- advertisements -
Some of the founding fathers were idealists and intellectuals, not all. Money was always a big issue.
What's your point... Idealism is irrelevant... The most important founding fathers were realists, pragmatists and visionaries, most notably Thomas Jefferson.
Google Thomas Jefferson and Bankers and see what he warned about, which all came true... We would all still be British Citizens had the crown not raised the tax on tea at the behest of the Bank of England.
an argument can be made that bush, cheney, etc. were idealists. twisted ideals perhaps, certainly evil means to whatever ends. they (we) would have fared better had they been less wilsonian and more coolidgean.
And the current administration aren't twisted ideologues?
No because they haven't done anything 'democrat'. It's been ALL REPUBLICAN, ALL FASICST, ALL MONETARISM WHORES, ALL THE TIME.
Even the healthcare (deathcare) bill wasn't what democrats want. It was the health care affordibility act (for h.m.o.'s) NOT single payer. Oh yeah, it was put out by the heritage foundation ~1990. So we passed a republican think tank version of healthcare, keeping the h.m.o.'s, and the perpetually retarded republicans and nuts on the face party don't understand it.
All Obama has done is 'go right'. All the legislature has promised, is to 'go right', and all the people want, is to 'not go right'. So why did they vote right? Because my fellow Americans, 99 percent of them, are fucking NUTS.
They can't think anymore, drowned out by decades of propaganda, that now even right wing shit is called liberal. Tea partiers are patriots (yeah fucking right dumbasses), and when you choose to suck the cock of the big banks, the big corporations, the whole supply side never trickle down economics you only get more of exactly what destroyed us.
We are fucked, we put the psychos back in office. Psycho's they are, idiots they are. Our only hope is with less captured dems, but with NerObama doing his best impression of a republican every hour of every day since he took office, it is funny that what they hated about him was 'right', and they instead picked, even MORE right.
All Obama has done, is do what reagan did on steroids. Right wingers should love Obama, he's more Reagan than Reagan. Only complete dumbasses don't see it.
So we got more of what we hate, with tea partiers and republicans, enjoy the collapse. Enjoy the no-nothing to dig us out. Enjoy forrest gump running things, because that's the philosophy of the right, nothing. They have none. Obama is doing theirs better than they can, but none of it works, because it was NEVER a legitimate side to take.
Impeach Obama. Get a real dem in office. No one else has the brains or the balls to save anything about America. Not Rand 'idiot' Paul, not Sarah' fucking' palin, not Harry 'dumbass' Reid.
It's too bad though, pretty much everything that CAN SAVE us, is merely a vote away in congress, already read in, and been sitting there for YEARS.
It's too bad we have so many dumbasses that think so bass ackwards their mental capacity is worse than an uneducated six year old. Literally.
(which will cancel how many trillions from our debt?)
Now how do you create jobs? Well it depends. The average dumbass republican will say, tax policy. Ok, but what if tax rates were 0, how do you create a job then....crickets for as far as the eye can see.
Well you either have gov't set the rules correctly, and/or create the jobs and WORK ITSELF out of the problem.
So yes, gov't can create jobs, you've just never seen it, because you've always voted for dumbasses. So what you think is true, isn't, only because you've bought the bullshit.
Gov't CAN create jobs. We just haven't tried it yet. Just extreme trickle down economics. No WPA, No CCC, no science driver program. Instead of ramping up space, Obama is shutting it down.
Everything this country needs to pull out of this, we ain't doing, and haven't spent a dime on. So we need TONS of spending. But on WORTHWILE THINGS, not distressed debt that is worth 0. Not tax cuts for people who don't need them. That won't stimulate SHIT, which is why we see such a decrease in bang for the buck. Because it's asinine what we've done. Only idiots believe in supply side. It's NEVER worked, it's only APPEARED to, some of the time, early on, and only for the top. It was never a legitimate option. But it's the only thing we've used for 30-40 years. Asinine. We just voted in MORE of THAT SAME.
Right wing corporate fascism. It's what has got us, republican or democrat. Too bad, the biggest fascists, just won. Expect to pay out your nose and your ass for this one. You surely will. Enjoy having your fascist country back, but nowhere is 'your country' not completely fascist-world.
Obama has not done ONE measurable thing for the left, how come the right can't figure that out? Because they can't figure out anything, they are told what to think.
Sorry this was right wing ideology we went for, not me, not real democrats, but every democrat in power, and every republican who was in power or voted for them.
