No, you are retarded because you have already given up your actual important freedoms to life, liberty, property and even pursuit of happiness, everything is being taken away from you by the government because you have given up the actual idea that there is a LAW above the government, which enumerates precisely what the government is allowed to do.
Instead you have given up, given it these sweeping powers to do whatever it wants to do and then maybe you are even surprised: how come the POTUS doesn't give a shit and doesn't ask Congress for declaration of war before starting one, how come POTUS decided that he has all the rights to kill US citizens without a trial, how come you can now be indefinitely detained by your military without access to a lawyer, without any way even to tell anybody where you are.
You think you are getting something from government when you give up your actual freedoms?
Well, yes, a calory is not a calory, but there is more politics involved in this than you realise, from farm subsidies, to social assistance, to price fixing and elections, etc.etc.
Bullshit. If there is actual market demand for this type of information on snacks, etc., then it's up to the consumers NOT TO BUY THEM until they find the snacks that do post this information, or until the companies figure out what the people are looking for.
As usual, this has nothing to do with the government and obviously government isn't authorised to do any of it, but that's how you sell out your freedoms every day, day in, day out, and once you sell out your freedoms on anything, the rest is peanuts.
Sure, they would introduce something, at least it would be well understood and not up to mood swings and interpretation that had nothing to do with the actual rules.
Errors can be corrected, but the biggest errors that are introduced into the system on daily basis come out of humans.
SCOTUS has to protect the Constitution and it has the power to take any of the legislation and just pass a ruling on it. They really SHOULD be doing it all the time, looking at all of the legislation.
AFAIC this has to be fixed, there needs to be a computer program running, checking the legislation against the Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution and if the law is not within the confines of those enumerated powers, the law should be automatically overturned.
Given the way the past generations have treated the future ones, there won't be enough time between figuring out the threat and putting together an adequate response in time.
Past performances prove that any previous generation has no qualms at all about making the future generations pay for their own spending and not the other way around, all this is done while paying plenty of lip service to the proverbial 'children'.
It's not a piece of paper until you give up on it, as an idea, because it's the law above the government. It's not a piece of paper until you start treating it that way. Apparently it's been treated this way long enough for you to accept that it is just a piece of paper.
So this is what happens when you give up freedoms for security.
I'd say it's not an equitable exchange, the security is really perceived but the freedoms that you give up are quite real.
SCOTUS is not doing its job, hasn't been doing its job for over 100 years now, it's not defending the Constitution. Why is it important to defend the Constitution? Because that's the only thing that stands between YOU and government tyranny.
That's begging the question. You are assuming you are right and thus you are giving a solution that solves a non-existing problem.
Almost everybody has private property, everybody has something that they own, but very few people are looking monitor everybody's communications.
Your argument is nonsense, it's much more likely that somebody is standing to make a huge pile of money selling a solution to this non-existing problem, so somebody is going to make a killing either by selling a solution to this monitoring problem OR they are just looking for companies to come out with handouts to the politicians who are proposing this, so politicians are expecting companies to fight to prevent this from happening and politicians are expecting a nice chunk of cash from companies to stop this proposal.
Of-course this proposal concerns all those, who are concerned about the real-time communications of everybody.
The proposal is this: all of those, who are so concerned about the real time communications and all other forms of communications and thoughts and actions of other people, the concerned need to be protected.
The proposal is to protect those, who are so afraid and are looking for protection, because obviously, there will never be enough done, in their eyes, to protect them. Clearly real time monitoring of all communications is not enough. Eventually everybody will have to have devices built into them, that can monitor everybody's real-time activities, and eventually read their real time thoughts with the long term goal of projecting thoughts in real time into everybody, so that nobody could ever even think something that the concerned individuals would be afraid of.
So the proposal is to protect these poor souls from the rest of us by isolating them into a well guarded facility, where they could really have real time monitoring of all communications that are internal to that facility and monitor each other (I suppose they are paranoid enough to want to do that).
For those, who believe it is not enough protection, they should be isolated within that facility from the rest in well suited, very well protected rooms (and they should have extra set of locks they could use from the inside), and all of them need to be given all sorts of weapons they need to keep safe as well.
