-2 votes

We need a New Constitution -- We are engaged in a Perpetual War

a Perpetual War that cannot ever be resolved.

There's an audio debate with Tom Woods and Neil Siegel that proves that you will never "resolve" the constitutional question of legality.

We need a "clear cut" Constitution that eliminates "rights" for everyone save consumers -- who foot the bill (all Bills - Laws - Regulations - Licensure).

No "rights" need to be enumerated for consumers either. The consumer is free when all others have no rights/protectionism; meaning none can circumvent consumer-demand.

Here's my 350 Word Constitution

Central Gov't

0% Tax Authority (on any individual or group)
0% Currency Authority (100% freemarket money / coinage / credit)
0% Regulatory Authority (100% Consumer Sovereignty)
0% Judicial Authority
0% Lobbying
0% Foreign Debt Accrual

Central Gov't shall be a 24Team Naval Meritocracy

The 24-Team will be hired owing to resume, education, and business plan presentation. They will be hired by a revolving panel of experts who are pooled from 4,000 or more such experts in the fields of: weaponology, bidding analysis, contract analysis, accounting, efficiency experts, oceanography, and military strategy.

This team will be paid from the remainder of their budget (unused). A very open source (for all to view) rubric will be used and a public auditing to factor their incentives based on: anti-pirate record (safeguarding our ships and ports), non-international water violations, communication improvements, weaponology improvement, search and rescue, cost accounting, contract bid analysis, efficiency improvement, etc.

They will hire "employees" from the free labor pool on a contractual basis.

1% National Sales Tax (cover budget and incentive plan)
One 6-year Term

State Gov't

The Zeros

0% Tax Authority (on any individual or group)
0% Currency Authority (100% free market money / coinage / credit)
0% Regulatory Authority (100% Consumer Sovereignty)
0% Judicial Authority
0% Lobbying
0% Foreign Debt Accrual

State Gov't shall be a 24-Team Army and Air Guard Meritocracy

Search and Rescue (disasters only) and Border Patrol

Logically Similar Rubric (to assess incentive merit)

Logically Similar Hiring "board of experts"

3% State Sales Tax (for budget and incentives)
ONE 6year Term

GAO (Gov't Accounting Office)

The Zeros
0% Tax Authority (on any individual or group foreign or domestic)
0% Currency Authority (100% freemarket money / coinage / credit)
0% Regulatory Authority (100% Consumer Sovereignty)
0% Judicial Authority
0% Lobbying
0% Foreign Debt Accrual

The GAO shall be a 24Team Foreign Debt Meritocracy they have one job "Pay off all Foreign Debt

Logically Similar Rubric (to assess incentive merit)

Logically Similar Hiring "board of experts"

3% National Sales Tax (for budget and incentives)
This is a temporary dept until all debt is paid

All above taxes will reduce by .5% per 6 year period. There is no emergency forced taxation authority.


Easily pay-off off all foreign debt in 90 years
---I'm sure the amount will be negotiated down

Probably need to start at 12%, but eliminate the tax-collection by .25% per year for 90 years. Self-Diminishing.

You wouldn't reach zero -- but could dump the whole thing at around 8% and then allow everything to be handled privately -- private courts, private security.

We just need time to transition and 90 years would give the world time to adjust to us not carrying them and give us the protection to secure our markets while they adapt.

It's a 93% Tax Free Society -- So, it requires only 7% Abdication, rather than the reverse which is what we have now.

Currently we live in a 80-90% Tax-Theft Society -- So, it requires 90% Abdication.

Minarchism requires "some" Gov't

This is a transitionary model (thus temporary).

A Meritocracy exists outside the control of the people -- It's the only form of leadership that can have REAL WORLD restrictions put against it -- Because there is ZERO Voting / Lobbying.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

You can have a PB&J right now

.......as for the rest (don't hold your breath).

Our Constitution was a forced compromise -- there was more disagreement in the final document and in the end a "union" force within the declarative community won out.

Rather than the United States of America it should of been founded as an "Association of States in Sovereignty"


Sable Arms,

You wrote:

"They must be removed from office."

Who will remove them?

