, it is the Constitution that is supposed to a) grant, and b) limit government power. It uses "you can only do X AND you can never do Y" logic, not one or the other but both. (The reason why this is? The anti-federalists demanded it be this way.)
Judges (who are lawyers that are employed by the state/fed) are NOT arbitrators of freedom. They can be a tyrannical as any man, and they have a vested interest in the state, like it or not they do, the state writes their paychecks. Most judges fail to inform juries of their ability to nullify unjust laws and instead instruct juries that they "..must rule on the law itself and no other factors in the case." That is wrong, a jury can rule against the law itself. (such as was done in prohibition. "Yes, your honor that man *was* running a speak-easy, and that is *not* a crime! Not guilty.") It's fitting don't you think that the people actually have the power to rule themselves on the laws politicians write for us? Too bad this is broken in two was. 1. Most people never take their case to trial giving up their 7th amendment rights, the reason why I think, is because the state prosecutors often "multiply charges" so the jury will assume the defendant "must be guilty of something". This makes the risk too great to go to trial, better to plea out.. right? and 2. as I mentioned, judges fail to fully inform juries of their rights and duties.. in fact judges even instruct juries on how to rule now days, this is an outrage. The judges role in a jury trial that that of a referee to make sure it's a fair trial, NOT to decide the outcome. The only reason why I can think why Judges may do this, is because they could be seen "Soft on crime" if they fail to get convictions.. that could hurt them politically.
I think its strange how you mention "tyranny of the majority" as if somehow a majority can't write a bad law that is upheld by bad judges and a bad system. They most centrally can. As I said before, the internment of the Japanese was legal, supported by the majority, and upheld by the courts. It was absolutely a violation of the Constitution and human rights, but it was legal. So you can see that law has nothing to do with morality or right and wrong despite many people thinking so.
The law is not always right, and its not always just. (Segregation and the internment of Japanese was law, MLK said it is your duty to break unjust laws.) Just because it's THE LAW, doesn't mean it right.
That being said, it's merely wishful thinking judges master is the law. State Judges work for the state and have a vested interest in the state, Federal Judges, same thing.. worse yet.. they have a, secret language (legalese) and a little club (the bar). If someone in the club goes against the club they can be disbarred, lawyers fear judges.. this is a fact. AND If anyone outside the club learns their secret language, they are forbidden from helping others and will be thrown into a cage if they try to do so. "You can't fight city hall."..as they say, because the system is so screwed up.
If the liberals of this country made it possible for Islam to spread and then take over the USA, then watch all of their progress evaporate as women are disenfranchised, then kicked out of their jobs, abortion is banned, homosexuals are stoned, writers are jailed, directors shot, dancers raped, just like, well, every other country where Islam has taken over.
Islam is not like a venereal disease or a knapweed. It does not simply "spread". People must choose it. I think it's pretty u8nlikley people like yourself, or liberals (whom you think your "protecting") or any other group of people will voluntarily choose what you describe any time soon.
More importantly is your desire to cede endless authority to the state. You are blindly destroying your own freedom and creating a tyranny here at home. This is the likes of something our forefathers fought against.
Sarbanes-Oxley, generally hurts the economy because it places more restrictions and requires more bureaucrats and company employees to comply with.. but does little to actually prevent fraud.
There is a great myth out there that it's government that creates jobs or politicians that save jobs. The truth is, that where as it is possible for the government to provide someone with a paycheck, that is not a good thing for the economy because in order for them to get that paycheck they had to take the money away from the productive parts of the economy. Government doesn't have anything it did not take from someone else.
Government has a lot of power to do harm, but little real power to help the economy. For an example of this you can look at all the past stimulus and economic recovery packages passed in an attempt to prevent this current recession we are in. They fail at it not because they aren't trying or are trying the wrong things.. but because the economy is just too vast and complex for anyone let alone those economic wizards in Washington to control. Real economic forces are created by millions of real thinking people with real desires to do what they believe is in their own best interest, one would find it easier to map the human genome or remember all the stars in the galaxy than you would to be able to correctly predict market forces.
A government created job only makes economic sense if it is something people would have already paid for, and then if that is true.. then there is probbly no need to have them do it at all because private enterprise always does things more efficiently than government. The best thing government can do is get out of the way.
