This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
A Higher Percentage of Americans Believed in King George During the Revolutionary War than Believe in Congress Today
Influential Harvard and Stanford law professor Lawrence Lessig noted in a must-watch speech last week that polls show that only 11% of the American people have confidence in Congress.
He notes that more people believed in King George at the time of the Revolutionary War than believe in congress today.
He's right.
Historians have estimated that between 15 and 20% of the white population of the colonies were Loyalists
Watch:
Why do so few Americans today believe in our government? Because the government is serving the giant corporations and the ultra-wealthy, and not Main Street and the common American. And see this.
- advertisements -
Hi again:
You seem to have some issues with the idea of "capital". Do you conceive of one meaning of "capital" as a type of wealth? Do you have a problem with the word wealth? Are you willing to concede that there is such a thing as stored up "material capacity to survive", (to deliberately refer to it in a non-social way)? Or how about stored up knowledge of how to create the capacity to survive for large numbers of people with a small amount of effort? Or how about stored up capacity to have some fun for an extended period, or show other people a "good time"? Or how about being able to make large amounts of things that other people like so much, they are willing to give you things that you can in turn exchange for other things you like? Do you have a problem with these ideas and the words I am using?
Let me ask you something, was the music Beethoven produced a form of "wealth" or was he merely a human consumer "consuming" like everyone else on this planet? (Have you listened to any of his music? Did you enjoy it?)
If someone can make a device that generates power and it only uses a very plentiful abundant substance to power it without harming the environment, that can allow billions of gallons of sea watter to be converted to fresh water at very little application of a few abundant resources and thus enable only a few million people on this planet to produce enough food to feed tens of billions of people, would that device and the know how to create it be "wealth" (capital) or just consumption? What if the same device would allow anyone on this planet to produce 10 Kilowatts of electricity anywhere they wanted to for as long as they wanted for the similar use ("cost" - economic wording) of resources as for example what it takes to build a toaster and fueling it with some inert plentiful gases readily available in the atmosphere? Would that be "wealth" (capital) or "consumption" from your perspective?
How about if someone could build a ship that can go out into space and bring back 1000 ton asteroids full of rare resources and metals from other locations in the solar system that are in such abundance that the sources could supply the wants of say 10 billion "Rockefeller class "consumers" for 10 billion years into the future at a per trip expenditure of energy and resources much lower than it would require to obtain those things on this planet today? Would that be mere "consumption" to you or would this be a capacity to create or produce "wealth"?
Do you think the the sun or any star just "consumes" or does it produce something?
Have you ever made someone smile? Were you just being a "consumer". Was the person you made smile just being a "consumer"?
What if you could sit down for a few hours a day and by thinking very strenuously you could come up with things to say that would be very good at making others laugh and smile, so much so that they were willing to freely give you things that you wanted, so that you would agree to make them smile and laugh as an occupation? Would you be just another "consumer". Would you be producing nothing? Would the world be a better place or not?
Do you think there is any value or purpose in human life, or are we some kind of plague on this planet?
If such an idea that life has "value" or "purpose" is a view and experience of large numbers of people on this planet do you then have a problem if they then refer to this capacity to make their own choice and prefer to decide what they will do with the days they are alive and refer to this as their "time" and to be free to choose what they do with what they choose to call "their" body, and thus not your concern or your prerogative to dictate as long as they don't harm you? Would you object to them thinking that such a life they could lead would be "rich" to them in their own eyes. That if they could do that they would consider themselves "wealthy" in a certain way? What if they referred to the freedom to do this and to tell you to "bug out" if you tried to tell them what to do with their time as being the "owner" of themselves and not your "slave"? Would you have a problem with their vocabulary?
You see "capital" can mean a form of "wealth" that can be applied in a way that it results in fulfilling the "needs" or "wants" of one or more people. That is one meaning of the word.