This public continues to elect and to re-elect the same ilk. So who will remove the scoundrels and tyrants from office?

See, the problem is more fundamental than "Washington"; the problem is the people themselves.

The best thoughts about having a new constitution are "part of this balanced breakfast"-----that is, a strategy in which all of the following happen:

1. The people adopt a new paradigm about self rule.
2. The current government, with all its corruption, is tossed out.
3. A new constitution is drafted in an attempt to rule out the loopholes/abuses/ambiguities/inadequacies/errors of the former constitution.

Certainly "respecting and adhering to the Constitution we have" would be a superior state to the current reign of lawlessness. But there are some clear problems with the current Constitution that a diligent and responsible people should want to fix in order to make lawlessness even hard to achieve in the future.


Those who are working night and day to take this country over

by stealth OWN the media so don't look to them for your answers.

We already have a Constitution but the people MUST defend it through due process of law - please READ the Articles of Freedom, know your Rights as a Citizen, sign the pledge and do all you can to join the 'bucket brigade' to restore the rule of law otherwise we will continue to get more of the same and worse.

World socialism is encircling our nation and pretends we are taking our authority from the UN.

Wake up America! Know your Rights!


I've been too busy to keep up with everything, so please pardon the question, but could you tell me in a nutshell, what is the intended effect of the Articles of Freedom pledge?


Hi Jack! I am glad to see you here!

Ok in a nutshell here it is.

The Articles of Freedom assumes that those who sign the pledge will do so consciously aware of their sovereign Rights as a citizen of their sovereign State, and within the sovereign Union of States.

Knowing his/her Rights that are guaranteed protected and secured under the U.S. Constitution, each conscious citizen performs due diligence by their signature on the pledge.

This is an acknowledgment that they know their Rights under the Rule of Law, and should there come a time that our government persists in being disobedient to the Rule of Law, the conscious citizens shall lawfully perform non-violent civic actions, many of which concern withholding resources from the government until they change their ways back under the law - no exceptions, this is NOT negotiable! Hence, critical mass (a goodly number of millions) will be required in order to create 'the teeth' of this document.

Soon these Articles will be hand delivered by the delegates (April 19th 2010)in each of their respective States.

This shall be the entire bicameral system within each State and including all Executive levels.

So, the intended effect using 'due process of law' (Articles of Freedom), is to bring our servant government back under the Rule of Law(U.S.Constitution) throughout the entire bicameral system via the 'instructions' laid out within the document detailing how each elected official shall cease and desist anything that is unconstitutional and calling for the revocation of all legislation going back almost 100 years that is egregiously unconstitutional.

It is hoped that this lawful order, Articles of Freedom, pledged by conscious Americans, will result in a non-violent 'revolution' reverting back to the original intentions as laid down by our founding fathers.

Those involved, (the 121 delegates who represented 48 States) in deliberating these 14 egregious violations and arriving at what shall be the 'instructions to the elected officials' and what shall be suggested 'civic actions' taken by those who signed the pledge' (just in case it is needed), have truly reached for the stars here.

We may only get 'the moon' but at least our entire system shall be reverted back under the 'Rule of Law' - no exceptions.

Once this is completed and every last elected official has been put on notice, assuming appropriate changes have been made back under de jure law, it will require a renaissance of education of all the citizens to 'know their Rights' and keep eternal vigilance of such a precious system based upon the enlightenment philosophy of the 'Rights of Man', as discoursed by Bastiat, Montesquieu, Rousseau, Voltaire, Locke, Thomas Paine, and the various writings of our founding fathers.

Truly, when that day arrives in this nation, 'heaven on earth' will finally be manifested after centuries and centuries of feeble attempts.

That is why only a 'virtuous' people are worthy of their sovereignty.

Here are some words from the Alabama Institute for Constitutional Studies:

"Rights cannot be defended if one does not even know what they are. To know and understand the freedoms that our founders won for us, one must either be taught our constitutional heritage or one must seek out the knowledge on his/her own.

It is a sad fact that much of today's educational material that is taught in most public schools does not include the study of our nation's founding or the reasons for it.

It is not so much that public education misrepresents the facts surrounding how and why the Constitution was written, but more to the point that the material is not taught to our young at all.