There are even cases where government prevents certain action by law to "save jobs". The following story from "The Adventures of Jonathan Gullible" of illustrates this:
-------- Jonathan walked for several hours without a glimpse of any sign of life. Suddenly, something moved in the thicket and a small animal with a yellow-striped tail flashed down a barely visible track. "A cat," thought Jonathan. "Maybe it will lead to me to other life." He dived through the thick foliage.
Just as he lost sight of the beach and was deep in the jungle, he heard a sharp scream. He stopped, cocked his head, and tried to locate the source of the sound. Directly ahead, he heard another shrill cry for help. Pushing up an incline and through a mass of branches and vines, he clawed his way forward and stumbled onto a wider path.
As he rounded a sharp bend in the trail, Jonathan ran full tilt into the side of a burly man. "Out of my way, runt!" bellowed the man, brushing him aside like a gnat. Dazed, Jonathan looked up and saw two men dragging a young woman, kicking and yelling, down the trail. By the time he caught his breath, the trio had disappeared. Certain that he couldn't free the woman alone, Jonathan ran back down the trail looking for help.
A clearing opened and he saw a group of people gathered around a big tree--beating it with sticks. Jonathan ran up and grabbed the arm of a man who watched the others work. "Please sir, help!" gasped Jonathan. "Two men have captured a woman and she needs help!"
"Don't be alarmed," the supervisor said gruffly. "She's under arrest. Forget her and move along, we've got work to do."
"Arrest?" said Jonathan, still huffing. "She didn't look like, uh, like a criminal." Jonathan wondered, if she was guilty, why did she cry so desperately for help? "Pardon me, sir, but what was her crime?"
"Huh?" snorted the man with irritation. "Well, if you must know, she threatened the jobs of everyone working here."
"She threatened people's jobs? How'd she do that?" asked Jonathan.
Glaring down at his ignorant questioner, the supervisor motioned for Jonathan to come over to a tree where workers busily pounded away at the trunk. Proudly, he said, "We are tree workers. We knock down trees for wood by beating them with these sticks. Sometimes a hundred people, working round-the-clock, can
Okay, I'll bite. Money conspiracy theories need to be put to rest.
I can tell you I'm glad you responded because there is a limit to the size of the questions you can ask on the site but there is no limit here.
You wouldn't want some questions on there right..?
* The Federal Reserve note "represents" one dollar, and circular logic is used to describe it saying it is 100 cents and a cent is 1/100 of a dollar.
This is a non-issue. It's something maybe a 5 year old would find interesting.
As for a dollar, it's a unit of United States legal tender.
Obama, my question to you is, what is a dollar?
Maybe a 5 year old understands he does not know. You seem to think you know but you failed to answer my question.
You describe the dollar as a unit of tender. This is illogical.
A "unit" is a standard of measurement. "Tender" is an offer of something to be used in an exchange. What is the dollar an offer of and if the dollar is a unit, what does the dollar measure?
An inch is a unit, it measures distance. A gram is a unit that measures weight. If I ask you for a quart of milk you would know exactly what I mean, but if I offered to trade you the tender of a "yard" for your quart of milk, would your first question not be "A yard of what??"
* Why is it the United States Government creates money
But it doesn't.
Fair enough, we will be accurate. The Federal Reserve, not the government. (They can if they choose to, but they currently don't.)
on loan from the Federal Reserve member banks when the Treasury Department has the ability to create all the money it wants debt free?
The Treasury is part of the U.S. government, and it doesn't do that. Only the Federal Reserve can currently issue currency.
Should the United States Note (also known as the green back) be reintroduced?
No.
Why or why not?
Because that would be a terrible idea.
I agree creating money from thin air is a terrible idea, but a worse idea is creating money from thin air *and* being forced to pay interest to the Federal Reserve. (who owns 40% of the national debt). Can you give me a good economic reason to pay interest on money we could create interest free?
* If all money is created in the form of only principle by the Federal Reserve and member banks and they charge interest on that money. Where does the money to pay the interest come from?
It doesn't need to come from anywhere. A dollar can pay its own interest. You're aware that money can circulate back and forth? That one dollar need only bounce back and forth 2-3 times to pay off a 30 year treasury?
I don't think you understand. I'll express it as a mathematical formula. If all money is created as a principle (P), and it is paid with Principle + Interest (I), then to pay all loans you just divide what exists by what is owed.
P / (P + I) = X
Right? If your correct than X should equal 1 and all loans can be paid, however it does not. X must be a fraction because the divisor is a larger number. That means that all loans can not be paid no matter how many times the Principle changes hands. Bankruptcy is built into the money system no matter how successful we all are, it is as much a fact as gravity.