It also wasn't JUST from within, what is this ideology we used. Where did it come from? Britain.
So we had British minded Americans, named mostly Republicans, but also and including Obama, who took us down this road.
Alright. Who spiked your K00l-Aid?
In other words, we can change the word democrat to our suiting so that none of the mess can be blamed on democrats... got it. When a theory faces a paradox, its creators may retreat and retrench the idea, thereby refining it to take into account the paradox... or, they may scrap it. I suggest the latter.
The American People Can Close the Fed, Demand United States Notes Freedom League
When Congress borrows money on the credit of the United States, bonds are thus legislated into existence and deposited as credit entries in Federal Reserve banks. United States bonds, bills and notes constitute money as affirmed by the Supreme Court (Legal Tender Cases, 110 U.S. 421), and this money when deposited with the Fed becomes collateral from whence the Treasury may write checks against the credit thus created in its account (12 USC 391). For example, suppose Congress appropriates an expenditure of $1 billion.
To finance the appropriation Congress creates the $1 billion worth of bonds out of thin air and deposits it with the privately owned Federal Reserve System. Upon receiving the bonds, the Fed credits $1 billion to the Treasury's checking account, holding the deposited bonds as collateral. When the United States deposits its bonds with the Federal Reserve System, private credit is extended to the Treasury by the Fed. Under its power to borrow money, Congress is authorized by the Constitution to contract debt, and whenever something is borrowed it must be returned. When Congress spends the contracted private credit, each use of credit is debt which must be returned to the lender or Fed. Since Congress authorizes the expenditure of this private credit, the United States incurs the primary obligation to return the borrowed credit, creating a National Debt which results when credit is not returned.
However, if anyone else accepts this private credit and uses it to purchase goods and services, the user voluntarily incurs the obligation requiring him to make a return of income whereby a portion of the income is collected by the IRS and delivered to the Federal Reserve banksters.
Actually the federal income tax imparts two separate obligations: the obligation to file a return and the obligation to abide by the Internal Revenue Code. The obligation to make a return of income for using private credit is recognized in law as an irrecusable obligation, which according to 'Bouvier's Law Dictionary' (1914 ed.), is "a term used to indicate a certain class of contractual obligations recognized by the law which are imposed upon a person without his consent and without regard to any act of his own."
This is distinguished from a recusable obligation which, according to Bouvier, arises from a voluntary act by which one incurs the obligation imposed by the operation of law. The voluntary use of private credit is the condition precedent which imposes the irrecusable obligation to file a tax return. If private credit is not used or rejected, then the operation of law which imposes the irrecusable obligation lies dormant and cannot apply.
In 'Brushaber v. Union Pacific RR Co.' 240 U.S. 1 (1916) the Supreme Court affirmed that the federal income tax is in the class of indirect taxes, which include duties and excises. The personal income tax arises from a duty -- i.e., charge or fee -- which is voluntarily incurred and subject to the rule of uniformity. A charge is a duty or obligation, binding upon him who enters into it, which may be removed or taken away by a discharge (performance): 'Bouvier', p. 459.
Our federal personal income tax is not really a tax in the ordinary sense of the word but rather a burden or obligation which the taxpayer voluntarily assumes, and the burden of the tax falls upon those who voluntarily use private credit. Simply stated the tax imposed is a charge or fee upon the use of private credit where the amount of private credit used measures the pecuniary obligation.
The personal income tax provision of the Internal Revenue Code is private law rather than public law. "A private law is one which is confined to particular individuals, associations, or corporations": 50 Am.Jur. 12, p.28. In the instant case the revenue code pertains to taxpayers. A private law can be enforced by a court of competent jurisdiction when statutes for its enforcement are enacted: 20 Am.Jur. 33, pgs. 58, 59.
The distinction between public and private acts is not always sharply defined when published statutes are printed in their final form: Case v. Kelly, 133 U.S. 21 (1890). Statutes creating corporations are private acts: 20 Am.Jur. 35, p. 60. In this connection, the Federal Reserve Act is private law. Federal Reserve banks derive their existence and corporate power from the Federal Reserve Act: Armano v. Federal Reserve Bank, 468 F.Supp. 674 (1979).
A private act may be published as a public law when the general public is afforded the opportunity of participating in the operation of the private law. The Internal Revenue Code is an example of private law which does not exclude the voluntary participation of the general public. Had the Internal Revenue Code been written as substantive public law, the code would be repugnant to the Constitution, since no one could be compelled to file a return and thereby become a witness against himself.
