Quote:

While those in government right now may be using the Constitution for toiletpaper, at least it still EXISTS....

PLEASE get out of the gingerbread house before the witch eats you.

The first thing linked in Frog Stew: http://tickerforum.org/cgi-ticker/akcs-w....

Quote:

Statusquojoe wrote..

There is no changing the statist behemoth it can only grow, it knows no other path. Assuming that it does know another path is folly and a complete waste of time.

It was designed that way from the very beginning: Article I, Section 8, the first clause of the first sentence: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes..." There are 4440 words in the Constitution, and those are only ten that matter. The power to levy is the reason those men gathered in Philadelphia in the first place: "We the People" were to pay off colonial pigster debts, but with the intent hidden behind a lot of flowery language. In perpetuity. The other 4430 words are lip-service, obfuscation, and scaffold-erection of the apparatus to re-subject a recently-freed people to rulership.

Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion were the quick result of the consequences (taxes and corruption) of implementation, and were put down by troops in the field.

Quote:

Assertion of 10th Amendment rights for the states is the only way forward.

The 10th? It's trumped by A1s8.

I sometimes wonder how vanishingly few people realize this. It cannot possibly be more than the number who know what William Lloyd Garrison once did on a certain July 4, and why.

The whole reprehensible mess has been airbrushed out of history books ever since. You certainly wouldn't learn about it in a school.

Let that sink in, kidz.

There are lots of tasty amendments treats in the Constitution gingerbread house, but once Hansel & Gretal are inside stuffing their faces, the government witch will have their taxes asses for dinner.


Everyone: You cannot and will never secure any shred of liberty while you're screwing around inside that thing.

So what do you suggest we do Bezzle. The masses arent voting anyone out, the same idiots keep getting elected no matter what they vote on. So what do you suggest?

First post, list of "real solutions".

Ok Bezzle, I am a skeptic on some of you posts but seeing as Steph pinned it I decided to put some time in and read the post and the links.
I believe the real solutions you mention unfortunately become more realistic every day. I find the information given about Cloward-Piven very interesting and most logical. So what is the next target? I can't think of much other than internet/tech.
Regarding William Lloyd Garrison, if I recall you mention him a few times in other posts. In trying to understand what you keep referring to.......
Is it because he burned the constitution because he believed it actually allowed slavery (and taxes)?

eeeYup.

What has more vaule gold sliver $5.00 or an egg ?

It depends upon the ratio of gold, silver, egg, beauty, and rarity.

Quote:

the Woman's Suffrage movement had more on its mind than doubling the voting base with the inclusion of a large class of persons who seldom paid the bills; it had its eye on establishing a direct income-tax and furthering and expanding "nanny" government roles in regulating business

Had to call you on this one. While what you say is true so far as it goes, it was also very much to do with freeing women from being the personal chattel(slaves) of their fathers, brothers, husbands etc with few to no private property rights. Don't forget the economic reforms that came along with suffrage.

Correlation-causation fallacy (and a woman of means could always buy property or run a business).

Suffrage merely coincided with technology-based economic advancement and attendant improvement in health and living conditions nearing the end of the 19th century. Otoh, Suffrage was directly attributable to the election of a whole slew of socialist politicians (beginning with "handsome" Teddy Roosevelt) who immediately set about greatly increasing the meddlesome role of government in policing the economy. Teddy paved the way for Wilson and eventually FDR, with the results being the income tax, the Federal Reserve, broad federal license to do whatever the hell it wanted, complete monopolization of justice and selective non-prosecution of corrupt pigsters during the 1920s stock swindles, skyrocketing crime resultant from the first "Drug War" (against alcohol), and eventually trade-wars, a fifteen-year depression and debasement of currency in the years heading into World War II.

Quote:

Correlation-causation fallacy

Uh, no. Go read the laws. Married women could not directly own property, legally. Funny how that's OK applied to women, but not to men, right ? Because she could get around it illegally, with a compliant husband... You go right ahead and give your property over to your spouse and rely on their long-term good nature. What ever could go wrong with that ?