No, I think some questions they will not want on there...
I wouldn't want stupid questions, either.
If they are such silly and simple questions.. where is my answer? There actually *is* a correct answer to this you know.
You wouldn't want some questions on there right..?
* The Federal Reserve note "represents" one dollar, and circular logic is used to describe it saying it is 100 cents and a cent is 1/100 of a dollar. Obama, my question to you is, what is a dollar?
* Why is it the United States Government creates money on loan from the Federal Reserve member banks when the Treasury Department has the ability to create all the money it wants debt free? Should the United States Note (also known as the green back) be reintroduced? Why or why not?
* If all money is created in the form of only principle by the Federal Reserve and member banks and they charge interest on that money. Where does the money to pay the interest come from?
No, I think some questions they will not want on there...
A "pure" democracy? No, in truth *any* democracy is bad.
Think about it. In a democracy people voice "opinions" on various topics and the majorities opinion is selected and made law. That law must oppress the minority. In a democracy we will all eventually find ourselves in the minority on some topic so we all will loose. Also the opinion selected and made law creates a one size fits all policy for the government. The *problem* is it is a cohesive system designed to use force on other people. One size never fit's all and there are opinions that should never be law.
(Opinion is in quotes there because that is what most people think a vote is, you opinion on a topic, however this is not all together accurate. For instance, government presents you with a ballot measure to raise taxes to pay for a new park. You like parks right? You have no problem paying for a park so you vote, yes. The problem here is.. they are not actually asking you for your opinion on if *you* want a park.. they are asking you if you think it is ok for them to force your neighbor to pay for it.. at gunpoint if necessary.)
Democracy fails to provide freedom. For example look at public schools. Be it prayer is school, evolution vs creationism, the pledge, sex ed, gay friendly education, school lunch, or any number of other topics. They are just opinions people have on what values their own children should learn. Democracy creates a system of force where one group must battle another group to have their values presented to their children. Think about the ragging intensity and hate this creates. If people could actually choose schools that shared their own values, these arguments wouldn't just diminish, they would vanish.
If we had "more democracy" in out schools we would be arguing over everything from building construction to the color of the walls! Different people can't agree on anything, but that's ok. The idea that we must all come to a consensus is stupid. We don't all need to agree on things.. in fact if we did, it would cause intellectual sloth as new ideas or methods of teaching are opposed.
I believe instigating force on another person or group of people is wrong. Philosophically speaking the most ideal form of government is anarchy. (anarchy meaning without rule, not chaos.) Market anarchy provides the absolute extreme in freedom. As anarchy is a difficult state to maintain without someone somewhere obtaining power over it, and thus beings anew the cycle of people using force on people. If anarchy can not work, a second most idea form is a tiny tiny limited republic like the Constitution creates. Our founding fathers had failed however to chain down the growth of government... and perhaps it's impossible.. but at least we can try.. In either regard we should start moving in that direction.
"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." -- Lysander Spooner
The America form of government was never even referred to as a Democracy until the 1900's. Today people use the word interchangeably with Republic, but the founders were quite clear about what it was and went to great lengths to prevent it.
Some historical reference for you:
About 370 BC, Plato wrote: "A democracy is a state in which the poor, gaining the upper hand, kill some and banish others, and then divide the offices among the remaining citizens equally."
About 126 BC, Polybius wrote: "The common people feel themselves oppressed by the grasping of some, and their vanity is flattered by others. Fired with evil passions, they are no longer willing to submit to control, but demand that everything be subject to their authority. The invariable result is that government assumes the noble names of free and popular, but becomes in fact the most execrable thing, mob rule."
And about 63 BC, Seneca, a Roman wrote: "Democracy is mor
By in large a majority of the American people can not answer the following questions.
Which of the following are the inalienable rights referred to in the Declaration of Independence? In 1933 Franklin Delano Roosevelt proposed a series of government programs that became known as: What are the three branches of government? What part of the government has the power to declare war? The Bill of Rights explicitly prohibits: Name two countries that were our enemies during World War II.
Some people consider copper a cheep metal.. I mean hea, our pennies are made of it right? Would you leave silver pipes laying around?
It's not the government job to track all the copper, or silver, or gold, or cars, or anything else someone may steal and it's primarily YOUR job to protect your OWN property by locking it up.. and honestly.. this is really the only way, if anyone out there does not believe me.. stop locking up your car in that bad part of town and see how long it takes to get stolen.. then see how "concerned" the police are about getting it back.