Under the fifty titles listed on the preface page of the United States Code, the Internal Revenue Code (26 USC) is listed as having not been enacted as substantive public law, conceding that the Internal Revenue Code is private law. Bouvier declares that private law "relates to private matters which do not concern the public at large."
It is the VOLUNTARY use of private credit which imposes upon the user the quasi contractual or implied obligation to make a return of income. In 'Pollock v. Farmer's Loan & Trust Co.' 158 U.S. 601 (1895) the Supreme Court had declared the income tax of 1894 to be repugnant to the Constitution, holding that taxation of rents, wages and salaries must conform to the rule of apportionment.
However, when this decision was rendered, there was no privately owned central bank issuing private credit and currency but rather public money in the form of legal tender notes and coins of the United States circulated. Public money is the lawful money of the United States which the Constitution authorizes Congress to issue, conferring a property right, whereas the private credit issued by the Fed is neither money nor property, permitting the user an equitable interest but denying Allodial title.
Today, we have two competing monetary systems. The Federal Reserve System with its private credit and currency, and the public money system consisting of legal tender United States notes and coins.
One could use the public money system, paying all bills with coins and United States notes (if the notes can be obtained), or one could voluntarily use the private credit system and thereby incur the obligation to make a return of income. Under 26 USC 7609 the IRS has carte blanche authority to summon and investigate bank records for the purpose of determining tax liabilities or discovering unknown taxpayers: 'United States v. Berg' 636 F.2d 203 (1980).
If an investigation of bank records discloses an excess of $1000 in deposits in a single year, the IRS may accept this as prima facie evidence that the account holder uses private credit and is therefore a person obligated to make a return of income. Anyone who uses private credit -- e.g., bank accounts, credit cards, mortgages, etc. -- voluntarily plugs himself into the system and obligates himself to file. A taxpayer is allowed to claim a $1000 personal deduction when filing his return. The average taxpayer in the course of a year uses United States coins in vending machines, parking meters, small change, etc., and this public money must be deducted when computing the charge for using private credit.
On June 5, 1933, the day of infamy arrived. Congress on that date enacted House Joint Resolution 192, which provided that the people convert or turn in their gold coins in exchange for Federal Reserve notes. Through the operation of law, H.J.R. 192 took us off the gold standard and placed us on the dollar standard where the dollar could be manipulated by private interests for their self-serving benefit. By this single act the people and their wealth were delivered to the banksters. When gold coinage was thus pulled out of circulation, large denomination Federal Reserve notes were issued to fill the void. As a consequence the public money supply in circulation was greatly diminished, and the debt-laden private credit of the Fed gained supremacy.
This action made private individuals who had been previously exempt from federal income taxes now liable for them, since the general public began consuming and using large amounts of private credit. Notice all the case law prior to 1933 which affirms that income is a profit or gain which arises from a government granted privilege. After 1933, however, the case law no longer emphatically declares that income is exclusively corporate profit or that it arises from a privilege. So, what changed? Two years after H.J.R. 192, Congress passed the Social Security Act, which the Supreme Court upheld as a valid act imposing a valid income tax: 'Charles C. Steward Mach. Co. v, Davis' 301 U.S. 548 (1937).
It is no accident that the United States is without a dollar unit coin. In recent years the Eisenhower dollar coin received widespread acceptance, but the Treasury minted them in limited number which encouraged hoarding. This same fate befell the Kennedy half dollars, which circulated as silver sandwiched clads between 1965-1969 and were hoarded for their intrinsic value and not spent. Next came the Susan B. Anthony dollar, an awkward coin which was instantly rejected as planned. The remaining unit is the privately issued Federal Reserve note unit dollar with no viable competitors. Back in 1935 the Fed had persuaded the Treasury to discontinue minting silver dollars because the public preferred them over dollar bills. That the public money system has become awkward, discouraging its use, is no accident. It was planned that way.
A major purpose behind the 16th Amendment was to give Congress authority to enforce private law collections of revenue. Congress had the plenary power to collect income taxes arising from government granted privileges long before the 16th Amendment was deemed ratified, and the amendment was unnecessary, except to give Congress the added power to enforce collections under private law: i.e., income from whatever source.
