Anyone who things opening fire on people who identify themselves as the police is great way to "defend" their home is a dangerous idiot.
You do understand that it's become practice for some criminal gangs to shout 'POLICE!' as they invade homes, don't you?
Anyone who thinks they need a firearm to "defend their home" living in a modern western country is a dangerous idiot.
Considering that, barring significant reforms that are politically unthinkable, economic and social collapse in much of the Western world is likely only a couple decades away, I think you're the dangerous idiot.
It's hilarious how many slashdotters are accusing me of not knowing history, and then follow that with "proof" that the Constitution doesn't mean what the clear language states based on James Madison's (or Thomas Jefferson's) say-so. You all have to realize that the Constitution was not drafted by a hivemind that had a single intent. There were bitter fights over what it should say and what it should mean. Madison and Jefferson represented only one faction. Hamilton represented another, which interpreted it very broadly.
You're assuming that the two sides are of equal validity. They are not. Madison was the author of the Constitution, and his interpretation of the document should take priority.
Picking and choosing which signer's intent should govern is idiotic; in these cases you have to look at the plain language of the document. They could have limited the General Welfare Clause to furthering the enumerated powers. They decided not to.
But they did. According to Madison in Federalist #41:
"But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter."
The Supreme Court affirmed Hamilton's point of view both in Helvering vs Davis and Steward Machine Company vs Davis. The Supreme Court's view is that Congress is entitled to an expansive definition of "general welfare," and may seek to promote it through many means, including its prodigious taxing and spending power.
The Court was wrong, and should have used Madison's interpretation, which makes far more sense, since Madison was the author of the document.
the constitution is a living pact with the people and subject to change. it is not a holy document from a fundamentalist religion that is above amendment or questioning
So why didn't they try to amend it, rather than dishonestly reinterpreting it?
No, I'm talking about an insane level of deregulation of the financial industry
Such "deregulation" consisted of repealing 17 pages of regulations, and replacing them with thousands of pages of more regulations, implementing Basel II.
Yes, we demand you pay your fair share of taxes, for the services you consume.
Define "fair share".
Yes, we, the people of America, have done quite a bit to improve this land. The roads, sewers, electrical systems, not to mention all the services you get here, such as social security.
Roads were built by seizing other improved land. My subdivision, on the other hand, built its own roads and sewers, my electrical utility is privately owned, and I have little hope of ever seeing the money I "pay into" Social Security.
It is unanimous consent, because you consent by staying.
Not good enough. I was born here, and nobody can "consent" for me. Furthermore, you claim exclusive "ownership" of wide swaths of geographic area, and without easements, I cannot leave easily.
The state does not have a monopoly on force. You can defend yourself.
I can only defend myself in very specific circumstances. You claim the "right" to use force to coerce me into paying taxes, and follow an endless, convoluted set of arbitrary "rules" that make ordinary middle-class people potential "felons". If an ordinary person tried to do something like that, they would be jailed or killed. You are therefore claiming an exclusive, special privilege to use force against others.
As a group, we have the right to defend ourselves and enforce our rules on our land. That we pay a ceertain class of people to do most of it for us is immaterial.
This isn't your land. You did nothing to improve it, and you do not live on it. The trouble is, you still make a claim not only to my land, but to every square inch of area on a good portion of this continent, meaning that, without there being easements, I have no choice but to deal with you.
The state is based on unanimous consent,
Again, if that were true, then the Constitution, and the government it formed could only apply to those who signed the Constitution, or directly voted for it.
if you don't like it you can give up your citizenship right now and not pay any taxes.
A state is a voluntary organization. If you don't like it, leave.
If the state didn't claim a monopoly of force over everything within a large geographic area, then your argument might be valid. As it is now, there is nowhere to go. Even if I did leave, they still claim the power to tax me for ten years after I've left.
It is based on unanimous consent in the same way a corporation is: you agree to the rules, or you are not a part of it.
If it was based on unanimous consent, then the US Constitution could only apply to those who signed it, or voted for it directly.