Do you have this understanding of this particulaqr meaning of the word "capital"? If so I would invite you to reevaluate your above statement regarding "self ownersip" or refering to such a concept as not being a form of "capital". Words have meanings. If you do not understand a certain meaning, you will not understand the idea in the context of that intended meaning. Do you understand?
You cant get your revenue at the point of a gun in the private sector? Surprising piece of news. Please expand. Especially in a comment thread like this when slavery was mainly a private sector thing. So please explain.
Perhaps a better term rather than "private sector" is the voluntary market. The first use of a gun is not participation in a voluntary market. I hope you can understand that! As such it would be fought with apropriate and proportional force in a voluntarist society much more effectively than in a system founded on the initiation of force. Why? A statist system always becomes the tool of the most dangerous criminals who prefer to robe you "legally" or in such a way that the victim doesn't realize they have been robbed. Or to put it another way, the modern state robs,rapes, and pillages your mind so that it can more easily rob the rest of your property.
A way out exists:
http://pixel420.com/pixel420/stateless/
ALL the moochers will fight against it tooth and nail...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1_5eRtDvAM
might be their best, but not this one ;-O
Put your money where your mouth is, sir...
Do you support Ron Paul?
@ George
I can understand your enthusiasm for the "Doctor of the House". This man has lived a productive and honourable life and is led by principle. He remains the only politician I have ever given dollars to. But I will no longer support any politician again in any election including dear Ron. Let me explain.
Trying to get Ron at the head of the US government is like trying to get a decent person to head up the mafia. If you can do it by some miracle, you will not succeed in permanently stopping what the mafia does. You might slow it down for a while. Is this what you want to do, just slow it down? I want to end organized crime all over the world and I do not presume to do it by controlling an organization that survives through crime. This is a logical contradiction.
I submit to you and all my fellow Americans that the US government is founded at the very beginning in crime and thus is a magnate for those of criminal intent. It is staring you right in the face: "Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes...". (Please have some fun and watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngpsJKQR_ZE - "I'm allowed to rob you!").
What are things that NON-PARASITICAL people think they need "governments" for? They want to be able to live productive lives without being prey to the Liars, thieves, and those who choose force to impose their will on others, (security). They want to be able to live by voluntary exchange and not be victims of crime. They want a way to peacefully resolve the disputes that humans are prone to get into, even with their fellow non-parasitical neighbors (adjudication/arbitration).
Because of the way Americans have been raised and educated, (often by the state), they think that it is impossible to have order in a society without what they call "government". To gain insight how this idea is flawed in its conception it is useful to restate what a "government" is in terms that the victims of "government" might be able to grasp in a new way by referring to governments by the key "services" they claim to provide: A "government" is a monopoly of legal force/enforcement and adjudication/arbitration in a certain geographic area. What people think of as "government" is only a tool to provide services and there is nothing magic about these services. Because such a monopoly will always serve as a magnate to those who wish to live by crime, giving a monopoly of "legal" force or adjudication to ANY entity is a recipe for violence, theft and fraud. Also a monopoly can not possibly serve the needs of all legitimate "customers" and must therefore impose its choices on those who disagree with aspects of its policies and would not support the government unless the FIRST USE OF force or threat of force were involved.
When you clearly come to understand what all "governments" are you understand that trying to get your man at the "head" of the "mafia" is not the proper way to be safe and live in peace! You must put an end to the "mafia"! It is not impossible. it has been done on this planet a number of times before. Please study early Irish, and Icelandic history for some ideas on this. If you keep trying to take over your local "Mafia" it is not going to get you where you want to go, and you will thus waste time, and resources if you try to do this, and avoid the real problem.
What you need to do is obtain security/enforcement and adjudication/arbitration services from non-monopoly providers who must "win" their "election" by you as individual customers for their services on an individual basis every day of the year. This is the perfect "election" for every non-parasitic person on this planet because your purchase is equivalent to your "election" of your service provider that you think will best fit your needs. You can't "loose" this election, you can only "win". It is the best solution because if the entity starts acting criminally you can stop purchasing their services and choose another. You retain your power this way! You forever keep the key "power of the purse" this way. Such a system of many service providers dispersed throughout a society does not result in disorder or chaos, but rather cooperation. Such a system is called "voluntarism".