I believe it is at the point right now, where those, who believe they are in need of protection and will not stop until everybody is a mechanised food processor without any original thoughts, that these people need to get the protection they so desire so that the rest of us can carry on, having terrible thoughts and killing each other they way we do - left, right and centre.
Because "all" and "every" have no exceptions, now or ever. If you use these words, I need find ONE exception, that is all. Your claim that it is irrelevant is because I have found your supposed logic wanting and you can't cope with that.
- do you suffer from some form of a mental disorder?
, I am talking about changing CHANGE, to inhibit stagnation.
- you are talking about something that you believe to be 'correct'. Well, your 'correct' idea is one of infinite number of ideas, and it's about as likely to become reality as any other idea equal to it in probability, logic boy, so you'd have to force it upon people and this would require you to sell it, like all other revolutionaries and missionaries were selling their nonsense ideas, and obviously it means that you want all people to accept it, which will not happen, and THAT is terribly easy to prove.
In the entire human history there was no such thing as all people accepting one idea and going with it and nobody trying to take advantage of the idiots who accepted it for his/her own gain. It's very easy to become a dictator in a system like that and it always happens.
And when I say ALWAYS I absolutely mean ALWAYS IN HISTORY and that is absolutely good enough for me. If you live long enough to hit an exception, send a message.
You offer no evidence, you offer religion. Religion is for the weak
- if history is religion.
Only the dead are free from people, so go kill yourself.
- the dead have no way to be free or otherwise, I'd sooner kill you to be more free, obviously you are an agent of the ideas that would chain other people and thus it is a moral imperative that you must be stopped if you gain traction.
Define "equal". I hold that people are not "equal" in the sense of identical, but then your brain cells are not equal in the sense of being identical either. So what? Equitability is not equality. Indeed, it is not equality that you object to, but equitability, that you should treat ALL others the way you would like to be treated.
- false.
I treat people the way I expect to be treated, that is to say I do not presume to tell them how to live their lives.
. But you don't want to treat people well. If you were in a collective, you'd be the worst dictator of all. You have no sense of others, you want it all and bugger the rest. You are the very evil you claim to despise. You don't despise that loss of "rights", you despise those rights.
- nonsense. What I want is above your simple ideas and I am doing what I want even now.
As to being absolutely free - we are never absolutely free, but we must strive for maximum freedom that we can get, otherwise it's slavery all the way down, and it looks to me you really like to promote it.
That group has moved its income out of USA by the way, and nearly nobody paid income taxes, especially when they were that high, they would be idiots to, there was basically no way to do any cross checking without computerised records and you could write off just about anything against your income.
Beyond that even if you couldn't write off anything, you'd just not take a salary that would put you mostly into the marginal bracket.
My sources do not in fact include 'Rand', whatever that is.
I've said that - and more - to professors, generals and lords.
- blah blah blah
Every form of life beyond protozoa exists in a natural collective. To identify the USA as artificial is to therefore identify yourself as equal to a protozoa.
- too much projection on your part.
Like I said, you are equal to a protozoa. No form of life beyond that is so completely incompetent or incapable of rational thought.
- there goes your entire argument.
Yet you would steal, kill or imprison, a violation of the very things you "claim" to be rights. Why? Because you do not believe in these rights at all. You do not comprehend rights, you comprehend only your own pride and contempt for all that are not you.
- rights are a concept applied only to the individual in his relationship to the collective, the concept of rights means nothing between 2 individual or other entities that are equal to each other and are not governing each other due to the power of the collective.
To say that you are a protozoa is to say nothing at all and it is likely to be an insult to the single celled organism, at least it has some sense not to get into subjects it doesn't understand at all.
Did I say court martial is unconstitutional? Articles of War handle this provision.
I said: I am against having standing armies and just like the Founders, I prefer State militias to be handling border patrol. But Constitution DOES allow federal gov't to 'provide' Navy and Army.
The only reason why you can claim that other are using strawman arguments is because you selectively ignore the arguments people present against you.
- no.
The reason why they are strawman is because they are not the arguments that I make, but also they are pretty stupid. Weren't you the one saying that in Somalia they have LIBERTARIAN IDEAS?:) Hah ahahahaha, oh boy, that's funny. Libertarian ideas. If you believe that they have 'libertarian ideas' and that's why they have the problems that they do today, then I guess yes, you can't understand a word of what I am talking about.