So, the Fed got its amendment and its private income tax, which is a bankster's dream but a nightmare for everyone else. Through the combined operation of the Fed and H.J.R. 192, the United States pays exorbitant interest whenever it uses its own money deposited with the Fed, and the people pay outrageous income taxes for the privilege of living and working in their own country, robbed of their wealth and separated from their rights, laboring under a tax system written by a cabal of loan shark banksters and rubber stamped by a spineless Congress.
Congress has the power to abolish the Federal Reserve System and thus destroy the private credit system. However, the people have it within their power to strip the Fed of its powers, rescind private credit and get the banksters to pay off the National Debt should Congress fail to act.
The key to all this is 12 USC 411, which declares that Federal Reserve notes shall be redeemed in lawful money at any Federal Reserve bank. Lawful money is defined as all the coins, notes, bills, bonds and securities of the United States: 'Julliard v. Greenman' 110 U.S. 421, 448 (1884); whereas public money is the lawful money declared by Congress as a legal tender for debts (31 USC 5103); 524 F.2d 629 (1974).
Anyone can present Federal Reserve notes to any Federal Reserve bank and demand redemption in public money -- i.e., legal tender United States notes and coins. A Federal Reserve note is a fixed obligation or evidence of indebtedness which pledges redemption (12 USC 411) in public money to the note holder.
The Fed maintains a ready supply of United States notes in hundred dollar denominations for redemption purposes should it be required, and coins are available to satisfy claims for smaller amounts. However, should the general public decide to redeem large amounts of private credit for public money, a financial melt-down within the Fed would quickly occur.
The process works like this. Suppose $1000 in Federal Reserve notes are presented for redemption in public money. To raise $1000 in public money the Fed must surrender U.S. Bonds in that amount to the Treasury in exchange for the public money demanded (assuming that the Fed had no public money on hand). In so doing $1000 of the National Debt would be paid off by the Fed and thus canceled.
Can you imagine the result if large amounts of Federal Reserve notes were redeemed on a regular, ongoing basis? Private credit would be withdrawn from circulation and replaced with public money, and with each turning of the screw the Fed would be obliged to pay off more of the National Debt. Should the Fed refuse to redeem its notes in public money, then the fiction that private credit is used voluntarily would become unsustainable.
If the use of private credit becomes compulsory, then the obligation to make a return of income is voided.
If the Fed is under no obligation to redeem its notes, then no one has an obligation to make a return of income.
It is that simple! Federal Reserve notes are not money and cannot be tendered when money is demanded: 105 So. 305 (1925). Moreover, the Ninth Circuit rejected the argument that a $50 Federal Reserve note be redeemed in gold or silver coin after specie coinage had been rescinded but upheld the right of the note holder to redeem his note in current public money (31 USC 392; rev., 5103): 524 F.2d 629 (1974); 12 USC 411.
It would be advantageous to close out all bank accounts, acquire a home safe, settle all debts in cash with public money and use U.S. postal money orders for remittances. Whenever a check is received, present it to the bank of issue and demand cash in public money. This will place banks in a vulnerable position, forcing them to draw off their assets. Through their insatiable greed, banksters have over extended, making banks quite illiquid.
Should the people suddenly demand public money for their deposits and for checks received, many banks will collapse and be foreclosed by those demanding public money. Banks by their very nature are citadels of usury and sin, and the most patriotic service one could perform is to obligate banksters to redeem private credit.
When the first Federal Reserve note is presented to the Fed for redemption, the process of ousting the private credit system will commence and will not end until the Fed and the bankstering system nurtured by it collapse. Coins comprise less than five percent of the currency, and current law limits the amount of United States notes in circulation to $300 million (31 USC 5115).
The private credit system is exceedingly over extended compared with the supply of public money, and a small minority working in concert can easily collapse the private credit system and oust the Fed by demanding redemption of private credit. If the Fed disappeared tomorrow, income taxes on wages and salaries would vanish with it. Moreover, the States are precluded from taxing United States notes: 4 Wheat. 316.
According to Bouvier, public money is the money which Congress can tax for public purposes mandated by the Constitution. Private credit when collected in revenue can fund programs and be spent for purposes not cognizable by the Constitution.
We have in effect two competing governments: the United States Government and the Federal Government (Corp. US). The first is the government of the people, whereas the Federal Government/Corp US is founded upon private law and funded by private credit.
What we really have is private government. Federal agencies and activities funded by the private credit system include Social Security, bail out loans to banksters via the IMF, bail out loans to Chrysler, loans to students, FDIC, FBI, supporting the U.N., foreign aid, funding undeclared wars, etc., all of which would be unsustainable if funded by taxes raised pursuant to the Constitution.
