Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Random thoughts and interesting tidbits. . .
. . .focused on current economical and political events.
"But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."
Thomas Jefferson
The Colonies
Oft Visited Websites
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(193)
-
▼
December
(65)
- Listening to CBC. . .
- Gaza Massacre Funded By US
- Fiscal Conservatives Making Their Voice Heard
- More Poetry
- Police Uses Excessive Force to Detain Criminals
- "Seedkeepers" - by an unknown Palestinian
- Lew Rockwell Releases New Book
- Rally For The Republic, #7 Most Watched Video On C...
- "The Revolution: A Manifesto" Most Loved Book
- TSA: Making The World Safer, One Passenger At A Time
- More Comedy
- Will The US Split Into 6 Portions?
- US Military Might Be Needed To Supress Domestic Vi...
- Peter Schiff On The Government Tightening Its Belt
- A Little Liberty Propaganda
- Some Predictions On The Future Of The United State...
- Lacking Sympathy For Israel
- You Think Cheney Was Secretive? Just Wait.
- Protecting Children From Lead Toys
- Liberty and Security
- Quote
- US Heading To Police State?
- I Love CBC Radio
- Paying Taxes Is So Much Fun!!!!!!
- Car Market Collapsing
- A Little Comedy For Once
- Debunking The Keynesian Myth
- I Love Ron Paul Propaganda
- The Damage Done By Regulation
- Should We Build A Battlestar Galactica?
- Commercial Real Estate Ask For Bailout
- Communism: Its A Party!
- The Big Cheese Bail-Out
- New Eras, Old Fallacies: The Fed and the Coming Re...
- Jim Rogers On Where to Invest
- Quote on Taxes
- Pittsburgh Tribune-Review Interviews Thomas DiLorenzo
- Save Polaroid!
- Money, Banking, and the Fed
- Governator Down-Sizing California Government
- Government Ponzi Schemes
- This Seems Reasonable
- Man-Made Global Warming?
- Wedding Photos
- Bush: So What?
- GM, Bankruptcy, the Transfer of Wealth, and Wall S...
- Ron Paul and Peter Schiff
- An Interesting Insight Into Greece
- Lew Rockwell on Bailouts
- Quote
- Bush Dodges Shoe
- Quote
- News Max Interviews Ron Paul
- Peter Schiff on the New New Deal
- Ron Paul To Congress
- Bailing Out Chrysler?
- Who Knew?
- Hilarious Bail-Out Satire
- The Story of Stuff
- A Blurb On Why All Bail-Outs Are Bad
- Chinese continues its takeover of the US economy. . .
- Ron Paul: "Gun Control: Protecting Terrorists and ...
- To Prorogue or Not To Prorogue
- Best Breakfast Ever.
- Peter Schiff Metaphors
-
▼
December
(65)
17 comments:
"Speed up the revolution that was destined to come anyway." Sounds like Paul is permeated with either a strong dose of Christian free market evangelism or some Marxist categories. *GasP*
"Even a 1% percent tax rate is wrong"? Is Paul an anarchist? Because that would not allow for the institutions that protect private property.
"There is nothing in the constitution that says the government should be involved in education at all."
Sure there is, it's called legislation. Legislation is a part of government that allows for change that the founders could not have seen.
Paul commits an equivocation fallacy: liberty does not equal free market capitalism. They are not the same.
I love the fact that a majority of his followers are male. Obviously females don't want to follow him, because that would mean an assault on their liberty.
I guess a percentage of libertarians use the Internet and send it to friends. Whoopdiedoo.
Errata: high percentage of libertarians
Why do you always take christian evangelism and put it hand in hand with the free market?
Institutions that protect private property can me put in place at the local level through taxes collected at the local level. This provides a venue for individuals to have more control. So yes, a 1% federal income tax is wrong.
"Sure there is, it's called legislation. Legislation is a part of government that allows for change that the founders could not have seen."
There is nothing in the constitution that addresses the role of the federal government in education; this is most likely because the founders would have thought this idea to be absurd. Not to mention the department of education in the US does not help anything. Again, education should be dealt with at the local level and cutting this bureaucracy would assist in decreasing useless government spending.
"liberty does not equal free market capitalism"
One cannot exist without the other. They do not equal each other, but they walk hand in hand.