I gave enough details on the Great Depression, with numbers, etc. It was caused by the federal reserve monetising UK debt, buying out bad debt UK owed to France (interestingly enough, it was bad debt to France that prompted Nixon to default on the gold dollar).
The Fed printed enough money from 1913 to 1920 that it caused the depression of 1921, which ended in about 2 years after Harding cut gov't spending by around 70% (real spending, not what they do today).
Nobody paid the marginal taxes in post war USA, there were enough loopholes to drive entire fortunes through them, nobody was dumb enough to pay taxes in those brackets, so the effective rate never went over 20%.
The fucked up economy you are observing today is a result of the government growth, predicated by the socialist agenda that allowed the government to sidestep the Constitution (all the social nets - bread and circuses) and obviously the Constitution was thrown out of the window.
Constitution is the law above the government, and once nobody gives a shit, the gov't can do whatever. This included every unconstitutional thing they could come up with, including illegal wars, SS, Medicare, all of the regulations that destroyed property rights (including the Civil Rights act of 1964, which in reality is an Entitlement and Obligations act, there is nothing about rights there that's positive, rights of private property owners were destroyed. This also includes everything: from EPA and FDA and HUD to dep't of energy, education, commerce, interior, FBI, Patriot Act, etc.)
The Great Depression started in 1925 with Fed starting to monetise bad UK debt, but it DID NOT have to be depression, it was Hoover with insane spending policies, trying to 'stave away' the recession and turning it into depression.
FDR, by the way, won the election by promising TO CUT HOOVER'S SPENDING.
Anyway, go do something useful and stop wasting my time.
Popular uprising and social unrest always results from the haves trampling the have-nots.
- popular uprising and social unrest always results from certain people with some influence organising the unwashed masses around them as a tool to take over the current establishment, so that they can become the establishment. Obviously this requires some blood, all revolutions do.
Nobody is stealing anything. It takes money to maintain a large nation, and it has to come from somewhere.
- yes, it's theft. And no, it doesn't take that much money to maintain a working government system, what does take money is to use the government system as a source of income for the closest corporations/friends. Of-course the pretence that is used to steal at first is 'social net'.
Sounds to me like your perfectly happy letting the rich rape the poor though.
- no, it's you, who are ignorant enough not to understand that big government IS the system that rapes the poor and free market is the system that allows the poor to improve their standard of living with more competition, more efficient distribution of wealth.
As I mentioned, the USD increased in value by factor of 2 while prices were falling and USA had more competition in manufacturing and services than ever in 19th century. That was the century that CREATED the middle class, which didn't even exist as a concept prior to that time.
Some of the worst economic crisis happened during that period, including recurring bank runs
- bank runs are not a problem, they allow weeding out the bad banks, which is exactly what needs to happen.
Currently you won't have bank runs, because gov't will always print enough money to give it back to you (thus the joke of FDIC), but your money is worth less and less.
That's the fault of congress and the wealthy that fund and control them. In case you hadn't notice, there aren't exactly many poor people in positions of power so your "tyranny of the majority" argument has no basis. Th wealthy are in control of the nation, and it is the wealthy who will drive it into the ground for their own benefit.
- no.
It's the fault of the people who have been complicit with the government trampling over individual rights and freedoms because the people got the scraps off the table - the so called 'social net', etc., it's all scraps, while the real theft was happening. BUT it always takes PEOPLE to allow that.
We are not bankrupt. You're opinion is that we are bankrupt, but by any legal definition we are far from being bankrupt.
- it's not an opinion, it's a fact. USA is bankrupt, it can never repay its debts in real value. Worthless currency can be printed in any quantity, eventually this will crash the dollar completely (as if the loss of value from 1913, when 1 ounce of gold was 19 bucks and it's over 1650 now is not enough).
...wealthy to blame. They pushed to remove regulations and restrictions,... shipped everything off overseas to increase profits, created entire markets on speculation, and trashed the economy and manufacturing in this country in the process.
- no, that's the government at work.