The personal income tax is not a true tax but rather an obligation or burden which is voluntarily assumed, since revenue is raised through voluntary contributions and can be spent for purposes unknown to the Constitution.
Notice how the IRS declares in its publications that everyone is expected to contribute his fair share. True taxes must be spent for public purposes which the Constitution recognizes. Taxation for the purpose of giving or loaning money to private business enterprises and individuals is illegal: 15 Am.Rep. 39; Cooley, 'Prin. Const. Law', ch. IV.
Revenue derived from the federal income tax goes into a private slush fund raised from voluntary contributions, and Congress is not restricted by the Constitution when spending or disbursing the proceeds from this private fund.
It is incorrect to say that the personal federal income tax is unconstitutional, since the tax code is private law and resides outside the Constitution.
The Internal Revenue Code is non-constitutional because it enforces an obligation which is voluntarily incurred through an act of the individual who binds himself. Fighting the Internal Revenue Code on constitutional grounds is wasted energy.
The way to bring it all down is to attack the Federal Reserve System and its banking cohorts by demanding that private credit be redeemed, or by convincing Congress to abolish the Fed.
Never forget that private credit is funding the destruction of our country.
Try posting a link rather than polluting the thread with verbage you cretin.
Was that original or copy and paste because that was brilliant. This is where it all rests because i am not american but what the rest of the world loves about america is the original idea of freedom.
step awaay from the kool-aid.
Oh, I think I get it!
Democrats became republicans and republicans stayed republicans and so every American is republican and so everything can be blamed on republicans!?
Clinton and Carter did just as much as Obama in the cause of fascism. The results just weren't as immediately apparent.
There hasn't been one good president since Coolidge.
There is no need to differentiate between the two parties, because both are the same. Cut down on the party-specific vitriol, and join a third party. You'll feel a lot better.
You are a moron who loves to live off other people's money. To "go right" means less government in our lives. It means more individual freedom to pursue self interest whether that be economic or religious. To go right means real free markets where one is able to succeed or to fail based on ones own merits. Not to be have the failures propped up and bailed out because they can throw enough cash around to buy themselves a senator or two. Governments sole job is to provide a secure nation for us as Americans to pursue economic prosperity based on our merits.
So how come "go right" in our country has done the exact opposite of all those things. I appreciate your attempt to equate Ron Paulism with the "Right" but that is simply a fantasy bearing no resemblance to actual empirical reality. The "Right" is the tea-partiers, Reagan, Bush, and McConnell all of whom love to lard cash (and take some scraps) from ultra-rich robber barons and corporations and never hold them accountable. If the "Right" were about accountability then every Republican would be clamoring for investigation of the Fed, faudclosure, the derivatives market, and insisting on mark to market. They have instead done everything in their power to obstruct it.
Here we have conclusive evidence of what happens when the media and educational institutions are corrupted by an oppressive tyrannical movement like marxism. This guy and his beliefs are the total manifestation of the outcome intended by the 6th and 10th planks of the Communist Manifesto.
Welcome to the Brave New World.
Buzz - sometimes it is better to stay quiet and chance being thought a fool - rather than opening your mouth and removing all doubt.
You just convolute everything even worse than it already is.
There is no more "Right". Everything shifted left.
Liberals became Socialists and Republicans became Liberals.
The Tea party is the best hope for the Country because their goal is to reduce Government to as small as possible. THAT is the way to freedom.
The only problem is, too many Republicans managed to HIJACK the Tea Party.
The result? While many Republicans got into office due to the backlash.....STILL NOTHING WILL GET FIXED.
You want to fix the problem?
1. STOP feeding Americans lines of BS and tell it like it is. Many people will not accept this and you face the real possibility of not getting elected. However in the end we all get the Representatives we deserve. Which is little comfort to those of us who actually have some skin in the game.
2. Get rid of the Federal Reserve. How can anyone call us a Capitalist Society when we SET INTEREST RATES AND MONEY SUPPLY? That is just assinine.
3. Restore accountability. You don't have a job? Get one. You want to go into debt to get the latest iPad? You pay the price for that debt. You didn't get a fair start like that other lucky guy over there? Sorry, now you have to run harder to get what you want. Life is not fair and legislating it will never make it so.