I never mentioned force
You wrote:
I am saying, I and a group of other individuals can own land held jointly, and we can say, "We don't like you, go away, this is our land." and if you don't leave, THEN we have the right to shoot you in the head.
Sure sounds to me like you're advocating force to uphold the state.
The United States of America is our land, and the rules are called the constitution.
So basically, you are proposing that a small group of people exercise a monopoly of force, a special privilege to use force in ways impermissible for ordinary people, over a vast geographic area, with the ability to subjugate others to your will.
That's not private property ownership, that's a state.
This is not your land. Land belongs to individuals, and whatever voluntary organizations, such as corporations or non-profits, they set up based on unanimous consent.
I believe in the right of individuals to band together into groups to protect their interests. I believe in the right of a group
Groups don't have rights. Only individuals do. Furthermore, you are not advocating for a mere group of people coming together voluntarily and through unanimous consent. You are advocating for a small group of people who are specially privileged to use force against others, in ways impermissible for ordinary people, and subjugate others against their will.
You realize over 80% of the National Debt was run up by Republicans, right?
Current unfunded liabilities for Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare are somewhere around $60 to $100 trillion dollars, depending on who you ask. Which Republicans pushed through those programs again?
Look at the post-war period. The period of greatest economic growth at all levels of society occurred during a time when the Democrats controlled the Presidency and at least one house of congress.
No, the periods of economic growth were normal-tax periods - periods where the federal government seized less than 18 percent of GDP. (Source)
Ronald Reagan declared class warfare against every member of the middle and working class, and now the right wing cries "class warfare" because that middle and working class is starting to figure it out.
Cutting taxes is not an act of aggression. The only people declaring "class war" are people who "think" they are entitled to other people's money, try to vote themselves rich, and use the power of the State to seize and redistribute other people's wealth.
In America since 1950, average growth during high tax periods where the government confiscated more than 18% of GDP was 1.08%. Average growth during normal tax periods was 2.45%. (Source)
so basically you really dont know shit about history. the above examples wouldnt be able to be used for any discussion on fundamentals of eventual monopoly creation from free markets, because both of them are companies from post-regulation era. they are monopolies, or oligopolies DESPITE being companies of the post-regulation era in addition too. still, they cant be used as examples to anything because the conditions for argument in regard to free market is not present in post-regulation era.
Standard Oil allegedly became a "monopoly" years before antitrust regulation was law, and is often used as the textbook example of "monopoly".
why dont you do some research ? instead of using half assed knowledge from politically charged sources and advocates ?
you can start by googling 'robber baron'.
The list of "robber barons" on Wikipedia includes very few alleged "monopolists", at least according to the biographies of the ones I clicked on.
do you actually know ANYthing about history, to make that claim. prove your point.
I already gave Microsoft and Standard Oil as examples that are widely claimed to have been "monopolies", but weren't. Microsoft's great crime against humanity was giving away a browser for free, and Standard Oil's atrocity was cutting prices because of their more efficient refining technology. Standard Oil never had monopoly pricing power.
there is a spectacular case of monopolies occurring naturally without any government interference in history.
The Marxist "monopoly capitalism" argument is no more true now than it was in Marx's time. True monopolies only exist when backed by the government. (Microsoft was never a monopoly, and neither was Standard Oil.)
The CRA had nothing, period, at all to do with the collapse at all.
Not all mortgages had to be issued under the CRA, as the Federal government was encouraging and mandating that banks make bad affirmative-action loans on their own, and requiring that securities backed by these mortgages be given 'AAA' ratings by the "officially recognized" ratings agencies.
But I don't want to step over your point, which is accurate. The conservative's main voter base (blue-collar, working class, middle-americans) are the ones hurt the most by Republican policy. And yet they vote for the same policies time after time out of a belief that liberal politicians are immoral, or anti-jesus, or hate families or something.
Or could it be they don't want to live most of their lives at the expense of others, and therefore vote for candidates that at least give lip service to smaller government?