People don't move jobs for the hell of it, they do so because they see their money stolen and they see better conditions elsewhere, I encourage more people to do so, I did.
USA WILL have to become competitive again, of-course it will be forced to when the dollar crashes and nobody sells anything for it anymore (or it doesn't even have to crash fully, huge loss of value is good enough eventually for prices to skyrocket, and I see this in the very near future for USA, after all, now it's a net exporter of oil, is that a first in a century?)
How is that? Caring for another individual by threat of violence VS not HURTING other individual are different things.
We don't hurt each other (in most cases, hopefully), and it's not even because of laws, it's because of reciprocity, because in reality an open conflict among grown ups ends in serious injury or death.
Laws are really irrelevant, once somebody is killed as an example, the laws can only be used to punish after the fact, they can't undo the damage.
AFAIC most laws are ineffectual anyway, basically people either have it in them - to hurt others, or they don't. All that laws can do is punish them after the fact IF the perpetrator is caught.
But we are not talking about THAT, we are talking about forcing somebody to actively 'care' about another individual by threat of violence, not about preventing somebody from hurting another individual. So that has nothing to do with normal criminal law.
An element of a set cannot be extrapolated to infer the set. Induction is useless, particularly in your case as you're apparently incapable of comprehending what rules you can perform induction on, or how.
- since when do I have to prove something about far away future, while we know the history and the current, and what does it matter if 1000 years in the future there will be some other form of democracy that may exist for a longer period of time?
How is it relevant?
It's irrelevant completely, but you obviously don't understand that.
emocracy doesn't require wealth and CORRECTLY-IMPLEMENTED d
- again, as all of the revolutionaries, the missionaries and all of the failed dictators of the past (and current and not too distant future), they have all talked about building the NEW man and the NEW society and to do that all they needed was just to change the nature of the individual, to give the individual a higher degree of consciousness, so that the individual would become part of the collective and throw away his own real desires and ambitions etc.
Well, I'll tell you something: sooner MY statement that all democracies lead to tyranny is correct, than your notion that you can change the character of the man and make him want less for himself and more for others for no other reason but to build this 'correct society' that you want to see.
I DO NOT want to see this 'correct society', and this is a good enough proof for me that you, and those like you will fail every time. I don't want equality, I don't want democracy, I want FREEDOM from people and this contrived idea that people can be all equal based on democratic rule IMPLIES that you will have to CHAIN me with the threat of government violence.
Your hands are just itching to put a thick metal chain on me and others, it's really interesting to observe (but very common).
Then you're a moron. Your points are contradicted by reality.
- I would love to have you say that in person.
Individual rights cannot exist without collective rights for them to exist within. Anarchy has total freedom but no rights.
- individual rights are only a meaningful construct when they are applied in context of relation between individual and the collective.
USA was artificially created based on agreement that individuals had rights ( though I woudn't have ratified that document, as it didn't acknowledge that all people are equal in the eyes of the law and that race doesn't matter).
A RIGHT is a concept that only makes sense when we are talking about INDIVIDUAL having RIGHT not to be bothered by the COLLECTIVE, by the government without justification.
So government cannot steal individual's property, kill the individual, imprison him, etc., without due process (of-course your current administration argues that this doesn't apply anymore, that's the consequence of Democracy in action, as Democracy opened the original doors to all these rulers to throw away the law above them - the Constitution ).
so if the federal government asserts that they have the right to restrict citizens from owning nuclear bombs, you're going to say the feds must lose on that issue? nuclear non-proliferation is the job of the states?
- yes.
what's your feeling on discipline in the armed forces? you think courts martial are unconstitutional because it's the feds vs an individual?
- I am against standing armies, especially on federal level. They are just a hair-trigger away from becoming tools of oppression.
Where is it written that Somalians have LIBERTARIAN IDEAS?
Are you high?
By the way, I AM interested in Somalia, looking to see if there is a way to invest in something there. I like investing into things when they are down.
Slashdot Mirror
No, you are retarded because you have already given up your actual important freedoms to life, liberty, property and even pursuit of happiness, everything is being taken away from you by the government because you have given up the actual idea that there is a LAW above the government, which enumerates precisely what the government is allowed to do.