People can do amazing things when they have skin in the game. Likewise they can accomplish incredible feats of apathy and laziness when the world is handed to them.
Isn't it time to end this madness? If you all want to destroy yourselves taking eachother's money and calling it "progressive" go ahead. But leave us smart one's out of it.
there will come a time in the future when being hetrosexual will be a revolutionary act
The fact remains that allowing intellectual jerks to make people poor by some sort of ‘Marxist’ design is economic genocide. Why is it that all the idiots that try to perpetuate their college achievements (boozing and snoozing) by destroying capitalism seem oblivious to the fact that they’ll eventually need to earn a living in the real word like everyone else. You know, that cold cruel world of hard work.
Reneging on all free trade agreements, switching to a new currency backed by something other the lies and deception of bureaucrats and pulling all our military and all the equipment on foreign bases (except 'key' ones numbering < 20) and pointing all the weapons outward would be a step in the right direction. Alas I dream of a nation that cares about itself and its own people ... what a dream ... instead of the nightmare we currently have.
Somebody needs a nap.
+1000 You fucking rock, my friend. Exactly right, exactly what I've been thinking and I've never read it anywhere else.
you mean idealists in a Colonel Kurtz kind of way?
The tax on tea is one of the more ridiculous historical inaccuracies. It was the King's decision to stop colonial advancement and guarantee indian territorial claims that riled the forefathers- especially George Washington- the largest landowner in America.
Further, the taxes endangered illegal trade through the west indies and black market profits of the wealthy. The same wealthy that pushed the revolution as they paid fees for stand ins.
Instead, read complete histories. It is difficult to understand the game without a lineup and player biographies.
Here is another example of a victim of the 6th and 10th planks of the communist manifesto. He thinks he knows because someone told him. He has not taken the time to check the soruces of the "facts" with which his "teachers" formed his opinions and beliefs. He then makes the mistake of jumping to the conclusion that everyone else is stupid and uninformed if they disagree with his opinons and beliefs. There are two lies in his paragraph which he could easily disprove if he were truly interested in the TRUTH.
What he does not realize is that he is being used. The end dose not justify the means as Alinsky and so many other marxists have claimed.
Note to Sean, they are lying to you. It is a part of their game plan. To them the end, marxisim, is justification for the means, lying.
Note to Buzz: my facts check out just fine.That is the beauty of monarchial decrees. Your allusions? Not so much. Your attempt to slander by association is just pitiful.
Sean, your 'facts' do not check out just fine. Yours, Maverick , a Revolutionary war student.
I am guessing you are not familiar with the 6th and 10th planks of the Communist Manifesto or Saul Alinsky's little book, Rules for Radicals. Please begin to inform yourself. Your indoctrination is showing.
You are absolutely right.
Sean, I never heard that story about the King and the Indians' claims--very interesting. Can you please provide more information or recommend a source or book? Thanks.
My point was simply that we should never hold the "Founding Fathers" in so much reverence or as prophets as to not see their potential for human errors too. There is a lot of talk out there about how the US has strayed from the original ideals of the signatories of the Constitution.
I'm not bashing the article, just saying we have to put them in context and be open to a new system, though I admit right away that now would be a difficult time to write a new constitution. I think the only chance for a restart is to get back to functional units where the number of people involved are smaller. This idea is in itself idealistic since there are over 6 billion of us, and at the risk of sounding pessimistic, I think there are just too many of us for democracy to work.
We indeed have scalability issues.
i've thought the same...that Democracy in America was well suited to a smallish, agrarian, fairly homogenous group of europeans starting afresh in a new world.
A multi-culti scrum of ethnic tribes competing for "resources"....eh, not so much...
the center will not hold.
But whether "latino, "black", "hmong", woman, handicapped, native american, gay, WASP, muslim or jew there's this: John Philpot Curran in a speech upon the Right of Election (1790)):
Dontcha hate that word? "Resources"
No restart. No start over. Only morph. Constantly. From Jamestown.
I think there are just too many of us for democracy to work.
A republic is a form of government in which the people or some portion thereof retain supreme control over the government ... In the United States, James Madison defined republic in terms of representative democracy as opposed to direct democracy ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic
A republic is a form of government in which the people or some portion thereof retain supreme control over the government ... In the United States, James Madison defined republic in terms of representative democracy as opposed to direct democracy ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic
Representative democracy is flexible enough for our current needs, even with the expanded population. The problem is not so much our form of government as much as it is our desires. The financial system was created as a support for the producers. It has become a game in its own right, decoupled from producers (overgeneralization; see comments in the following posts for specifics). We could vote in folks who would force the change in the financial system that is needed. We just don't do it.