Some people I know started voting Republican solely because of gun-rights issues, and then came to support the whole idea of limited government, and soon after, started voting Libertarian.
Absent Government, what laws are those people abiding by?
To be law abiding absent government, one only need to be peaceable, and not commit murder, rape, fraud or robbery. To be "law abiding" with a government the size it is today is impossible.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone who things opening fire on people who identify themselves as the police is great way to "defend" their home is a dangerous idiot.
You do understand that it's become practice for some criminal gangs to shout 'POLICE!' as they invade homes, don't you?
Anyone who thinks they need a firearm to "defend their home" living in a modern western country is a dangerous idiot.
Considering that, barring significant reforms that are politically unthinkable, economic and social collapse in much of the Western world is likely only a couple decades away, I think you're the dangerous idiot.
The same Mike Huben who got his ass kicked all over Usenet years ago for his stupid strawman arguments?
It's hilarious how many slashdotters are accusing me of not knowing history, and then follow that with "proof" that the Constitution doesn't mean what the clear language states based on James Madison's (or Thomas Jefferson's) say-so. You all have to realize that the Constitution was not drafted by a hivemind that had a single intent. There were bitter fights over what it should say and what it should mean. Madison and Jefferson represented only one faction. Hamilton represented another, which interpreted it very broadly.
You're assuming that the two sides are of equal validity. They are not. Madison was the author of the Constitution, and his interpretation of the document should take priority.
Picking and choosing which signer's intent should govern is idiotic; in these cases you have to look at the plain language of the document. They could have limited the General Welfare Clause to furthering the enumerated powers. They decided not to.
But they did. According to Madison in Federalist #41:
"But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter."
The Supreme Court affirmed Hamilton's point of view both in Helvering vs Davis and Steward Machine Company vs Davis. The Supreme Court's view is that Congress is entitled to an expansive definition of "general welfare," and may seek to promote it through many means, including its prodigious taxing and spending power.
The Court was wrong, and should have used Madison's interpretation, which makes far more sense, since Madison was the author of the document.
the constitution is a living pact with the people and subject to change. it is not a holy document from a fundamentalist religion that is above amendment or questioning
So why didn't they try to amend it, rather than dishonestly reinterpreting it?
Such "deregulation" consisted of repealing 17 pages of regulations, and replacing them with thousands of pages of more regulations, implementing Basel II.
Correction. You seem to not only be delusional about how important you are, but are also sadly misguided about what quality of life is.
So how do you define 'quality of life'?
Yes, we demand you pay your fair share of taxes, for the services you consume.
Define "fair share".
Yes, we, the people of America, have done quite a bit to improve this land. The roads, sewers, electrical systems, not to mention all the services you get here, such as social security.
Roads were built by seizing other improved land. My subdivision, on the other hand, built its own roads and sewers, my electrical utility is privately owned, and I have little hope of ever seeing the money I "pay into" Social Security.
It is unanimous consent, because you consent by staying.
Not good enough. I was born here, and nobody can "consent" for me. Furthermore, you claim exclusive "ownership" of wide swaths of geographic area, and without easements, I cannot leave easily.
There is no exit tax in America.
There is an exit tax in America.
The state does not have a monopoly on force. You can defend yourself.
I can only defend myself in very specific circumstances. You claim the "right" to use force to coerce me into paying taxes, and follow an endless, convoluted set of arbitrary "rules" that make ordinary middle-class people potential "felons". If an ordinary person tried to do something like that, they would be jailed or killed. You are therefore claiming an exclusive, special privilege to use force against others.
As a group, we have the right to defend ourselves and enforce our rules on our land. That we pay a ceertain class of people to do most of it for us is immaterial.
This isn't your land. You did nothing to improve it, and you do not live on it. The trouble is, you still make a claim not only to my land, but to every square inch of area on a good portion of this continent, meaning that, without there being easements, I have no choice but to deal with you.
The state is based on unanimous consent,
Again, if that were true, then the Constitution, and the government it formed could only apply to those who signed the Constitution, or directly voted for it.
if you don't like it you can give up your citizenship right now and not pay any taxes.
