9 votes

What Could America Be?

What could America be?

What if people were free to start a business without having to ask for permission and approval?

What if they didn't have to check local ordinances to determine whether they were allowed to defend themselves with a weapon in that particular city?

What if we were allowed to grow our own food instead of relying on South America to grow our broccoli?

What if we were able to keep the fruits of our labor instead of working half the year to cover our tax 'burden'?

What if people could say what they felt without any fear their government wouldn't like it?

What if business owners could risk alienating paying customers by not installing expensive ramps and rails, a reasonable decision in a so-called free society?

What if children were allowed to learn about what interested them and what they were good at rather than being processed through the one size fits all cookie cutter educational system?

What if they were able to make financial decisions based on the assumption that their money would always have value, instead of being thin sheets of paper that can be turned to ash in moments?

What if businesses owners could find out what products people in Iran, Cuba, and Libya are interested in buying, and supply them with those things?

What new and unimagined heights could America reach,

if it were ever allowed to be free?

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

All that is needed is for

All that is needed is for people to accept responsibility for their actions. People for the most part have the me me me mindset. I wish all people could live by the "do unto others"

Formerly rprevolutionist


Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers-Girl on LSD: http://youtu.be/V2b8-bIJGdY

Pandacentricism will be our downfall.


May we remember this golden rule always.

Do them.

We can do all those things. We are the only ones who do not "allow" ourselves to do them.

The greatest bastion of slavery is in the mind of the slave.

The first words out of a slave's mouth are usually...

'You'd better find out if it's ok to do that first.'


Pandacentricism will be our downfall.

Power using math.

I'm going to answer these questions with competitive answers in a general way and then a specific way.

Generally speaking the cost of "providing the means by which we suffer" is consuming all the power to produce anything of value since most of the power to produce anything of value is being consumed in all the work of destruction that is ordered by criminals in government to be done by the people hired to destroy things.

Make one bomb.

Make one war.

What is the cost?

If the bomb, and the war, was not made and instead what was made was a new productive (competitive) business making food, clothing, shelter, entertainment, education (competitive), art, literature, science, travel, space travel, whatever, then the net POWER supply increases instead of decreasing.

Bombs, and wars, consume productive power and worse.

Bombs, and wars, transfer power from those honest productive people to those criminals who have taken over government, making honest productive people less powerful and making criminals who have taken over government more powerful, and that makes the honest productive people less able to defend against criminals who have taken over government, and that power transfer makes criminals who have taken over government more powerful and more able to keep the victims subjugated and destroying each other.

So generally speaking, using simple math, what happens when Liberty replaces Legal Crime is more POWER available for the Liberated people (honest productive people who make anything worth stealing) to make more POWER.

What happens?

Power increases.

The power to make more power increases.

Power becomes abundant.

Each person no longer believes in the need to have an all powerful "government" to "protect" powerful people when everyone has enough power to defend themselves.

That is why war is necessary for Legal Criminals who use war to destroy any increase in total power that goes beyond the threshold of containable power commanded by the victims.

Now each question specifically (offering a competitive answer):

"What could America be?"

A place where runaway slaves can find sanctuary from criminals and especially where runaway slaves can find sanctuary from criminals who have taken over governments in other places, but not here. Sadly the criminals have taken over government here in America, or U.S.A. Inc. (LLC) as America is current run by criminals who limit their liabilities when they commit very serious crimes against humanity (everyone they target).

"What if people were free to start a business without having to ask for permission and approval?"

I think that that is a misunderstanding, or sloppy English, since anyone working to supply what other people demand, and do so honestly, are "asking permission and approval" from the potential traders who may want what is being produced by the producer of the products (or services) in question.

"What if people were free to "ask permission and approval" to produce something, and having a yes answer answered by many, the producer then has found a way to make an honest living, without having their earnings stolen, and then having their stolen earnings handed to a competitor (subsidy) who manufactures a demand (false advertizements), and then supplies counterfeit crap to the targets who have been led to believe that they need that crap (like war) sold to the masses who have had their "consent" manufactured with brainwashing, response conditioning, behavioral modification, and false advertizements paid for by the criminals who took over government?"

If that happens, then a person can make an honest living, and many people making honest livings results in higher standards of living and lower costs of living since the POWER to do so is no longer stolen and then consumed in war and lesser crimes perpetrated by the criminals who take over government.

"What if they didn't have to check local ordinances to determine whether they were allowed to defend themselves with a weapon in that particular city?"