Really however, I don't believe that someone drinking one beer and driving is a danger, do you? I believe dangerous driving and endangering others is a crime, but that's not necessarily related to the consumption of alcohol. The law is arbitrary however.
The action that someone may take that causes them to be a danger is irreverent. The fact that they are a danger is all you need to be concerned about. The net effect is the same, cop sees someone swerving on the road, he stops them from driving, a judge figures out the rest. It doesn't matter if he's drunk or drop dead sober.
Cell phones distract people? Yeah, So does eating in the car, and rocking out to Eddie Vedder. We don't need extra laws against each and every single thing you can do in a car that *might* distract a driver, if that were the case we would need hundreds of laws preventing things like "The building a campfire on the passenger seat while driving".
We only need ONE law against distracted or otherwise observed unsafe driving. Let people do what they want and if they don't take precautions to be safe about it *then* you can ticket them.
Slashdot Mirror
Your crazy. My money is the result of me contracting out my labor to others.
Where do you think they got *their* money from?
So what? *They* whomever they are, be it my customers, or an employer, got it from their labor or some other source of exchange of wealth or service they provide.
You don't think people pay to drive on roads? They do every time they fill up.
They are paying for gas, not roads. Gas stations don't use that money to pay for the road system.
Gas taxes. You forgot about the bloody gas taxes. I believe it's a relatively fair way to tax. You pay a tax on the gas you use that is spent to upkeep the road system. (you should not pay a tax on lawnmower gas). Now.. I would prefer a private system with no gas taxes but perhaps another way of providing for upkeep but.. if this is the system we *must* have and they *only* charged the amount necessary to upkeep the roads (they don't) then I think there are worse things the states are doing to complain about.
Key word *choice*. Others lack of bathing is the reason I chose to drive. Should I be forced to buy them showers? Yes, certain factors cause us to make voluntary economic choices, that's good.. the problems start occurring when opinionated bastards like yourself force others to pay for things you like at gun point all because you make a certain choice and they don't. You like the bus then YOU pay for it and stop having your tax goons take my money to do it, forcing others to pay for something you like is barbaric and wrong.
Wow, now I'm an opinionated bastard. Rid yourself of your overzealous ideology and then you might be able to look at things a bit more deeply.
No, I said it's barbaric and wrong to force people to do things they do not want to do. Didn't your mother ever teach you stealing is wrong? Why do you think its ok to steal from me to pay for your bus system, if I don't want it and wont use it?
Good point! Why should I pay for schools? I have no children. You wouldn't pay for telephone service if you did not own a telephone, right? I think it is perfectly fair for someone to opt-out of a government "service" they do not use. It is fair to pay for what you use. It is not fair to pay for something you will never use.
Somehow I think you disagree.. now before you start spouting off about "society" and other collectivist terms like the last guy, ask yourself this:
If garbage service *was* optional in your area and provided by the city, but also by a private contractor that you preferred and used, would you voluntarily help your well off neighbor pay for his city garbage collection service? If you would, how much would you voluntarily pay him, what level of burden would you take on? If you wouldn't voluntarily do it, then why do you think it is it ok to make it law and force someone to?
Who is "we"? You use a lot of collectivist terms, I get around just fine and feel safe when I do so.
Yes, there is such a thing as private roads. and not just race tracks and parking lots. Disney and Microsoft (and probbly many others) have huge areas and complex where they have private roads.
Well you can say.. that works for things like that but not for cities right? Wrong. When I was a kid my grandparents lived in a rural area that had private roads. They use to pay a guy to go around and fill in pot holes. The city of North Oaks, Michigan does not own the roads, or any property at all. Residents property lines extend to half way across the road.
Just because you can't think of other ways it can be done.. doesn't mean it's impossible. Many people have been able to figure out how to get by on private road networks.. probbly because those people wanted to.. oh I don't know.. leave their freeking houses and go somewhere or something like that.. and the market responds to that desire.
First off.. its my money, I should be able to do with it what I want.
Not entirely. It's a product of an economy that you've had a marginal affect on.
Your crazy. My money is the result of me contracting out my labor to others.
Secondly.. why does government even take care of roads at all?
Not profitable.
You don't think people pay to drive on roads? They do every time they fill up.
Thirdly.. I don't even take the bus, why should I pay for it?
