Bio not provided
@West Texan @poco424 West Texan. It's true that the Obama administration doesn't make law. The law, in most cases, is already made and blessed by Congress and the Executive branch just makes "policies" or administrative actions that are "pre-approved" by the law. It's the same thing, in the end: rule by force!
2 years, 4 months ago on Texas NDAA Nullification Bill Includes Criminal Charges for Federal Agents
@gypsynovus @RedTulie @poco424 I'd like a Happy Meal, please!
@gypsynovus @RedTulie @poco424 Americans will organize after they feel the pain of total or near total economic collapse. Fortunately, our fiat monetary system guarantees this fate by design! There will be opportunities for change, however painful they will prove to be. Be patient.
@jcalex2 Much truth said!
@Michael Boldin @RK1 That was quick! I figured the Supremes might be deployed to bless the tyranny of the NDAA (and perhaps Obama might need to appoint some new ones first)!
2 years, 5 months ago on Texas NDAA Nullification Bill Includes Criminal Charges for Federal Agents
@JeanBarnes I forgot to make one point, in my last reply.
> Materialism and now science has become societies god.
Actually, government has become society's god! (Read "The Most Dangerous Superstition!")
Most of what passes for science is either very poor science or no science at all! Science is a tool for discovering the truth that is based on evidence and empiricism. However, the tool can never be used to discover the infinite number of truths the universe holds! Good science actually result in people becoming more aware of what they DO NOT know than it results in people finding "answers" to questions. In other words, for every question that is answered with confidence using science, far more unanswered questions are created and raised. I first learn this fact about science by reading "Zen and The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" in my late teens while on a long motorcycle up the Alcan to Alaska! :)
As for materialism? Today, it leads to unsustainable lifestyles (for the individual as well as society). But again, the non-aggression principle addresses the often-associated behaviors that lead to problems in the world. Even if you are not a sailor and have no interest in ocean sailing, I must recommend another book: "Sea-Steading--A Life of Hope and Freedom on the Last Viable Frontier," by Jerome FitzGerald. Read about it on Amazon first. Not all readers "get it!"
@JeanBarnes Personally, I don't derive my motivation to act morally from God, but I'm fond of people who are inspired to act morally by religion. I really don't care what drives people to act morally, Actions are all I care about. If people act morally, exhibit virtue, and leave me alone, that is enough for me.
The framework and arguments supporting concepts like natural or inalienable rights and morals can be well-constructed without God in the story. I'm sorry that I don't have time to go into any details right now, and it would bring us even further from the topic of this discussion than I've already diverged.
I've always liked Ron Paul. If one must have a master and a ruler, Ron Paul is the one to have! I even voted for him as a Libertarian before I stopped voting. I made it to one of his campaign speeches this election year too. I will find time to listen to his speech.
>By "Tenther" you mean the Tenth Amendment Nullification?
Tenthers are people who believe in the process of nullification. I'd consider myself to be a tenther only because I believe that it's moral to defend oneself and resist tyranny!
Thank you for the discussion!
@JeanBarnes Excellent! That's step one. Get people to agree. Get people to agree that the solution to thwarting tyranny no longer lies in political processes.
Previously, you said:
"Now is the time for Constitutional Conservatives to develop a new party with carefully chosen candidates that have no ties to the Republican party."
We must actually get people to agree that your assertion above is NOT going to realize a solution to our ever-degraded liberty at the hands of people empowered by government. (Government is only a concept. PEOPLE commit harm and violence via the proxy of government, and even attempt to diffuse the blame by citing, "government" in all related matters .) The system is designed to keep us arguing about politics (and keep us hopeful that we can achieve our goals through pointless politics) when the system, by design, can only run in one direction--towards authoritarianism and tyranny. This keeps us hopeful so we will continue to produce and feed the monster.
Get people to understand the moral (immoral) implications and consequences of voting. We are brainwashed nearly from our births to accept that force, if rendered via a vote of everyone concerned, is righteous. It is not! It creates a world of moral double standards. Force is not okay--even when wielded by voters. Only reason is a morally acceptable means of influencing other people.