"Obviously females don't want to follow him, because that would mean an assault on their liberty."
That is probably the perspective, yes, but we've had this conversation enough.
"I guess a percentage of libertarians use the Internet and send it to friends. Whoopdiedoo."
You sound like Bill O'Reilly.
"Why do you always take christian evangelism and put it hand in hand with the free market?"
Becasue it has been. A huge percentage of the Republican party are Christian Republicans.
"Institutions that protect private property can me put in place at the local level through taxes collected at the local level. This provides a venue for individuals to have more control. So yes, a 1% federal income tax is wrong.
"
Hypocrite. The Bill of Right is not a state document.
"There is nothing in the constitution that addresses the role of the federal government in education; this is most likely because the founders would have thought this idea to be absurd. "
Or impossible considering their limited incomes.
How the hell do you know how the founders would have interpreted the last couple hundred years of politics, Josh?
"Not to mention the department of education in the US does not help anything. Again, education should be dealt with at the local level and cutting this bureaucracy would assist in decreasing useless government spending."
Then the states should decide not to accept federal funding. They have that right, but choose not to. Why?
"One cannot exist without the other. They do not equal each other, but they walk hand in hand."
Capitalism is existing quite fine in Mexico and China, Josh, and one is completely corrupt in favor of the strong and the other is authoritarian in favor of order.
"That is probably the perspective, yes, but we've had this conversation enough. "
Not really.
"You sound like Bill O'Reilly."
Bill O'Reilly understands that a high percentage of libertarians use the Internet and that other political groups have been less represented up until the last couple of years?
"Becasue it has been. A huge percentage of the Republican party are Christian Republicans."
Yes, a but a huge percentage of Christians are do not support free markets, which is more in line with the question I asked.
"Hypocrite. The Bill of Right is not a state document."
I'm not a hypocrite. The Bill of Rights was created to restrict the federal government. Period.
"Then the states should decide not to accept federal funding. They have that right, but choose not to. Why?"
Because governments are like parasites sucking up every dollar they can.
"Capitalism is existing quite fine in Mexico and China, Josh, and one is completely corrupt in favor of the strong and the other is authoritarian in favor of order."
Just because they're more capitalist than the US doesn't mean they're true capitalists nor do they have free markets. Money is still controlled by a central banks. Economic freedom and personal freedom need to be treated in the same manor for free markets to exist.
"Bill O'Reilly understands that a high percentage of libertarians use the Internet and that other political groups have been less represented up until the last couple of years?"
At least the first portion of what you said, yes.
"I'm not a hypocrite. The Bill of Rights was created to restrict the federal government. Period."
The Bill of Rights was created to guarantee that the universal rights of the constitution apply to all states within the union.
"Because governments are like parasites sucking up every dollar they can. "
Hence the silliness of believing in state governments over federal governments. Better just to be democratic on all levels.
"Just because they're more capitalist than the US doesn't mean they're true capitalists nor do they have free markets."
Er, yes it does.
"Money is still controlled by a central banks."
And will always be.
"Economic freedom and personal freedom need to be treated in the same manor for free markets to exist."
Then you are defining classical liberalism and free trade the same. They are not. A free market is merely the ability to trade goods freely.
"At least the first portion of what you said, yes."
No, it's true. Liberals have not been on the Internet in as great of numbers as the libertarians. For example, when I argue on the forums, for every 1 liberal I engage in debate, I will debate 3 libertarians.
"The Bill of Rights was created to guarantee that the universal rights of the constitution apply to all states within the union."
States have their own constitution. Your statement is false, the federal supreme court did not create a precedent for this until Wilson was in office. The bill of rights were created to restrict the FEDERAL government.
"Hence the silliness of believing in state governments over federal governments. Better just to be democratic on all levels."
State governments are better than federal governments because they are more accountable, hopefully making them less corruptible, but that doesn't make them naturally less parasitic.
"And will always be."
Thank you. I imagine you consulted your crystal ball for this?
"Then you are defining classical liberalism and free trade the same. They are not."
This is the fallacy of your argument.
"No, it's true. Liberals have not been on the Internet in as great of numbers as the libertarians. For example, when I argue on the forums, for every 1 liberal I engage in debate, I will debate 3 libertarians."