Because your vehicle out on the roads is part of the reason people choose to take the bus.
Key word *choice*. Others lack of bathing is the reason I chose to drive. Should I be forced to buy them showers? Yes, certain factors cause us to make voluntary economic choices, that's good.. the problems start occurring when opinionated bastards like yourself force others to pay for things you like at gun point all because you make a certain choice and they don't. You like the bus then YOU pay for it and stop having your tax goons take my money to do it, forcing others to pay for something you like is barbaric and wrong.
[quote]Put the damn money into comprehensive public transportation!![/quote]
First off.. its my money, I should be able to do with it what I want. Secondly.. why does government even take care of roads at all? Thirdly.. I don't even take the bus, why should I pay for it?
This is what is actually going on..
Government is really worried that there are a lots of dumb people out there that won't be able to figure out why their TV's don't work. These people do probbly exist, although I have no idea about the numbers (I would assume the high and mighty politicians are overestimating because they think they are smarter than most people anyhow.) They have been attempting to run an education campaign, and have endless advertisements for converter boxes.
Trouble is.. people who actually needed to get the ad's probably don't have any idea *what* they have, and sales show people have not been buying converter boxes even with the coupons.
And here we see the nature of how government operates in everything, it's slow, expensive, inefficient, and bureaucratic.. in technology matters those "qualities" make it that much worse.. Everything must be held back because those wizards in government think a handful of rubes out there might get pissed if they miss Oprah. Progress is being held back to the lowest common denominator. Trust me, this isn't going to be the last delay either, we will be lucky if we see that spectrum open up in 5-10 years, and they will probably start mailing those converters to people for free even if they don't know if they need them or not. ..The spectrum shouldn't even be "owned" by government in the first place. Somehow the market was able to figure out how to make everything from Bluetooth, to microwave ovens, to wi-fi work in the tiny little 2.4Ghz band.
Rule of Law is still preferable to rule by tyranny of the majority. The Law and the judges sworn to uphold that law are the only things that protect minority and individual rights.
No way.. your all confused..
It is preventing the government from being able to create law that protects rights. "Congress shall make no law.." Law is not liberty, law (or the requirement of receiving government permission to do something) is the opposite of liberty.
The Constitutionally Limited Representative Republic we live in is SERIOUSLY BROKEN today (it might be difficult to tell you what kind of government it actually even is anymore) but.. by design, it is the Constitution that is supposed to a) grant, and b) limit government power. It uses "you can only do X AND you can never do Y" logic, not one or the other but both. (The reason why this is? The anti-federalists demanded it be this way.)
Judges (who are lawyers that are employed by the state/fed) are NOT arbitrators of freedom. They can be a tyrannical as any man, and they have a vested interest in the state, like it or not they do, the state writes their paychecks. Most judges fail to inform juries of their ability to nullify unjust laws and instead instruct juries that they "..must rule on the law itself and no other factors in the case." That is wrong, a jury can rule against the law itself. (such as was done in prohibition. "Yes, your honor that man *was* running a speak-easy, and that is *not* a crime! Not guilty.") It's fitting don't you think that the people actually have the power to rule themselves on the laws politicians write for us? Too bad this is broken in two was. 1. Most people never take their case to trial giving up their 7th amendment rights, the reason why I think, is because the state prosecutors often "multiply charges" so the jury will assume the defendant "must be guilty of something". This makes the risk too great to go to trial, better to plea out.. right? and 2. as I mentioned, judges fail to fully inform juries of their rights and duties.. in fact judges even instruct juries on how to rule now days, this is an outrage. The judges role in a jury trial that that of a referee to make sure it's a fair trial, NOT to decide the outcome. The only reason why I can think why Judges may do this, is because they could be seen "Soft on crime" if they fail to get convictions.. that could hurt them politically.
I think its strange how you mention "tyranny of the majority" as if somehow a majority can't write a bad law that is upheld by bad judges and a bad system. They most centrally can. As I said before, the internment of the Japanese was legal, supported by the majority, and upheld by the courts. It was absolutely a violation of the Constitution and human rights, but it was legal. So you can see that law has nothing to do with morality or right and wrong despite many people thinking so.
The law is not always right, and its not always just. (Segregation and the internment of Japanese was law, MLK said it is your duty to break unjust laws.) Just because it's THE LAW, doesn't mean it right.