The reason for that is that it is easier to shape the minds of the young and then control them as adults if the young are simply not taught how our freedoms were won and why, what those freedoms are and what is required to defend and preserve them for future generations."


Anisha Dunne
Minnesota State Coordinator for the 'Articles of Freedom'
A proud member of We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education

For those in Minnesota who wish to do something 'real' that will result in restoring your Rights under the law, come on board and join with us:


Interestingly enough, those coming on board are all those who desire Dr. Ron Paul as our president!


Thanks for the (really big) "nutshell".

If I understand you correctly, the AoF initiative is simply a campaign to ask the government to be nice.

What happens if that request is shunned?


No this is not a campaign to ask the government to be 'nice'

at all.

It is due process of law. Due process is a formal way of having to go through the legal motions of serving and 'putting on notice' those elected who have sworn an oath to office.

Its like a chess game of sorts. Steps have to be made 'for the record'. All those 14 years of petitioning the government for redress are not 'losses' they are more for the record to show all to see 'we the people' have exhausted our 'due diligence'. This is very, very effective for 'making the case' as it were especially down the road if things were not going to change, it will show for the record the people did all they could and exhausted all legal means at their disposal, then its non-violent 'civic action' time. This is the true source of 'people power'. Most Americans act as if they are slaves and have to petition and protest the government. Not at all. We are a Republic of Law NOT a democracy where the mob rules. Americans have been 'cultured' all these years to ACT as though they are slaves. They simply do not know their Rights. Eventually they will, then look out.

As more and more conscious people who know their rights find out about this and sign the pledge they will add their numbers and these numbers will eventually reach 'critical mass'.

I encourage you to study the document and think this through like so many of us have already.

I trust once you realize what this is about you will join with us too.


I don't mean to be patently offensive, but I will do you the honor of giving you my honest opinion of this pledge....for whatever one person's opinion is worth.

I have read the pledge and I don't see any teeth in it. Pledging to "hold...accountable" is quite abstract and hardly a real threat to the establishment. Furthermore, the pledge itself is poorly written and presumptuous in several respects---which makes it even less likely to achieve any substantial support from the more learned citizens.

I'll walk you through it line by line to show you what I mean:

In full view of The Creator as my witness,...

What difference does it make if God has witnessed someone sign the petition? Shall God be called upon to testify to such? Or do you think that because God has seen Citizen Joe sign this pledge, that God himself will now take action to right this lawless government? Or perhaps you think that Joe Government will stop dead in his tracks if he thinks that God saw Joe Citizen sign this petition?

Indeed, the inclusion of this opening is likely nothing more than an attempt to appeal to popular religion in order to lend credibility to the pledge, which appears to be aimed at the religious audience. Such an opening needlessly offends (and likely drives off) atheists who may share your concerns about governmental lawlessness.

Why have you done this? Are you a religious-elitist movement? If so, do your Articles say so? And if you exclude others on account of religion, how do you justify such?

This reminds of of the "Constitution Party", which on the outside seems to be a "return to the Constitution" party, but on the inside is a "win the nation back for Jesus" party. They have driven off hordes of constitutionalists who don't think that the nation belongs (or ought to belong) to Jesus. Their conflict of interests is their own undoing.

You should drop this opening in the pledge, as it adds nothing to the content of the pledge. If people sign this in religious devotion, so be it. And if they sign it without a thought about religion, so be it. But to being by sorting the people out is a mistake---and especially if you think you really NEED as many signatures as possible. Belief in God is wholly irrelevant to belief in the Rule of Law.

I hereby pledge my signature,

What, exactly, does it mean to pledge one's signature? I've heard of pledging devotion, money, etc., but a signature? OK. I found this curious so I searched "pledge my signature" at google to see if it is a common phrase. I only found it in this pledge, and nowhere else. It sounds as if the writer is searching for lofty language here, and doesn't realize that he's arrived at something that's simply not worth saying.

and vow to join with a goodly number of millions of Americans

Here we raise the obvious, that there are only 5,133 signatures as of 8:22 today. This language seeks to exaggerate the scope of the initiative and it calls for the signer to join in the lie. Don't be surprised if honest people find a stumbling block in this line.