Instead you have given up, given it these sweeping powers to do whatever it wants to do and then maybe you are even surprised: how come the POTUS doesn't give a shit and doesn't ask Congress for declaration of war before starting one, how come POTUS decided that he has all the rights to kill US citizens without a trial, how come you can now be indefinitely detained by your military without access to a lawyer, without any way even to tell anybody where you are.
You think you are getting something from government when you give up your actual freedoms?
Calorie count?
You deserve every bit of it.
Well, yes, a calory is not a calory, but there is more politics involved in this than you realise, from farm subsidies, to social assistance, to price fixing and elections, etc.etc.
Bullshit. If there is actual market demand for this type of information on snacks, etc., then it's up to the consumers NOT TO BUY THEM until they find the snacks that do post this information, or until the companies figure out what the people are looking for.
As usual, this has nothing to do with the government and obviously government isn't authorised to do any of it, but that's how you sell out your freedoms every day, day in, day out, and once you sell out your freedoms on anything, the rest is peanuts.
Sure, they would introduce something, at least it would be well understood and not up to mood swings and interpretation that had nothing to do with the actual rules.
Errors can be corrected, but the biggest errors that are introduced into the system on daily basis come out of humans.
SCOTUS has to protect the Constitution and it has the power to take any of the legislation and just pass a ruling on it. They really SHOULD be doing it all the time, looking at all of the legislation.
AFAIC this has to be fixed, there needs to be a computer program running, checking the legislation against the Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution and if the law is not within the confines of those enumerated powers, the law should be automatically overturned.
Given the way the past generations have treated the future ones, there won't be enough time between figuring out the threat and putting together an adequate response in time.
Past performances prove that any previous generation has no qualms at all about making the future generations pay for their own spending and not the other way around, all this is done while paying plenty of lip service to the proverbial 'children'.
It has nothing to do with tyrants, it has everything to do with the people who rather sell their freedoms for bread and circuses.
It's not a piece of paper until you give up on it, as an idea, because it's the law above the government. It's not a piece of paper until you start treating it that way. Apparently it's been treated this way long enough for you to accept that it is just a piece of paper.
So this is what happens when you give up freedoms for security.
I'd say it's not an equitable exchange, the security is really perceived but the freedoms that you give up are quite real.
SCOTUS is not doing its job, hasn't been doing its job for over 100 years now, it's not defending the Constitution. Why is it important to defend the Constitution? Because that's the only thing that stands between YOU and government tyranny.
That's begging the question. You are assuming you are right and thus you are giving a solution that solves a non-existing problem.
Almost everybody has private property, everybody has something that they own, but very few people are looking monitor everybody's communications.
Your argument is nonsense, it's much more likely that somebody is standing to make a huge pile of money selling a solution to this non-existing problem, so somebody is going to make a killing either by selling a solution to this monitoring problem OR they are just looking for companies to come out with handouts to the politicians who are proposing this, so politicians are expecting companies to fight to prevent this from happening and politicians are expecting a nice chunk of cash from companies to stop this proposal.
Of-course this proposal concerns all those, who are concerned about the real-time communications of everybody.
The proposal is this: all of those, who are so concerned about the real time communications and all other forms of communications and thoughts and actions of other people, the concerned need to be protected.
The proposal is to protect those, who are so afraid and are looking for protection, because obviously, there will never be enough done, in their eyes, to protect them. Clearly real time monitoring of all communications is not enough. Eventually everybody will have to have devices built into them, that can monitor everybody's real-time activities, and eventually read their real time thoughts with the long term goal of projecting thoughts in real time into everybody, so that nobody could ever even think something that the concerned individuals would be afraid of.
So the proposal is to protect these poor souls from the rest of us by isolating them into a well guarded facility, where they could really have real time monitoring of all communications that are internal to that facility and monitor each other (I suppose they are paranoid enough to want to do that).
For those, who believe it is not enough protection, they should be isolated within that facility from the rest in well suited, very well protected rooms (and they should have extra set of locks they could use from the inside), and all of them need to be given all sorts of weapons they need to keep safe as well.