That being said, it's merely wishful thinking judges master is the law. State Judges work for the state and have a vested interest in the state, Federal Judges, same thing.. worse yet.. they have a, secret language (legalese) and a little club (the bar). If someone in the club goes against the club they can be disbarred, lawyers fear judges.. this is a fact. AND If anyone outside the club learns their secret language, they are forbidden from helping others and will be thrown into a cage if they try to do so. "You can't fight city hall." ..as they say, because the system is so screwed up.
If the liberals of this country made it possible for Islam to spread and then take over the USA, then watch all of their progress evaporate as women are disenfranchised, then kicked out of their jobs, abortion is banned, homosexuals are stoned, writers are jailed, directors shot, dancers raped, just like, well, every other country where Islam has taken over.
Islam is not like a venereal disease or a knapweed. It does not simply "spread". People must choose it. I think it's pretty u8nlikley people like yourself, or liberals (whom you think your "protecting") or any other group of people will voluntarily choose what you describe any time soon.
More importantly is your desire to cede endless authority to the state. You are blindly destroying your own freedom and creating a tyranny here at home. This is the likes of something our forefathers fought against.
Don't believe me?
Fox News' Chief legal analyst, Judge Andrew Napolitano compares the Patriot Act to the Stamp Act.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8QwTKKSvR8
.. or is he an elected judge?
Sarbanes-Oxley, generally hurts the economy because it places more restrictions and requires more bureaucrats and company employees to comply with.. but does little to actually prevent fraud.
There is a great myth out there that it's government that creates jobs or politicians that save jobs. The truth is, that where as it is possible for the government to provide someone with a paycheck, that is not a good thing for the economy because in order for them to get that paycheck they had to take the money away from the productive parts of the economy. Government doesn't have anything it did not take from someone else.
Government has a lot of power to do harm, but little real power to help the economy. For an example of this you can look at all the past stimulus and economic recovery packages passed in an attempt to prevent this current recession we are in. They fail at it not because they aren't trying or are trying the wrong things.. but because the economy is just too vast and complex for anyone let alone those economic wizards in Washington to control. Real economic forces are created by millions of real thinking people with real desires to do what they believe is in their own best interest, one would find it easier to map the human genome or remember all the stars in the galaxy than you would to be able to correctly predict market forces.
A government created job only makes economic sense if it is something people would have already paid for, and then if that is true.. then there is probbly no need to have them do it at all because private enterprise always does things more efficiently than government. The best thing government can do is get out of the way.
There are even cases where government prevents certain action by law to "save jobs". The following story from "The Adventures of Jonathan Gullible" of illustrates this:
--------
Jonathan walked for several hours without a glimpse of any sign of life. Suddenly, something moved in the thicket and a small animal with a yellow-striped tail flashed down a barely visible track. "A cat," thought Jonathan. "Maybe it will lead to me to other life." He dived through the thick foliage.
Just as he lost sight of the beach and was deep in the jungle, he heard a sharp scream. He stopped, cocked his head, and tried to locate the source of the sound. Directly ahead, he heard another shrill cry for help. Pushing up an incline and through a mass of branches and vines, he clawed his way forward and stumbled onto a wider path.
As he rounded a sharp bend in the trail, Jonathan ran full tilt into the side of a burly man. "Out of my way, runt!" bellowed the man, brushing him aside like a gnat. Dazed, Jonathan looked up and saw two men dragging a young woman, kicking and yelling, down the trail. By the time he caught his breath, the trio had disappeared. Certain that he couldn't free the woman alone, Jonathan ran back down the trail looking for help.
A clearing opened and he saw a group of people gathered around a big tree--beating it with sticks. Jonathan ran up and grabbed the arm of a man who watched the others work. "Please sir, help!" gasped Jonathan. "Two men have captured a woman and she needs help!"
"Don't be alarmed," the supervisor said gruffly. "She's under arrest. Forget her and move along, we've got work to do."
"Arrest?" said Jonathan, still huffing. "She didn't look like, uh, like a criminal." Jonathan wondered, if she was guilty, why did she cry so desperately for help? "Pardon me, sir, but what was her crime?"
"Huh?" snorted the man with irritation. "Well, if you must know, she threatened the jobs of everyone working here."
"She threatened people's jobs? How'd she do that?" asked Jonathan.