And again, the writing style is awkward. It smacks of someone trying to be "continental" in an effort to lend credibility to the document by borrowing from the language of the past. When documents have real content, they need not rely on such tricks.

to hold our elected and appointed officials accountable for all of their violations,

OK, here's the closest thing to "teeth" that this pledge has. Yet it is remarkably abstract. Just what does it mean to hold someone accountable? You're not talking about taking them to court, removing them from office, beating them with canes, overthrowing the government, or anything else that would have some corrective effect. Indeed, you're not even talking about forming an air-tight voting bloc, which you certainly could do if you wanted. Rather, you're just talking about a mental notion of blame. This is no more promising than to tell them that "we don't like you".

I take further issue with this line, for it says that you'll hold them accountable for "all" of their violations. I seriously doubt that this is true. Instead, I believe that the holding accountable will stop far short of "all" their violations. Indeed, I believe that you will wholeheartedly SUPPORT some candidates who have violated the Constitution in certain ways, because they pledge to uphold it in others. I believe you will overlook this in a heartbeat if you see a chance at getting anybody elected. Won't you adhere to the popular incrementalism that says that a few constitutional violations are acceptable, provided that they are fewer than yesterday?

with a firm reminder

This reminds me of Demi Moore in A Few Good Men. When the judge overrules her objection, she restates saying "I STRENUOUSLY object." In a pledge that pledges no particular course of action other than the most abstract act of "holding accountable", such a reminder as this is little more than the shaking of a finger with a "tisk, tisk". These people are NOT scared of you, Anisha. They are laughing at the naivete that this "reminder" ---and indeed, that the entire pledge---evinces.

that each one has sworn an Oath (or Affirmation), to Preserve, Protect and Defend the Constitution for the United States of America. In seeking to hold them accountable,

OK, now you are losing ground. At first, you were pledging to "hold...accountable". And now you have regressed to "SEEKING" to hold them accountable? The weakness of this is obvious.

You already missed your opportunity to say:

1. We will remove you from office.

You opted to say instead that:

2. We hold you accountable for all your violations.

But you you say that:

3. We SEEK to hold you accountable...

And then you weaken your position even more with the following:

I shall hold myself accountable to do the same.

This is exceedingly weak. It's the equivalent of saying, "Your Honor, I STRENUOUSLY object, and I hold my self accountable to keep objecting."

You have said, in effect:

"OK, don't cross this line and I mean it." And then when they cross that line, you step back and say:

"OK, this new line I just drew, well, you better not cross this one, mister!" And when they cross that line, you step back again and you say:

"I want you to know that I hold you accountable for crossing those lines, mister." Then, when they cross that line, too, you nuke them with this stinger:

"OK, mister, you've gone too far now! Be advised that I am now holding MYSELF accountable for holding you accountable!"

And you expect them to wilt under the shock and awe of that statement?

And then, as if this wasn't fatally weak already, you make it plain that you are not willing to go to war over your rights:

We, the undersigned, renounce and condemn any and all INITIATION of violent force and will pursue all lawful and Constitutional means to fulfill our duty.

So the one thing they ARE afraid of, you rule out categorically. This is a classic negotiation blunder. If you vote any of these guys out of office, their "punishment" is that they receive money and benefits for the rest of their lives, they get to be part of the ruling class, and they cash in on all the "consulting" gigs they traded for votes while in office. So getting booted from office is actually a RELIEF to many of them, because they don't have to deal with the strife anymore, but only the benefits.

I hope you can see why they are not scared of you. Unless they can see that you are willing and prepared to put them either in jail or in the cemetery, why should they be scared of you? Why should they reform one iota on your account?

And as to their masters, they are betting that you will not succeed in scaring their puppets into lawfulness. It took rioting in the streets to scare the Congress out of the Vietnam War. But you hope to do it by making them feel guilty for their lawless acts?

Isn't that strategy based upon the demonstrably-false assumption that these are people of principle and of healthy conscience?

So if you won't SCARE these guys into submission, and you can't find a way to VOTE them out of office, then you have predetermined to have an impotent movement, have you not?