I believe it is at the point right now, where those, who believe they are in need of protection and will not stop until everybody is a mechanised food processor without any original thoughts, that these people need to get the protection they so desire so that the rest of us can carry on, having terrible thoughts and killing each other they way we do - left, right and centre.
Because "all" and "every" have no exceptions, now or ever. If you use these words, I need find ONE exception, that is all. Your claim that it is irrelevant is because I have found your supposed logic wanting and you can't cope with that.
- do you suffer from some form of a mental disorder?
, I am talking about changing CHANGE, to inhibit stagnation.
- you are talking about something that you believe to be 'correct'. Well, your 'correct' idea is one of infinite number of ideas, and it's about as likely to become reality as any other idea equal to it in probability, logic boy, so you'd have to force it upon people and this would require you to sell it, like all other revolutionaries and missionaries were selling their nonsense ideas, and obviously it means that you want all people to accept it, which will not happen, and THAT is terribly easy to prove.
In the entire human history there was no such thing as all people accepting one idea and going with it and nobody trying to take advantage of the idiots who accepted it for his/her own gain. It's very easy to become a dictator in a system like that and it always happens.
And when I say ALWAYS I absolutely mean ALWAYS IN HISTORY and that is absolutely good enough for me. If you live long enough to hit an exception, send a message.
You offer no evidence, you offer religion. Religion is for the weak
- if history is religion.
Only the dead are free from people, so go kill yourself.
- the dead have no way to be free or otherwise, I'd sooner kill you to be more free, obviously you are an agent of the ideas that would chain other people and thus it is a moral imperative that you must be stopped if you gain traction.
Define "equal". I hold that people are not "equal" in the sense of identical, but then your brain cells are not equal in the sense of being identical either. So what? Equitability is not equality. Indeed, it is not equality that you object to, but equitability, that you should treat ALL others the way you would like to be treated.
- false.
I treat people the way I expect to be treated, that is to say I do not presume to tell them how to live their lives.
. But you don't want to treat people well. If you were in a collective, you'd be the worst dictator of all. You have no sense of others, you want it all and bugger the rest. You are the very evil you claim to despise. You don't despise that loss of "rights", you despise those rights.
- nonsense. What I want is above your simple ideas and I am doing what I want even now.
As to being absolutely free - we are never absolutely free, but we must strive for maximum freedom that we can get, otherwise it's slavery all the way down, and it looks to me you really like to promote it.
That group has moved its income out of USA by the way, and nearly nobody paid income taxes, especially when they were that high, they would be idiots to, there was basically no way to do any cross checking without computerised records and you could write off just about anything against your income.
Beyond that even if you couldn't write off anything, you'd just not take a salary that would put you mostly into the marginal bracket.
My sources do not in fact include 'Rand', whatever that is.
I've said that - and more - to professors, generals and lords.
- blah blah blah
Every form of life beyond protozoa exists in a natural collective. To identify the USA as artificial is to therefore identify yourself as equal to a protozoa.
- too much projection on your part.
Like I said, you are equal to a protozoa. No form of life beyond that is so completely incompetent or incapable of rational thought.
- there goes your entire argument.
Yet you would steal, kill or imprison, a violation of the very things you "claim" to be rights. Why? Because you do not believe in these rights at all. You do not comprehend rights, you comprehend only your own pride and contempt for all that are not you.
- rights are a concept applied only to the individual in his relationship to the collective, the concept of rights means nothing between 2 individual or other entities that are equal to each other and are not governing each other due to the power of the collective.
To say that you are a protozoa is to say nothing at all and it is likely to be an insult to the single celled organism, at least it has some sense not to get into subjects it doesn't understand at all.
Did I say court martial is unconstitutional? Articles of War handle this provision.
I said: I am against having standing armies and just like the Founders, I prefer State militias to be handling border patrol. But Constitution DOES allow federal gov't to 'provide' Navy and Army.
The only reason why you can claim that other are using strawman arguments is because you selectively ignore the arguments people present against you.
- no.
The reason why they are strawman is because they are not the arguments that I make, but also they are pretty stupid. Weren't you the one saying that in Somalia they have LIBERTARIAN IDEAS? :) Hah ahahahaha, oh boy, that's funny. Libertarian ideas. If you believe that they have 'libertarian ideas' and that's why they have the problems that they do today, then I guess yes, you can't understand a word of what I am talking about.