If you are capable of seeing outside the box then you might also check out the following links to start rehabilitating your thought processes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P772Eb63qIY&feature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02rvMwSlAu0&feature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKyutB3u2bM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IRbwpc2XV4&feature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLCEXtpTNYU
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux4.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suNzxthcTJs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOBD6v8g1F4
http://www.libertarianstandard.com/articles/david-j-heinrich/justice-for...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzyogKiXhEA
http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm
http://mises.org/journals/jls/1_2/1_2_1.pdf
http://polycentricorder.blogspot.com/2009/01/anarchic-ireland-rough-draf...
I worked for Ron Paul in '88. We were hoping for 2% of the November total as a protest vote. We got, I think, .5%. Ron was proud of having his campaign slogan on a match book cover. As I recall it was about getting the government out of your drugs, your bedroom, and your wallet.
An actual Libertarian administration would wipe out anything not authorized by the Constitution at the federal level, meaning at least 80% of what goes on in Washington. I would love that. As Jefferson said, the government is best which governs least.
The reason I smell a rat with George is all of this Cumbaya horse shit. We all really agree on the fundamental problems, right, George? So when, in the cornbread hell, does a lefty every want to fire 80% of the federal blood suckers?
Yes.
Methinks, you are saying 100% the same thing as GW, just the wrapping is different! So calm down. He ain't no elite apologist.
+1,000
Working so hard to ignore the point. Government at all levels has stolen too much. There is nothing left to steal. When and where has George the Lobbyist advocated cutting government off at the knees?
Ok, junk him on logic. Not on innuendo and fear factor, red baiting, so depassé.
Logic? Are you aware that the fallacy of equivocation was the only improvement on classical logic claimed by Ayn Rand. Silly me, of course not.
I wouldn't bother to comment on Communism if it weren't so damned popular on this blog. We lost Marla and picked up Ilene. That has to be the worst trade since Babe Ruth left the Red Socks for the Yankees.
Ayn Rand wasn't Nietzsche or Hegel or Spinoza or Kant or Kant-not or whatever. She's a special brand of 'positive Americanism', a peculiar philosophy alike Frenchified existentialism a la Sartre. There is nothing universal about either of them. They are space time constrained like a passing fad. Great Gatsby of the free mind. I may be out of my depth as I'm no philosopher nor sophist. I was even fooled by 'Sophie's choice!...great movie!
On April 15th:
http://www.atlasshruggedpart1.com/
Our work or your guns: Choose one, you cannot have both!
If they had named the movie Hobson's Choice we would have had a clue.
THE Horse. one each
- Ned
{thanking the gods that is neither a 'coon nor a tiny little piglet}
Where is the communism talk on ZH? I haven't seen it ever. Socialism, from time to time. Fascism, sure. But Marxism, hardly. Crapitalism seems to be the focus.
Sorry, but Realpolitik makes Communism as useful as pixie dust!
I hate communism. I like free market capitalism.
American "capitalism" as practiced today is not at all real free market capitalism, but is MUCH CLOSER TO COMMUNISM OR FASCISM:
Capitalism, Socialism or Fascism?
So, you agree that the Free Market made America great?
http://www.endofinnocence.com/2010/09/free-market-made-america-great.html
Liking to spend money is not the same as liking free market capitalism. Washington is full of people like you who want to maximize GDP so they can spend more of our money. No one cares how you label your stuff. Remember BP? You never have a kind word to say about those who do the real work, or a harsh word for the overlords.
This is not a dispute between Biff and Buffy at the country club. There are fundamentally different views of the world at play, and you do your best to confuse, obscure, and obliterate that simple fact.