Get people to accept the non-aggression principle and then the problem will be solved! Get people to accept that voting is committing violence via proxy. If you vote, you are part of the problem and not part of the solution!
There are many people screaming this message from roof tops right now (well--actually from the Internet). I suggest an online search for any media created by Stefan Molynuex or Larkin Rose, including Rose's book, "The Most Dangerous Superstition,"
Get people to understand that the problem of the state and its certain growth towards authoritarianism and tyranny will not, in all likelihood, be solved in their lifetimes. Like the abolitionism movement, furthering the non-aggression principle is a multi-generation goal.
I am personally very interested in the "Tenther" movement, because it opens peoples eyes to the fact that one can only be tyrannized, if they let themselves be tyrannized but, regrettably, ink on paper cannot save them and it actually obfuscates the root cause of the problem.
@JeanBarnes Yes--most of these sorts of state laws are empty. Not long ago, Texas tried to ban the TSA too, but the Texas state legislature rolled over as soon as the feds said they'd not permit any flights to Texas.
If the people of a state do not possess the gonads to play "stare down" with the feds (which WILL create an economic catastrophe), and say, "fine--no planes in or out," I don't see the point of creating more worthless "ink on paper" that has no backbone supporting it. Like the Constitution, it's completely moot. I guess it helps to get state politicians elected to office, but that's about all it does!
@WilliamSchooler @thebasketcase @CFrancisHabeck @egbegb Yes. I think one can make a case in basing these beliefs on ethics, inalienable rights, or simply the natural right of any organism to defend itself. However, if we only have "laws" that individuals (such as yourself) "agree-to," we have voluntarism instead of government. I'm all for that! Also, people can morally impose rules that other people agree to, as a condition of voluntary relationships, but people cannot use force to compel the actions of others, and still act morally--even when acting via the political processes and the violent proxy of a democracy, republic, or any other form of government. I'm not against rules. I'm only against rulers!
2 years, 6 months ago on Dangerous Dicta
@WilliamSchooler @thebasketcase @CFrancisHabeck @egbegb I'm not sure what you mean by " All choices are not by violence." Just to make my position clear: If I am threatened with lethal force and the prospect of being caged (jailed), if I resist the inherent force of the state that is initiated against me, and I choose to exercise liberty by disobeying laws, then my choices are not free and voluntary. This assertion is fully supported by the definition of the word, "voluntary." Furthermore, the involuntary nature of my choices is invariant of whether or not the people initiating the violence against me permit me to vote in public elections.
Liberty is always sacrificed when moral double standards exist for the state, i.e. when the state exists. Double moral standards actually result in no moral standards at all. People are sacrificing many more liberties to the state each and every day, but this is to be expected. Government only "runs in one direction!"
2 years, 7 months ago on Dangerous Dicta
WilliamSchooler is striking much closer to the root cause of the dearth of liberty throughout human kind and human history. I'm am entirely sick of the complex "ink on paper" and the endless debate surrounding it. (I only initially posted here because my own habits die hard.)
There are only two ways to influence people--force and reason. Using reason is a moral action, whereas the initiation of force against others is not moral. Government, by its very definition, initiates and uses force! Q.E.D.
@Don Duncan @thebasketcase I intended to say, FederalistS. Certainly more people were responsible for the tyranny of Federalism than Alexander Hamilton! ;)
@Don Duncan @thebasketcase Given that I'm not happy being enslaved by rulers, I'd prefer individual rights, which are the only kind of rights anyway. We could also have a philosophical debate about "rights" and the moral implications of what is implied by accepting the the entire concept and, in turn, the inverse of rights. Most recently in my life, I've focused on liberty (defined by actions), instead of rights (only a concept) and promoting the non-aggression principle as the only means to obtain it.
Even though I believe it's possible for a state to exist that affords people more liberty than we have in the U.S. today, the Federalist won and it's not going to happen in my lifetime! In truth, life in the U.S. offers very little liberty. A few third world countries offer much more liberty than the U.S. offers people today!