Glaring down at his ignorant questioner, the supervisor motioned for Jonathan to come over to a tree where workers busily pounded away at the trunk. Proudly, he said, "We are tree workers. We knock down trees for wood by beating them with these sticks. Sometimes a hundred people, working round-the-clock, can
Well it's simply a issue people care about. It's time to end it. I don't expect they will be in favor of ending it however despite its public support.
A gram measures *mass* my mistake. (slashdot needs an edit..)
Okay, I'll bite. Money conspiracy theories need to be put to rest.
I can tell you I'm glad you responded because there is a limit to the size of the questions you can ask on the site but there is no limit here.
You wouldn't want some questions on there right..?
* The Federal Reserve note "represents" one dollar, and circular logic is used to describe it saying it is 100 cents and a cent is 1/100 of a dollar.
This is a non-issue. It's something maybe a 5 year old would find interesting.
As for a dollar, it's a unit of United States legal tender.
Obama, my question to you is, what is a dollar?
Maybe a 5 year old understands he does not know. You seem to think you know but you failed to answer my question.
You describe the dollar as a unit of tender. This is illogical.
A "unit" is a standard of measurement. "Tender" is an offer of something to be used in an exchange. What is the dollar an offer of and if the dollar is a unit, what does the dollar measure?
An inch is a unit, it measures distance. A gram is a unit that measures weight. If I ask you for a quart of milk you would know exactly what I mean, but if I offered to trade you the tender of a "yard" for your quart of milk, would your first question not be "A yard of what??"
* Why is it the United States Government creates money
But it doesn't.
Fair enough, we will be accurate. The Federal Reserve, not the government. (They can if they choose to, but they currently don't.)
on loan from the Federal Reserve member banks when the Treasury Department has the ability to create all the money it wants debt free?
The Treasury is part of the U.S. government, and it doesn't do that. Only the Federal Reserve can currently issue currency.
It can do that, and it has before. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Note
Should the United States Note (also known as the green back) be reintroduced?
No.
Why or why not?
Because that would be a terrible idea.
I agree creating money from thin air is a terrible idea, but a worse idea is creating money from thin air *and* being forced to pay interest to the Federal Reserve. (who owns 40% of the national debt). Can you give me a good economic reason to pay interest on money we could create interest free?
* If all money is created in the form of only principle by the Federal Reserve and member banks and they charge interest on that money. Where does the money to pay the interest come from?
It doesn't need to come from anywhere. A dollar can pay its own interest. You're aware that money can circulate back and forth? That one dollar need only bounce back and forth 2-3 times to pay off a 30 year treasury?
I don't think you understand. I'll express it as a mathematical formula. If all money is created as a principle (P), and it is paid with Principle + Interest (I), then to pay all loans you just divide what exists by what is owed.
P / (P + I) = X
Right? If your correct than X should equal 1 and all loans can be paid, however it does not. X must be a fraction because the divisor is a larger number. That means that all loans can not be paid no matter how many times the Principle changes hands. Bankruptcy is built into the money system no matter how successful we all are, it is as much a fact as gravity.
No, I think some questions they will not want on there...
I wouldn't want stupid questions, either.
If they are such silly and simple questions.. where is my answer? There actually *is* a correct answer to this you know.
You wouldn't want some questions on there right..?
* The Federal Reserve note "represents" one dollar, and circular logic is used to describe it saying it is 100 cents and a cent is 1/100 of a dollar. Obama, my question to you is, what is a dollar?
* Why is it the United States Government creates money on loan from the Federal Reserve member banks when the Treasury Department has the ability to create all the money it wants debt free? Should the United States Note (also known as the green back) be reintroduced? Why or why not?
* If all money is created in the form of only principle by the Federal Reserve and member banks and they charge interest on that money. Where does the money to pay the interest come from?
No, I think some questions they will not want on there...
A "pure" democracy? No, in truth *any* democracy is bad.
Think about it. In a democracy people voice "opinions" on various topics and the majorities opinion is selected and made law. That law must oppress the minority. In a democracy we will all eventually find ourselves in the minority on some topic so we all will loose. Also the opinion selected and made law creates a one size fits all policy for the government. The *problem* is it is a cohesive system designed to use force on other people. One size never fit's all and there are opinions that should never be law.
(Opinion is in quotes there because that is what most people think a vote is, you opinion on a topic, however this is not all together accurate. For instance, government presents you with a ballot measure to raise taxes to pay for a new park. You like parks right? You have no problem paying for a park so you vote, yes. The problem here is.. they are not actually asking you for your opinion on if *you* want a park.. they are asking you if you think it is ok for them to force your neighbor to pay for it.. at gunpoint if necessary.)