Alright, this does make more sense to me. I just find a lot of the more polished and professional blogs online usually lean liberal, but that is probably just a perception I have picked up that's incorrect.
"States have their own constitution. Your statement is false, the federal supreme court did not create a precedent for this until Wilson was in office. The bill of rights were created to restrict the FEDERAL government."
The Bill of Rights was an extension of the Declaration of Independence. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The states DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to contradict these principles.
"State governments are better than federal governments because they are more accountable, hopefully making them less corruptible, but that doesn't make them naturally less parasitic."
It doesn't make them more accountable or more corruptible, either. The most famously corrupt governments have always been Sourthern state legislatures.
"Thank you. I imagine you consulted your crystal ball for this?"
No, just noting that the printing of any kind of currency requires some sort of an authority. This is one of those facts that you keep lying to yourself about.
"This is the fallacy of your argument."
How is it a fallacy, Josh? I am pointing to evidence and separate definitions in the dictionary. I am not making an argument. The evidence speaks for itself.
"Alright, this does make more sense to me. I just find a lot of the more polished and professional blogs online usually lean liberal, but that is probably just a perception I have picked up that's incorrect."
That's because libertarians also tend to be uneducated in the study of government, adhere to their principles even when it clearly means that they need to lie to themselves, and of course the fact that their style is usually not attractive. So, yes, I agree, the liberals on the Internet tend to be more polished.
"The states DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to contradict these principles."
As previously mentioned, this precedent was not set until Wilson's presidency (he really was one of the worst presidents in history).
The bill rights restricts the federal government not the states. Declaration of Independence has nothing to do with the Bill of Rights beyond the common principles they both share.
"The states DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to contradict these principles."
They don't have the right to contradict the Bill of Rights as they were ratified by each state. The Bill of Rights are law, not the Declaration of Independence.
"No, just noting that the printing of any kind of currency requires some sort of an authority. This is one of those facts that you keep lying to yourself about."
The market can provide authority, although the constitution provides the authority to coin currency to the congress, it does not provide the congress the authority to delegate this authority just as it does not provide the authority to congress to delegate the authority to declare war (as it did with Iraq).
"It doesn't make them more accountable or more corruptible, either. The most famously corrupt governments have always been Sourthern state legislatures."
Then its up to the people in the southern states to change this, not the federal government.
"How is it a fallacy, Josh? I am pointing to evidence and separate definitions in the dictionary. I am not making an argument. The evidence speaks for itself."
Because free trade is inherent in individual liberty. The restriction of free trade is an infringement on the individual rights.
"That's because libertarians also tend to be uneducated in the study of government, adhere to their principles even when it clearly means that they need to lie to themselves, and of course the fact that their style is usually not attractive. So, yes, I agree, the liberals on the Internet tend to be more polished."
Or the liberals have more money and corporate support.
"States have their own constitution. Your statement is false, the federal supreme court did not create a precedent for this until Wilson was in office. The bill of rights were created to restrict the FEDERAL government."
I'm sorry, you obviously not aware of the battle between the federalists and statists that had occured right from the beginning. The federalists were FOR the universality of the Declaration and pushed for the Bill of Rights because its rights were universal at the federal level, against potential federal power, as you said. However, such rights were not implemented at the federal level just to be contradicted at the state level. They were enacted as universal statements that reflected natural rights that are suppose to exist in each one of us. Therefore, the 14th amendment and the preceding civil war. LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. NOT LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL.
If you couldn't tell, I don't sympathize with the federalists.
"that reflected natural rights that are suppose to exist in each one of us"
Nice to see you recognize we have natural rights, but they do not exist in each one of is, they exist for each one of us.
"Depends on specific I choose to be."
Then you are anti-American.
"Nice to see you recognize we have natural rights, but they do not exist in each one of is, they exist for each one of us."
I didn't recognize them. I was merely analyzing the genesis of the American government.
They exist for us? Where do they exist, then? In the sky?
""Depends on specific I choose to be."
Then you are anti-American."
Huh? I don't follow, but I would need you define your interpretation of what "american" is before I claim to pro or anti it.
"They exist for us? Where do they exist, then? In the sky?"
If you recognize free will, you would recognize these rights as naturally existing within the community of a free people.
Post a Comment