Thanks for your summary, above. I took the time to study it and understand that the article may be completely consistent within the context of states and nations, but I don't believe in either of them! One of my favorite movies is Jean Renoir's, "The Grand Illusion" (1937).
I definitely have trouble staying on-topic once a discussion about the Constitution drifts away from what's actually written in the document or the history of the people who devised it,
Also, please see my most recent post to thebasketcase, above.
>our Social Security Number, voter registration,
>birth certificate, and other benefits,
These are benefits? I view them (and what they imply) as chains that deny us liberty! I also believe that the "social contract," as it is commonly held, is statist brainwashing, devised to allay people's concerns that would otherwise result from a person's moral compass. I'd be happy to continue discussions along philosophical lines in a forum like strike-the-root.com or freedomainradio.com, instead of wandering off-topic in this venue, which is essentially advocating the state--though a much smaller Federal state!
I agree that personal political bias is a significant factor in such decisions. Bias affects one's interpretation of the meaning of the precise words. ;) Legal scholars can't even agree on the meaning of the Second Amendment so I think this debate over whether or not words in a law ALWAYS have a precise meaning is completely moot. Anyone who exists in a position of power interpreting the words certainly thinks, or at least argues, that they are interpreting the words precisely and accurately!
When it comes to protecting liberty, law is often also moot (which really means that it's completely moot, because law that is inconsistently applied through process is actually no "law" at all!). Liberty is doomed as soon as one accepts rulers and their rules of law.
I am obviously coming from a very different philosophical point of view than many of the people posting here. I was a card-carrying Libertarian for many years but now I believe the Constitution is a dead letter, and I believe that it was doomed to fulfill this destiny from the beginning. My only interest in the subject is based on my belief that a strict interpretation of the Constitution results in a reduction of government ethical transgressions and greater liberty for the people, but I now know this is a false hope in my lifetime. Regardless, old habits die hard and I post.
I'm getting off-topic and into a philosophical realm but, while I appreciate the arguments and summaries provided by my friends here, I'd like them to understand that my main interests are fulfilled at an entirely different philosophical level that "strikes the root" for the cause of liberty, Accordingly, there are may debates here that don't attract my attention, because I have discarded my beliefs in the superstition of the state.
>Words in a law ALWAYS have a precise meaning.
Haha--you're joking, right? You must have consumed a awful lot of law industry Kool-Aid in your life! How do you explain all the 5-4 splits in the Supremes' decisions, if the basis for their "opinions" is so precise? If you asked nine learned doctors for their opinions on a medical condition and they came back claiming to have an "answer" in a 5-4 split of opinion, I don't think you'd be terribly impressed with their findings, yet certainly no one claims that the medical profession always deals with precise inputs.
Perhaps the Supremes fail to achieve agreement on matters of law because law, though precise, is terribly inaccurate. ;) Isn't the concept of legal precedent nothing but making precisely the same mistake repeatedly? You do know the difference between precision and accuracy, don't you?
Sorry thebasketcase, I think Humpy Dumpty had the more perceptive point of view in this matter (see my previous post).
@onetenther @Bob Greenslade Or Lewis Carroll? From "Through the Looking Glass":
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - - that's all."
@Cogitor I didn't study the contents of the link at length, because it appears to build a case for authority on the concept of "citizen" (legal concept or otherwise). Maybe that's your point, because you did remark that government possesses "unconstitutional authority."
I can't find any references to the word "citizen" anywhere in the Bill of Rights. I find "people" and "person," which are much broader terms than "citizen," but I find no indication that the Bill of Rights was devised to limit the powers of government to only protect "citizens."
Of course, what the 'ink on paper" says and what government does are two very different things and government gets its authority from guns, in all cases, and never ink on paper!