The liberal is always a thief, and the thief always wants to compromise. He will gladly steal only half of your goods today. He'll be back for the rest next week.
You are an apologist for the parasite class, George, and you're good at it, but it's far too late in the game for anyone to be confused by that.
Guess reading comprehension is NOT your strong suit!
Check out:
"Dreams Come Due, Government and Economics as if Freedom Mattered",ISBN: 0-671-61159-3, by John Galt
The book is dated, but many of the things it talks about are still valid today.
more people believe elvis is still alive 15%
I'll see you and raise you one. 25% believe in alien abductions:)
Ha! Pitiful. I'll go several magnitudes better: 97% believe in GOD.
Well done, Rocky. I believe in all the gods. Zues, Thor, Zoroaster,... all of them.
THAT would make you a Hindu! May the Flying Spaghetti Monster stroke you with its noodly appendages...
And I got junked for calling religious folks retards...
And I got junked (twice) for simply saying the government who sends people to fight for it should shake heaven and earth to allow their votes to count at the same time as everyone elses.
Now who could junk such a simple thing as fairness and law?
Coming to think of it, I would say there are more people who believe in Khaddafi in 'official' Libya today, than in the Congress in the USA. 11% is unbelievable for an incumbent legislature. Sarkozy does better than that in France. He is at an all time low of 30% in opinion polls. The Pope gets more favorable votes in Mecca. Zardari in Lahore is at 25%. I'm sure the Apartheid government got higher votes in Soweto at the height of Mandela resistance.
"The Pope gets more favorable votes in Mecca."
Hoo, boy...now I know you're just making this stuff up!
Its a tongue in cheek analogy...I thought the humor was obvious...Even though it may not be far from the truth as... a true, orthodox believer in the islamic God respects the cousinly christian God's representative on earth as His authentic symbol. As you know, Moslems consider Christian and Jews as monotheists who believe in the same God of their common old testament. Not my cup of tea...but that's another story...
Retards of a feather (should) flock together.
If you do not believe in a God, then who is it that you're talking to inside your mind? One of you is in charge, which one?
I worship Patrick Bateman; you?
Ridiculous comparison based on the idiocy of so-called "scientific surveys."
But where does the current patriotisme come from?
real playaz who understand. makes no difference, light green, dark green, slant green.
It is not pan-patriotism. It is a divided type with several variations according to the proclivity of each citizen to absorb the MSM and gov't propaganda along ideological lines.
It comes from the hope we can limit government, limit taxes, return to federalism, and regain our freedom.
No lobbyist would be interested in influencing a.government that has no money and is severely limited in its ability to pass new laws.
Strict Construction, bitchez.
1776 freedom style...
Many have troubles coming to terms that freedom in their mouth is just scam to serve their own best, personal interests.
Good, clear video, not only for americans of course. (everything's connected)
Talking about dependency on failing systems, I think you want to check this out:
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/newPathogenInRoundupReadyGMCrops.php
ooooops!
Of all the warnings about bad agriculture, this one seems most dire as it encapsulates multiple MON and RR issues. Similar to the latest China experiment, the US population was divorced from the land long ago. These bank owned corporate farms have used subsidies and avoided taxes and are dependent upon chemicals. Depletion of water and soil and plant life and decreasing food quality is not dominion, it is destruction.
thank you for bringing this to the attention of the ZH community.
Ordinary colonists were forced to join the Revolution by a campaign of systematic terror carried out largely by the so-called Sons of Liberty.
Those who did not wish to fight for the profits and power of the slave-owners and land speculators were harassed, jailed, tortured and murdered; their land stolen, their houses, farms, businesses and ships burned or otherwise destroyed by “patriots”.
Males who could not escape were forced into the Revolutionary armies, except for the wealthy who could, as always, buy their way out of the draft or buy slaves to take their place...
the Texas Air National Guard having not yet been created.