Now back to the present context of the pledge. You really should define "lawful" here, for you have just pledged to quit writing bad things about them on the Internet if they pass a law saying you can't.

You seem to have lost the spirit of the Declaration, which states that it is the duty of the people to throw off a tyrannical government. Rather, you seem to be saying, "If you'll allow us to, we'll overthrow you." Or, "Would you guys please throw yourselves out?"

I place my name here and shall participate as an Eternal Record of the Will of the People to be Free.

What? How can a signer "participate as an eternal record"? This is nonsense.

If you're going to write something important, it needs to SAY important things, and not just use important language in order to pretend to be saying important things. The literature in this document is wholly unworthy of the cause it purports to further. It smacks of committee work, no one (and capable) individual having thought it through.

So if this pledge is anything more than asking them to be nice, and pointing an accusing finger, we certainly know the extent to which it will NOT go; it will not go to the point of forcibly removing a lawless government.

Now, on a philosophical note, if you folks were really serious about restoring the Constitution to daily practice, I would have thought you'd be all over the Rule of Law Pledges. Those pledges have some teeth because the signers pledge not to vote for any candidate who won't pledge strict obedience to the Constitution. But under your system, I believe that people will JUMP at a chance to vote for a constitutionally-compromised candidate, just as long as he is BETTER than the other constitutionally-compromised candidate.

Surely several of you knew about the Rule of Law Pledges. Did it even come up in the conversation?

(For the record, I'm in the process of altering my position on the Rule of Law Revolution since I no longer believe that reforming the nation to the Constitution is practicable. I have left the website as it was while I'm deciding which course to take next. In the mean time, it is a witness to just how many people CLAIM they are serious about the Constitution, but who are unwilling to hold to it strictly if they see a candidate they like better than the next guy.)

You folks are caught in the LO2E trap. (Lesser of 2 evils). Until you refuse that trap and pledge to vote for NEITHER of two evils, how can you ever succeed in any meaningful level of reform?

Yours is a "big tent" pledge that seeks popular support, but it DOES nothing. You cannot name one SPECIFIC thing that is certain to come about as a result of having a "goodly number of millions of Americans" take and keep to your pledge.

The Rule of Law Pledges, however, would have defined the market for strictly constitutional candidates, and would have REMOVED ANY CHANCE of a non-pledging-candidate at getting any votes from the voter pledge takers. So if a "goodly number of millions of Americans" were to remove themselves from the consumer voting market, THAT would be getting something done. It would FORCE candidates to take a position--one way or the other--on the Constitution. It would re-frame the entire process, polarizing the field as either pro-obedience or anti-obedience--where now, it is all in shades of gray between strict constitutionalists (all three of them) and those who hold that government has NO practical obligation to obey the document if they don't like it.

If you are committed to wholly non-violent action, the only recourse you have is the ballot box. Yet you have have absolutely no mention of voting in your pledge. So your pledge takers will be left to their own vacillating judgments as to how to vote. The establishment knows this, and will play your signers like fiddles, offering up a horde of better-than-the-other-guy candidates who will still not follow the Constitution faithfully in all matters.

I believe that your course of action cannot succeed in the long run because TRULY reforming to the Constitution would require as much upheaval as would forming an entirely new government...and you folks show no sign of being prepared for that level of upheaval.

Even so, I would suggest that you should at least find yourselves a good writer to frame your argument. There's a certain art to presenting empty material as if it had weight, and your current writer has missed the mark. The pledge engages in demagoguery, just as do the very people you would remove from government. And at the end of the day, all it seeks is popular SUPPORT. Not popular ACTION, nor popular PARADIGM SHIFTS, nor even popular ORGANIZATION.

Practically speaking, you are merely asking voters to give their assent to the notion that the scoundrels and tyrants they WILLINGLY AND KNOWINGLY voted into office are wholly responsible for not reforming themselves into honest statesmen while in office, and that the voters are absolved of all responsibility in the matter for having held them so "accountable".

Whether this just a poorly-conceived philosophical movement, or a thinly-veiled front for getting a few particular candidates elected is unclear.