Libertarian ideas in Somalia. Yeah, ok.
I gave enough details on the Great Depression, with numbers, etc. It was caused by the federal reserve monetising UK debt, buying out bad debt UK owed to France (interestingly enough, it was bad debt to France that prompted Nixon to default on the gold dollar).
The Fed printed enough money from 1913 to 1920 that it caused the depression of 1921, which ended in about 2 years after Harding cut gov't spending by around 70% (real spending, not what they do today).
Nobody paid the marginal taxes in post war USA, there were enough loopholes to drive entire fortunes through them, nobody was dumb enough to pay taxes in those brackets, so the effective rate never went over 20%.
The fucked up economy you are observing today is a result of the government growth, predicated by the socialist agenda that allowed the government to sidestep the Constitution (all the social nets - bread and circuses) and obviously the Constitution was thrown out of the window.
Constitution is the law above the government, and once nobody gives a shit, the gov't can do whatever. This included every unconstitutional thing they could come up with, including illegal wars, SS, Medicare, all of the regulations that destroyed property rights (including the Civil Rights act of 1964, which in reality is an Entitlement and Obligations act, there is nothing about rights there that's positive, rights of private property owners were destroyed. This also includes everything: from EPA and FDA and HUD to dep't of energy, education, commerce, interior, FBI, Patriot Act, etc.)
The Great Depression started in 1925 with Fed starting to monetise bad UK debt, but it DID NOT have to be depression, it was Hoover with insane spending policies, trying to 'stave away' the recession and turning it into depression.
FDR, by the way, won the election by promising TO CUT HOOVER'S SPENDING.
Anyway, go do something useful and stop wasting my time.
Your opinion is backed up by facts.
- I know.
Popular uprising and social unrest always results from the haves trampling the have-nots.
- popular uprising and social unrest always results from certain people with some influence organising the unwashed masses around them as a tool to take over the current establishment, so that they can become the establishment. Obviously this requires some blood, all revolutions do.
Nobody is stealing anything. It takes money to maintain a large nation, and it has to come from somewhere.
- yes, it's theft. And no, it doesn't take that much money to maintain a working government system, what does take money is to use the government system as a source of income for the closest corporations/friends. Of-course the pretence that is used to steal at first is 'social net'.
Sounds to me like your perfectly happy letting the rich rape the poor though.
- no, it's you, who are ignorant enough not to understand that big government IS the system that rapes the poor and free market is the system that allows the poor to improve their standard of living with more competition, more efficient distribution of wealth.
As I mentioned, the USD increased in value by factor of 2 while prices were falling and USA had more competition in manufacturing and services than ever in 19th century. That was the century that CREATED the middle class, which didn't even exist as a concept prior to that time.
Some of the worst economic crisis happened during that period, including recurring bank runs
- bank runs are not a problem, they allow weeding out the bad banks, which is exactly what needs to happen.
Currently you won't have bank runs, because gov't will always print enough money to give it back to you (thus the joke of FDIC), but your money is worth less and less.
That's the fault of congress and the wealthy that fund and control them. In case you hadn't notice, there aren't exactly many poor people in positions of power so your "tyranny of the majority" argument has no basis. Th wealthy are in control of the nation, and it is the wealthy who will drive it into the ground for their own benefit.
- no.
It's the fault of the people who have been complicit with the government trampling over individual rights and freedoms because the people got the scraps off the table - the so called 'social net', etc., it's all scraps, while the real theft was happening. BUT it always takes PEOPLE to allow that.
We are not bankrupt. You're opinion is that we are bankrupt, but by any legal definition we are far from being bankrupt.
- it's not an opinion, it's a fact. USA is bankrupt, it can never repay its debts in real value. Worthless currency can be printed in any quantity, eventually this will crash the dollar completely (as if the loss of value from 1913, when 1 ounce of gold was 19 bucks and it's over 1650 now is not enough).
...wealthy to blame. They pushed to remove regulations and restrictions, ... shipped everything off overseas to increase profits, created entire markets on speculation, and trashed the economy and manufacturing in this country in the process.
- no, that's the government at work.