Hundreds of thousands of people of all ethnic and racial groups, more than half the population in some areas, fled the flag-waving terrorists to Canada, the Bahamas, Bermuda and other sanctuaries.
Lies and propaganda, fabricated stories of outrages and massacres, much of it invented and spread by slave-owner Sam Adams, the largely mythical “Boston Massacre” being the most notorious and ludicrous example, were used to manipulate public opinion and build support for the war.
The very word “frontier” as it applied to the Thirteen Colonies is perverted by propagandists for the American ruling class into a land of make-believe where valiant, freedom-loving pioneers in coonskin caps with their best girl by their side wrestle bears and struggle to tame the wilderness.
In reality, the frontier was a legally-established boundary, intended to be the limit of land theft by the speculators such as George Washington, preserving forever the land on which the Indian nations were guaranteed by law the right to carry on their traditional way of life.
The majority of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were, in fact, slave owners or their representatives.
Virtually all of the signers of the Declaration were land speculators. Most of the “heroes” of the Revolution and of early America were, in reality, resolute opponents of equality, freedom, liberty, the rule of law and, above and beyond everything else, of democracy.
Their true and blatantly obvious purposes were to steal Indian land in violation of legally binding agreements, to preserve slavery in perpetuity in order to maintain their own wealth and power as the ruling class and to install a tyranny of that same elite behind a facade of democracy. In fact, like just about it everything else in this sad old world, it was all about money and power.
The Declaration of Independence was followed by the Test Laws, designed to force all colonists into swearing allegiance to their local junta.
A record was kept of those who took the oath and they were issued with "a certificate for safety from arrest".
Failure to take the oath meant imprisonment, confiscation of property, loss of all legal rights, banishment and even death.
Those who refused to participate in the slave-owners’ revolution were barred from holding office, banned from the professions and forced to pay double or triple taxes.
Eight months after supposedly giving his famous cry, “Give me liberty or give me death”, which may itself be yet another invention of the propaganda machine, freedom-loving slave-owner and land speculator Patrick Henry ordered “diligent patrols” to prevent slaves in Virginia from accepting an offer of liberty by Britain.
Propagandized-to-tedium land speculator Benjamin Franklin, instrumental in drafting that immortal paean to freedom, the Declaration of Independence, owned human beings as slaves.
The freedom-loving “patriots” of the colony of Rhode Island, a major slave trading center, purchased African slaves who were forced to fight and die in the Revolutionary armies in the place of those lily white lovers of liberty who had purchased them as property.
In contrast, Britain, the evil colonial power, not only ultimately abolished slavery in its own possessions but fought slavery worldwide, maintaining costly naval blockades of the African coast year-round and pursuing slave ships on the high seas, freeing captured Africans.
In the new “free” United States, slavery continued to exist for a century after the Revolution. Those slaves who could escaped to freedom in British territory in Canada via the Underground Railroad.
Puh-leez... All the bad instances you could find, presented as the ONLY things that happened.
Get a grip. The Declaration is one of the greatest documents ever written. Some asshole behaving badly in the proximity besmirches it not at all.
Words on paper are words on paper. Fiction is not reality.
They shed light on one of the greatest documents ever written. In this regard, they are extremely valuable to anyone who investigate reality.
One has also to remember the story of the Black Loyalists vs the Black Patriots, one side choosing the right way path to liberty.
One point has to be noted: even though the King was on the losing side, the noble representing his authority in the New World, clung to respect their promise toward the black slaves he promised freedom to. This, in the middle of the scramble of an evacuation.
After that, Freedom loving US citizens strived to recapture the freed negroes.
It also tells about the myth of the US military, honour and stuff, showing one's values through fight. Even though the negroes won their liberty fighting, they were recaptured at no blink by US citizens.
That is why negroes are a trouble in the US. Without them, US citizens can enjoy their own propaganda at no cost. Put a negro in the room, and US citizens know they are but lying all the way, forced to admit they scored lower on the freedom part than the King of England, good King George the Fith.