Untrue. I am still subject to exit taxes.
A state is a voluntary organization. If you don't like it, leave.
If the state didn't claim a monopoly of force over everything within a large geographic area, then your argument might be valid. As it is now, there is nowhere to go. Even if I did leave, they still claim the power to tax me for ten years after I've left.
It is based on unanimous consent in the same way a corporation is: you agree to the rules, or you are not a part of it.
If it was based on unanimous consent, then the US Constitution could only apply to those who signed it, or voted for it directly.
I never mentioned force
You wrote:
I am saying, I and a group of other individuals can own land held jointly, and we can say, "We don't like you, go away, this is our land." and if you don't leave, THEN we have the right to shoot you in the head.
Sure sounds to me like you're advocating force to uphold the state.
The United States of America is our land, and the rules are called the constitution.
So basically, you are proposing that a small group of people exercise a monopoly of force, a special privilege to use force in ways impermissible for ordinary people, over a vast geographic area, with the ability to subjugate others to your will.
That's not private property ownership, that's a state.
This is not your land. Land belongs to individuals, and whatever voluntary organizations, such as corporations or non-profits, they set up based on unanimous consent.
This is our land,
Where is the land that you're claiming?
we set the rules,
Such as?
I believe in the right of individuals to band together into groups to protect their interests. I believe in the right of a group
Groups don't have rights. Only individuals do. Furthermore, you are not advocating for a mere group of people coming together voluntarily and through unanimous consent. You are advocating for a small group of people who are specially privileged to use force against others, in ways impermissible for ordinary people, and subjugate others against their will.
the reason they arent is because you let corporations infiltrate government and change the laws in their direction.
In what ways? Which corporation demanded extensive broadcast censorship?
Governments own the airwaves. How free, uncensored and open are they?
Current unfunded liabilities for Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare are somewhere around $60 to $100 trillion dollars, depending on who you ask. Which Republicans pushed through those programs again?
No, the periods of economic growth were normal-tax periods - periods where the federal government seized less than 18 percent of GDP. (Source)
Cutting taxes is not an act of aggression. The only people declaring "class war" are people who "think" they are entitled to other people's money, try to vote themselves rich, and use the power of the State to seize and redistribute other people's wealth.
In America since 1950, average growth during high tax periods where the government confiscated more than 18% of GDP was 1.08%. Average growth during normal tax periods was 2.45%. (Source)
Standard Oil allegedly became a "monopoly" years before antitrust regulation was law, and is often used as the textbook example of "monopoly".
The list of "robber barons" on Wikipedia includes very few alleged "monopolists", at least according to the biographies of the ones I clicked on.
I already gave Microsoft and Standard Oil as examples that are widely claimed to have been "monopolies", but weren't. Microsoft's great crime against humanity was giving away a browser for free, and Standard Oil's atrocity was cutting prices because of their more efficient refining technology. Standard Oil never had monopoly pricing power.
So give us some examples.
The Marxist "monopoly capitalism" argument is no more true now than it was in Marx's time. True monopolies only exist when backed by the government. (Microsoft was never a monopoly, and neither was Standard Oil.)
Not all mortgages had to be issued under the CRA, as the Federal government was encouraging and mandating that banks make bad affirmative-action loans on their own, and requiring that securities backed by these mortgages be given 'AAA' ratings by the "officially recognized" ratings agencies.
I don't know if he's constitutionally guilty of being a traitor, but he is guilty of being a dishonest propagandist and a liar.
Apparently, when a militant Islamic psychopath kills another Muslim, that's automatically America's fault, wherever it occurs.
Or could it be they don't want to live most of their lives at the expense of others, and therefore vote for candidates that at least give lip service to smaller government?
Some people I know started voting Republican solely because of gun-rights issues, and then came to support the whole idea of limited government, and soon after, started voting Libertarian.
To be law abiding absent government, one only need to be peaceable, and not commit murder, rape, fraud or robbery. To be "law abiding" with a government the size it is today is impossible.