We could solve the problem faster perhaps if we were governed by an enlightened dictator. Problem is, who gets to say who that enlighted dictator should be? Answering that question properly is the achilles heel of any form of government.
All forms of government reward the tyranny of the few and enslave the majority. Some are better than others with more fringe benefits, but the chains are all the same.
Individual sovereignty is the only system that guarantees the liberty of all people. No government is the best government.
Since history, and experience, demonstrates that the alpha male will always gather a group of lackeys and take over as much as he can rule, no government is not ever possible. Enlightened dictatorship is the best anyone can ever hope for, but it occurs rarely.
Actually it is possible. No matter how alpha the leader, it is only through the codification of authority that rule is possible. As long as people limit laws to the protection of private property, each alpha will be taken down. Dynasty is defeated.
You speak from a history written by the alpha ruling group. As it has always failed to benefit the majority of people- it is time to change the ruling paradigm, unless you enjoy insanity-I don't.
Suppose we were to identify this "alpha" behavior as a mental illness and began casting down those who exhibited it? I mean, wife beating was once accepted in American society, perhaps we can get past this "control freak" problem we have now.
I was responding to the proposition that No government is the best government. Both of your responses assume some sort of organizing force (government) is in place. I'm talking about a situation where no government exists (the proposed ideal that I am responding to). In real life this vacuum is never allowed to exist. With no system of force to oppose him, some dude will always take over a group as large as he can control. If you disagree, you are too far removed from real life. There is no territory in New York City or Los Angeles that is not controlled by some gang leader. The alpha male always rushes in to fill a vacuum in leadership. Government. It will never not exist for any significant period of time.
It comes down to whether ownership is a fundamental right. If so, most systems result in the more you own, the more power you get, and the more leverage you have. The distribution of wealth is on a log-normal scale by the look of things, so we're seeing the ultra wealthy simply doing what you would do if you were ultra-wealthy: protect your interests. It's not "evil" as much as akin to the second law of thermodynamics or something. Wealth concentrates, like gravitation.
Smaller groups of people are capable of sharing but the more remote people are from the recipient of their sharing, the less they want to do it. That's because the "share-er" likes to feel good about giving, just be told they are bad for owning.
One would think that reading ZH is akin to reading the Federalist Papers.
You and I were making basically the same point but got junked by the cult-of-Founding-Fathers member who just can't get his head out of his ass.
There is no way, NO WAY that people who lived in 1776 and on through the 1790s could have ever imagined the complexity of the world as it exists today. It also astounds me that the people of this cult never seem to bother to read any history books or think deeply about the matter at all, it's all just quotes from Jefferson and Franklin. Here's a hint, Jefferson went broke as President because he had to pay for most of the functions of the office out of his own pocket!
The Republic didn't make it past Lincoln. So forget it, okay?
Your comment is bullshit because Thomas Jefferson was talking about his own time, not hundreds of years in the future. Jefferson and the other founders did not give a shit what happened 200 years later. While there may be parallels, because human nature is constant, it is up to us to do what is right and not be expecting some outmoded form of law be some kind of ultimate trump card against tyranny.
"The Founding Fathers never intended to concentrate so much power in the hands of so few people, as now rests in the hands of Ben Bernanke and the Fed."
I have no idea what the author is talking about the First Bank of the United States was formed 1791 when most of the signers still lived.
You lemmings are not in this position because of the Fed or central banks.... it's all you Banks that I call Lemmings that think you can steal from the future at an exponential rate forever, sorry guys.
Nothing the so called Founders did had has any effect on the problem you are currently about to be in. Matter of fact, they were too busy taking on loans from France and in return paying interest. Sorry guys, start a system based on the need for exponential growth it will eventually expand, then collape, then liquidate.
Tips: tips [ at ] zerohedge.com
General: info [ at ] zerohedge.com
Legal: legal [ at ] zerohedge.com
Advertising: ads [ at ] zerohedge.com
Abuse/Complaints: abuse [ at ] zerohedge.com
Advertise With Us
Make sure to read our "How To [Read/Tip Off] Zero Hedge Without Attracting The Interest Of [Human Resources/The Treasury/Black Helicopters]" Guide
How to report offensive comments
Notice on Racial Discrimination.