And the bull**** about suffrage being responsible for the election of Woodrow Wilson ? Show me that a majority of men voted against him, OK ? Otherwise it's just an unfounded assertion. Bring it up to today - men voted against GWB and Obama, right ?

Quote:

Go read the laws.

Go look at slavery.

Tesla, none of these side-track issues invalidate anything I wrote.

I just thought I'd say that I really like this post, Bezzle. Thank you.

Bezzle
are you an Anarchist?

Define the term, and I'll answer within that context.

i didn't know there were different 'types' of anarchists

why don't you tell me what type of anarchist you are...

If you don't know more than one "type", then it should be easy for you to define it since you don't have more than one definition to choose from.

someone who believes in NO government at all.

Define "government", and then I'll answer within that context.

(Bear with me; I'm doing this for a reason.)

government
an institution of authority, representative of the people <giggle> for the purpose of general social cohesion and greater prosperity.


— I didn't know that would be so hard

Definition insufficient; does not deal in concretes and instead wallows in generalities.

I.e., "authorized" to do specifically what?

"Representative of the people"? -- What "people"? Ambiguous-collective fallacy: http://davidbking.tripod.com/FALLACYS.HT....


We're going to get to the bottom of this.

Quote:

wallows in generalities

Well, yeah,
It purposefully is general, in that depending on who is elected in there by the people— depends on what you get out.

Look at Obama— you elect a Socialist- you get socialism
however if Ron Paul were elected — you would get a Libertarian government and we might be arguing about global wage arbitrage

When I look at our Fed Gov right now I see the Prez as a CEO, which isn't the way it is supposed to be. .Gov should be the hem on a blanket, not the pattern.

Quote:

"Representative of the people"

meaning that the Gov should be comprised of the citizens in which it is to govern, with the intent that if your neighbor is representing your town, they will have the towns best interest in mind— surely they are not going to pass a law to turn their own town into a toxic waste dump.

Control, coerce, cajole influence human behavior beyond the self governing done between their own ears.

Vegas,

As this is one of the few areas on Ticker Form where discussions of philosophical and political anarchism are permitted, I'm switching my lurk mode to off, to get this discussion going. It seems to be headed in interesting directions that may help the J6P that visit here, and find Bezzle so puzzling, and infuriating. A few years ago, I would have been one of them.

I mean, Bezzle slaughters not only Sacred Cows like the Constitution, but attacks "good" laws, like tariffs, minimum wages, and immigration restrictions.

He might as well condemn motherhood while he is at it!

Quote:

government: an institution of authority

You are on the right track. Perhaps you and Bezzle could agree to George Washington's definition of goverment:

Quote:

Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force!

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Wash....

If some proposed law or rule is so good, why is the threat of violence needed to impose it? Perhaps because it benefits some at the expense of others?

This is the inevitable result of ANY system where group R (rulers) has the power to impose rules, and ultimately extract wealth, from group P (producers).

The idea that "governments" work for the people needs to be tirelessly attacked, condemned, and ridiculed -- until the idea that we need ANY government, is considered as absurd as the Divine Right of Kings.

Quote:

Bezzle slaughters not only Sacred Cows like the Constitution, but attacks "good" laws, like tariffs, minimum wages, and immigration restrictions.

Because they're not "good" (which is precisely why that word belongs in quotation-marks to signify that its application is questionable at best and deliberately inverted at worst).

Quote:

He might as well condemn motherhood while he is at it!

If that's a new tax-funded entitlement program, I will.

Quote:

Perhaps you and Bezzle could agree to George Washington's definition of goverment: "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence -- it is force!"

Close, but not quite.

The distinguishing characteristic of a government (as opposed to any other "force-capable" entity, such as a militia or private guard-force) is its (hypocritically) self-granted license to initiate-force.

Bezzle is not an anarchist, he's an antagonist...with smarts! Even if he WAS or IS an anarchist, I would still
pay close attention...