Bravo! This is the best read on the Second Amendment since Penn and Teller aired their "Gun Control" episode (google for it). Naturally, this piece is more detailed than Penn's narration, but Penn and Teller nail the only reasonable conclusion about the purpose and meaning of the Second Amendment when Penn argues (Teller remains mute, as always) that the second Amendment was devised to protect people FROM the militia, rather than to insure the existence of the militia.
The militia is only mentioned in the "preamble" section of the Second Amendment. As was popular in the day of the Founding Fathers, the motivation behind a rule of law was included in a preamble. The Second Amendment was indeed motivated by the existence of a militia (or standing army today), which is necessary to protect the security of a free state, but the rule of law section of the Second Amendment protects the rights of "The People," as opposed to the militia. It does not protect a means to arm a militia, as is commonly believed--even by "pro-gun people." If the founders had been concerned about arming the militia, they would have written "militia" instead of "the right of the people." They didn't do this because the militia doesn't need protecting. It exists under the realm of government itself. A protection for the militia or any other government interest is inconsistent with the entire Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is entirely about protecting "The People" from tyrannical government, including protection from a militia or standing army. Penn and Teller's well-reasoned read of The Second Amendment is the only argument that makes sense in the context of the Bill of Rights, the history of the American Revolution, and the Founding Fathers' experiences and goals. Some people may not like what the Founders created, but they should accept the obvious truth of the matter! I have far more respect for this argument and Penn and Teller's argument than anything the Supremes have to say. Sadly, gun grabbers don't respond to reason at all!
All five threats to liberty are brought to us by the perpetual purveyor of tyranny, the state! We don't need the state and we'd be better off without it. Throw off the brainwashing shackles of your government, everyone!
2 years, 10 months ago on 5 Greatest Threats to Your Liberty Today
@Lady Patriot Agreed! Given the style, tactic, and intent of the essay, Judge Napolitano does know that our government only permits freedom so long as it is exercised as the government pleases. He also knows all the others "ifs" are, in fact, currently a reality. However, I'm not sure he accepts that Freedom and government of any form or size are mutually exclusive. Even a minimal government (like a government that follows the U.S. Constitution) is, philosophically, no different from our government today, because the entire point of government is to limit freedom. Contemplating this particular "what if" from the essay in the context of small government leads to the same conclusion as it does under our authoritarian state today. The smallest possible government would still only permit freedom so long as it is exercised as the government pleases. My "what if" is, "what if the government actually permitted freedom?"(Answer: It would cease to exist!) Of course the point of Napolitano's essay was to stimulate people to recognize that "what if" is happening right now and I believe the essay is quite good. I would like people to realize that our Constitution doesn't solve the "what if" that I quoted. Government is still force. Only the non-aggression principle solves the problem and acceptance of the non-aggression principle implies the acceptance of a stateless society. I would prefer to return to the days of our former Constitutional Republic, because it's a step in the right direction, but I hope society will one day embrace the non-aggression principle. Sadly, I think a return is very unlikely; I also think government can only run in one direction and it's the direction our government has run since the day it was founded.
2 years, 10 months ago on Memories of Freedom
>You know, like throwing tea into the harbor and such.
The Boston Tea Party was a great publicity stunt but it didn't free the colonialists from English rule. Voting doesn't seem to be working any better to reverse the destruction of liberty today than civil disobedience did in the colonies either.
Yes--"never submit to tyranny or troops on our streets or drones over our neighborhoods and vow to always stand strong, stand up and stand together " but don't expect to do it though political processes.
@Clem Kadidlehopper Great summary of the (tyrannical) state of the nation, Clem!
>What if the government only permitted freedom so long as it was exercised as the government pleases?
Government always permits us enough freedom to go as far as the end of our government leashes!
As much as Judge Napolitano strives to bring about a society that tolerates more liberty for the people, I don't think he's accepted the obvious truth that the situation he describes is ALWAYS the outcome of government. In fact, it is the very definition of government! Government never permits freedom or, putting it another way, under the state, freedom is always unlawful. Once the condition that Judge Napolitano cites no longer occurs, government will cease to exist.