Now again, I do not write these things spitefully. Nor do I write them as a bitter competitor---for I have abandoned my pledge effort upon seeing that the nation does not understand the value in it. Be assured that these are my true and honest opinions, and that I'm not just "going off" on your movement.


reedr3v's picture

Jack, I appreciate your thoughtful

analysis. I haven't been motivated to take such a good, patient look at the documents due to some of the stylistic issues you mention. When trying to motivate large numbers, presentation becomes critical; your entire comment should be instructive for those who are behind this effort.

Anisha, thank you too, for your responses and patience. I do hope Jack's ideas are of help to you and the everyone working so hard to publicize the Articles.

Again,I am sorry to interject


If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.


Are you questioning what I mean by "teeth", or are you questioning why I would use the word?

Just as a dog with no teeth is little threat to the mailman, so a pledge with no promise of meaningful action is of little threat to the establishment.



I have been through this with the supporter before.
I even asked to distribute and have signed real petitions and was told that was not in the plan yet.

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

A True,

Pardon me if I'm being thick, but I'm still trying to understand exactly what you're saying to me. I'm not sure how to take it when you write "Teeth" again in this last post.

Could you go at it again in different words?



Jack can I email you?


If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

You bet, ATrue

The civic actions are there as the remedy but the actual fangs

are the 'critical mass' who will perform these civic actions.

The 'critical mass' are all those who SEE the vision of this effort. This is the 'will' of the people! Are you willing?

Each American is being 'called' here to take responsibility for their own sovereign Rights. This is a solemn and sacred process. Yes, it is daunting, but no body said Freedom was easy. It took 6,000 years for these ideas to even begin to manifest on the planet starting in the mid to late 18th century Europe and especially America. America is destined to be the beacon of Freedom. Our country is the way shower for the world, NOT by force, but by example.

The next phase of this daunting American project is to fulfill the hand deliveries to each and every elected official, and right now this requires people to commit and make donations towards the printing, the gas, overnight stays of the delegates as they make their way City by City, County by County, Town by Town and seeing to it that the hand delivery takes place.

Those committed will find creative ways to reach 'the people' despite NOT getting any mass media attention.

Jack, do not be discouraged by what 'others' think.

Have faith only in YOUR own vision that comes to you as you study this document and if you can make the time to visit the archives of the Continental Congress 2009 www.CC2009.us.

This is the test of the soul right now. We are each being 'tested' for our courage, our faith in the vision we see from within, and importantly the level of commitment we will make to something that is much, much bigger than ourselves.

I do hope you can make the effort to examine what it is that is 'blocking' you about this document and the pledge.

Blessings to you Jack.


Anisha, it is difficult....

...to tell whether you read my post for comprehension before replying to it. Am I supposed to find answers to my concerns in your post?


I don't agree

The mess we are in is not because of abdication, We have a problem with the people who are in control of the media brain washing the masses into thinking they want socialism. When the truth it put in simple terms, they get it and they feel duped. Our challenge is getting to them and cleaning out the BS they have been told.

Ladalang: Let me break it down for you in "their" terms

The "evil they" have a revenue stream -- everything they do is to pump their revenue stream.

This is Econ and Finance 101, right?

Evil They Revenue Stream:
1) Consumers-who-Purchase
2) Consumers-who-Invest
3) Consumers-who-Abdicate

"Consumers-who-Abdicate" Is Broken Down thusly:
1) Voting and Lobbying
----Circumvents Consumer-Will
----Makes one Dependent on Credit
----Destroys Purchasing Power
2) Paying Taxes (is a willing transferrence of income authority)
3) Buying Corporatist Products
----Ignoring Localism as the prime tenant of Consumer-Power and Self-Rule
4) Keeping Assets in Fed Banks
5) Keeping Assets on Wall Street

What I wrote above is the fundemental truth and by behaving conversely would lead to true and lasting Liberty.

You cannot control the media when we first abdicate authority -- by the above methods.


You wrote:

"The mess we are in is not because of abdication,..."

I'm not certain which/whose post you're replying to--perhaps the initial post in this thread?

Anyway, while I certainly agree that the media are intentionally misleading/distracting/manipulating the people, this would never succeed is the people were not, in the aggregate, abdicators of their natural responsibility as self-governors.