People don't move jobs for the hell of it, they do so because they see their money stolen and they see better conditions elsewhere, I encourage more people to do so, I did.
USA WILL have to become competitive again, of-course it will be forced to when the dollar crashes and nobody sells anything for it anymore (or it doesn't even have to crash fully, huge loss of value is good enough eventually for prices to skyrocket, and I see this in the very near future for USA, after all, now it's a net exporter of oil, is that a first in a century?)
How is that? Caring for another individual by threat of violence VS not HURTING other individual are different things.
We don't hurt each other (in most cases, hopefully), and it's not even because of laws, it's because of reciprocity, because in reality an open conflict among grown ups ends in serious injury or death.
Laws are really irrelevant, once somebody is killed as an example, the laws can only be used to punish after the fact, they can't undo the damage.
AFAIC most laws are ineffectual anyway, basically people either have it in them - to hurt others, or they don't. All that laws can do is punish them after the fact IF the perpetrator is caught.
But we are not talking about THAT, we are talking about forcing somebody to actively 'care' about another individual by threat of violence, not about preventing somebody from hurting another individual. So that has nothing to do with normal criminal law.
An element of a set cannot be extrapolated to infer the set. Induction is useless, particularly in your case as you're apparently incapable of comprehending what rules you can perform induction on, or how.
- since when do I have to prove something about far away future, while we know the history and the current, and what does it matter if 1000 years in the future there will be some other form of democracy that may exist for a longer period of time?
How is it relevant?
It's irrelevant completely, but you obviously don't understand that.
emocracy doesn't require wealth and CORRECTLY-IMPLEMENTED d
- again, as all of the revolutionaries, the missionaries and all of the failed dictators of the past (and current and not too distant future), they have all talked about building the NEW man and the NEW society and to do that all they needed was just to change the nature of the individual, to give the individual a higher degree of consciousness, so that the individual would become part of the collective and throw away his own real desires and ambitions etc.
Well, I'll tell you something: sooner MY statement that all democracies lead to tyranny is correct, than your notion that you can change the character of the man and make him want less for himself and more for others for no other reason but to build this 'correct society' that you want to see.
I DO NOT want to see this 'correct society', and this is a good enough proof for me that you, and those like you will fail every time. I don't want equality, I don't want democracy, I want FREEDOM from people and this contrived idea that people can be all equal based on democratic rule IMPLIES that you will have to CHAIN me with the threat of government violence.
Your hands are just itching to put a thick metal chain on me and others, it's really interesting to observe (but very common).
Then you're a moron. Your points are contradicted by reality.
- I would love to have you say that in person.
Individual rights cannot exist without collective rights for them to exist within. Anarchy has total freedom but no rights.
- individual rights are only a meaningful construct when they are applied in context of relation between individual and the collective.
USA was artificially created based on agreement that individuals had rights ( though I woudn't have ratified that document, as it didn't acknowledge that all people are equal in the eyes of the law and that race doesn't matter).
A RIGHT is a concept that only makes sense when we are talking about INDIVIDUAL having RIGHT not to be bothered by the COLLECTIVE, by the government without justification.
So government cannot steal individual's property, kill the individual, imprison him, etc., without due process (of-course your current administration argues that this doesn't apply anymore, that's the consequence of Democracy in action, as Democracy opened the original doors to all these rulers to throw away the law above them - the Constitution ).
Any responsibility that you think you can place upon an individual to care for another individual by rule of law is unjust and immoral.
When did 'responsibility' become a synonym for 'oppression by the threat of government violence'?
so if the federal government asserts that they have the right to restrict citizens from owning nuclear bombs, you're going to say the feds must lose on that issue? nuclear non-proliferation is the job of the states?
- yes.
what's your feeling on discipline in the armed forces? you think courts martial are unconstitutional because it's the feds vs an individual?
- I am against standing armies, especially on federal level. They are just a hair-trigger away from becoming tools of oppression.
due to their superior libertarian ideals.
- more strawman.
Where is it written that Somalians have LIBERTARIAN IDEAS?
Are you high?
By the way, I AM interested in Somalia, looking to see if there is a way to invest in something there. I like investing into things when they are down.
Precisely. And all of them should be nullified.