Democracy fails to provide freedom. For example look at public schools. Be it prayer is school, evolution vs creationism, the pledge, sex ed, gay friendly education, school lunch, or any number of other topics. They are just opinions people have on what values their own children should learn. Democracy creates a system of force where one group must battle another group to have their values presented to their children. Think about the ragging intensity and hate this creates. If people could actually choose schools that shared their own values, these arguments wouldn't just diminish, they would vanish.
If we had "more democracy" in out schools we would be arguing over everything from building construction to the color of the walls! Different people can't agree on anything, but that's ok. The idea that we must all come to a consensus is stupid. We don't all need to agree on things.. in fact if we did, it would cause intellectual sloth as new ideas or methods of teaching are opposed.
I believe instigating force on another person or group of people is wrong. Philosophically speaking the most ideal form of government is anarchy. (anarchy meaning without rule, not chaos.) Market anarchy provides the absolute extreme in freedom. As anarchy is a difficult state to maintain without someone somewhere obtaining power over it, and thus beings anew the cycle of people using force on people. If anarchy can not work, a second most idea form is a tiny tiny limited republic like the Constitution creates. Our founding fathers had failed however to chain down the growth of government... and perhaps it's impossible.. but at least we can try.. In either regard we should start moving in that direction.
"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." -- Lysander Spooner
The America form of government was never even referred to as a Democracy until the 1900's. Today people use the word interchangeably with Republic, but the founders were quite clear about what it was and went to great lengths to prevent it.
Some historical reference for you:
About 370 BC, Plato wrote: "A democracy is a state in which the poor,
gaining the upper hand, kill some and banish others, and then divide
the offices among the remaining citizens equally."
About 126 BC, Polybius wrote: "The common people feel themselves
oppressed by the grasping of some, and their vanity is flattered by
others. Fired with evil passions, they are no longer willing to submit
to control, but demand that everything be subject to their authority.
The invariable result is that government assumes the noble names of
free and popular, but becomes in fact the most execrable thing, mob
rule."
And about 63 BC, Seneca, a Roman wrote: "Democracy is mor
By in large a majority of the American people can not answer the following questions.
Which of the following are the inalienable rights referred to in the Declaration of Independence?
In 1933 Franklin Delano Roosevelt proposed a series of government programs that became known as:
What are the three branches of government?
What part of the government has the power to declare war?
The Bill of Rights explicitly prohibits:
Name two countries that were our enemies during World War II.
and others..
http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/2008/report_card.html
Is that school a government school.. they should protect YOUR property better.
Apparently the police are unable to.. I know ADT could have prevented that.
Exactly. Do what is necessary to prevent people from stealing your property. Why is this hard for some people to grasp?
God.. what an idiot.. "My air conditioner is outside.. THERE IS NOTHING I CAN DOOO!"
I know this. I was just saying that's the "common knowledge".
Some people consider copper a cheep metal.. I mean hea, our pennies are made of it right? Would you leave silver pipes laying around?
It's not the government job to track all the copper, or silver, or gold, or cars, or anything else someone may steal and it's primarily YOUR job to protect your OWN property by locking it up.. and honestly.. this is really the only way, if anyone out there does not believe me.. stop locking up your car in that bad part of town and see how long it takes to get stolen.. then see how "concerned" the police are about getting it back.
Absolutely.
(OMG what an outrageous statement! Yah, I know.)
Really however, I don't believe that someone drinking one beer and driving is a danger, do you? I believe dangerous driving and endangering others is a crime, but that's not necessarily related to the consumption of alcohol. The law is arbitrary however.
The action that someone may take that causes them to be a danger is irreverent. The fact that they are a danger is all you need to be concerned about. The net effect is the same, cop sees someone swerving on the road, he stops them from driving, a judge figures out the rest. It doesn't matter if he's drunk or drop dead sober.
Endangering someones life *is* a crime, so before.
Or someone will figure out a way to feed them.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug
Cell phones distract people? Yeah, So does eating in the car, and rocking out to Eddie Vedder. We don't need extra laws against each and every single thing you can do in a car that *might* distract a driver, if that were the case we would need hundreds of laws preventing things like "The building a campfire on the passenger seat while driving".
We only need ONE law against distracted or otherwise observed unsafe driving. Let people do what they want and if they don't take precautions to be safe about it *then* you can ticket them.