In my observation, a GREAT number of Americans do nothing about it even when they KNOW they are being lied to. When they catch Fox News or CNN in a lie, do they complain? Do they boycott them for habitual abuses?

No. They keep on watching....feeding the monsters, who cash in on their advertising dollars.

And chances are that if the duped go to church, they're getting told there to "let God handle it", or that it's unspiritual or even "worldly" to be concerned about such things. And I believe that a great many desperately WANT this to be true---that they are somehow righteously absolved from any responsibility for reforming the government, on account of something like:

1. As Christians, they have a higher calling.
2. Changing the government is somebody else's job.

Such an approach, however, is obviously an unthinking approach, as it clearly leaves government to the unjust. And we can witness that this is indeed the state of things.

There is obviously abdication (and/or deference) afoot in the name of:

1. God
2. Political Parties
3. Those in office
4. Want of knowing what to do
5. The conclusion that no action can/will succeed
6. Busy-ness (and/or entertainment, such as Farmville and American Idol.)



Reading this thread just ate up an hour of my time and I have hardly scratched the surface ! Very thought provoking, intelligent discussions going on here. Impressive.

You certainly gave me something

to ponder, thanks. Five stars for getting me to think. hee,hee

Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.

My ideas and arguments have certainly been "honed" by all the

thoughtful debate here on DP -- especially from you.

Like Ron, I am optimistic...

that because we are bankrupted, the wars/empire will end. The over reach by government and it's expansion will end. The welfare state will end. I can pretend that I have the money for one more beer until the bartender catches on and says, "pay up."

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves." William Pitt in the House of Commons November 18, 1783
"I know major allies who fund them" Gen. Dempsey

Ron Paul is not "optimistic" he's the stoutest pessimist

of gov't correction in the House.

RP swore and oath and he's been trying for 35 years to get people to follow it -- he's giving us (the consumer) the real lesson; though we mistakenly thinks it's about "they" (who need to keep their oath) when it is "we" the consumer who must make the oath.

The Constitution was built on Ownership (Capitalism) and that always brings about Unionism and the Perpetual War (Workers-Rights vs Owners-Rights).

OR -- Nobles-Rights vs Peasants-Rights

We must build a document that eliminates VERSUS (perpetual war).

A Zero Rights Society is the only way to go.

And discussing it with as many people as possible will get us off the merry-go-round of politics and ballot-box-bingo.

I'm still a little dizzy by your reply....

I'll come back to it after a few more beers....

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves." William Pitt in the House of Commons November 18, 1783
"I know major allies who fund them" Gen. Dempsey

How about we discuss the best way to achieve liberty in our

LIFETIME? I know there are few options but might as well discuss them. Let's get to the truth of our situation.

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Lamb of God - As the Palaces Burn


Just how much liberty and reform are you going for?

You say: "How about we discuss the best way to achieve liberty in our lifetime?". OK, how much do you want?

Do you just want to make things "better", or do you want to make things right? Do you want to assail one bad law and get it repealed, or do you want to conquer all bad laws?

The way we answer this question will determine what course of action we choose.


People won't support something they don't understand,

Trying to sell a new blueprint just won't work. People can understand incremental reform and support it.
Only the states have the power to get D.C. under control. The central government will never reform itself
A Constitutional Convention to consider amendments, not a new constitution, can work. Each amendment(reform) should stand on its own to be ratified by the states.
Pull the monster's teeth, one at a time.

John B: You are correct

I never said this "new constitution" was where we start from. I agree with you here.

Incrementalism is the reality of world political "correctness".

The "ballot box" is incrementalism
---This group takes from me then I take back a little and so on ad infinitum.

Voting and Lobbying (the ballot box) is Incrementalism
---This should be painfully obvious

So, yes people will continue doing what they are used to UNTIL their purchasing power is destroyed enough and they can no longer blame it on anyone other than consumer ball-less-ness.

There is no evil "they" -- "they" are the folks we abdicated too (as consumers), trying to protect us in all areas other than consumption.

Protecting the Consumer is so so so easy.
---Create a Zero Rights Society

Circle the wagons bag to the above Constitution