That appears to me to be ill conceived. Any person not knowing how local people think and act on any introduction of any new person into their sphere of influence is a person who aught to "check local" thoughts and actions, written as ordinances, or just ask someone local, or ask two people who are local, before introducing any new person into their sphere of influence. All government is not bad, so why employ prejudice to people who may govern themselves well enough for them, without prejudice, and you introduce prejudice into their competitive forms of government? That, to me, is the problem, not the solution.

Ask for permission and if you don't get permission to carry a gun, then do you carry a gun despite objections made by honest productive people who will not harm you? Do you strip naked and start humping stay dogs in the neighborhood? Do you drive on the right side or the left side of the road?

If the locals prefer that you don't carry guns, and the locals demand that you do own, and know how to use a gun, and you promise, by oath and affirmation that you will defend innocent lives with your guns when called to do so, here, locally, and if you refuse any of those local ordinances then you are not welcome in any case, then it may be a good idea to find that out before you settle in the location where those locals think and act in those ways. They may make an exception, you may be blind, but you may be good at repairing guns, so asking, negotiating, may help in such a case no?

"What if we were allowed to grow our own food instead of relying on South America to grow our broccoli?"

Legal criminals at the "Federal" level of government (actually National or Criminal not Federal) steal the power from the victims here in America, and that stolen loot is used to "subsidize" a select group of farmers. That destroys competition. When competition is destroyed there is no longer any force that forces quality (of food) up, and cost (of food) down. So the obvious result of ending the reign of those criminals who took over government is a steady increase in the quality of food, and a steady lowering of the cost of food, once the criminals are no longer stealing the competitive power from the competitors and then spending that stolen power to monopolize the food producers as competition is thereby destroyed.

"What if we were able to keep the fruits of our labor instead of working half the year to cover our tax 'burden'?"

No more aggressive wars for profit. The National Debt is roughly equal to the cost of war. No more criminals in government at the National Level (it is not Federal), no more aggressive wars for profit (they profit you don't), no more National Debt, how much is your Federal Tax "Liability"?


In a Federation the Federal Employees are Employed by the State Governments and the Federal Employees are not allowed to "Tax" The People with a Direct Tax.

You can't wrap your head around that fact?

Look here:


"Mr. GEORGE MASON. Mr. Chairman, whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause clearly discovers that it is a national government, and no longer a Confederation. I mean that clause which gives the first hint of the general government laying direct taxes. The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes does, of itself, entirely change the confederation of the states into one consolidated government. This power, being at discretion, unconfined, and without any kind of control, must carry every thing before it. The very idea of converting what was formerly a confederation to a consolidated government, is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us. This power is calculated to annihilate totally the state governments. Will the people of this great community submit to be individually taxed by two different and distinct powers? Will they suffer themselves to be doubly harassed? These two concurrent powers cannot exist long together; the one will destroy the other: the general government being paramount to, and in every respect more powerful than the state governments, the latter must give way to the former. Is it to be supposed that one national government will suit so extensive a country, embracing so many climates, and containing inhabitants so very different in manners, habits, and customs? It is ascertained, by history, that there never was a government over a very extensive country without destroying the liberties of the people: history also, supported by the opinions of the best writers, shows us that monarchy may suit a large territory, and despotic governments ever so extensive a country, but that popular governments can only exist in small territories. Is there a single example, on the face of the earth, to support a contrary opinion? Where is there one exception to this general rule? Was there ever an instance of a general national government extending over so extensive a country, abounding in such a variety of climates, &c., where the people retained their liberty? I solemnly declare that no man is a greater friend to a firm union of the American states than I am; but, sir, if this great end can be obtained without hazarding the rights of the people, why should we recur to such dangerous principles?"

The Revolutionary War was lost in 1788.

Wake up people.

"What if people could say what they felt without any fear their government wouldn't like it?"

You can't just sit by and allow people to shout FIRE in a crowded theater. Don't tread on me.

Don't tread on me.

There is meaning in words, but meaning has to be understood.

"What if business owners could risk alienating paying customers by not installing expensive ramps and rails, a reasonable decision in a so-called free society?"

What if half the population ends up in wheel chairs? Cost benefit calculations are always individually done, in each individual case, so "laws" that try to fit everyone into the same Gulag are exactly what they are: cost benefit calculations done by criminals. Why not call them criminals when their actions define the true meaning, the accurate meaning, of the word CRIME?

When speaking in terms of "Federal regulations" it may be a good idea to understand the facts. Criminals took over government in 1788, that is a well documented fact. Failure to know is costly, but failure to know is beneficial to those criminals who continue to take over government at the National level (criminal level = it is not Federal).

"What if children were allowed to learn about what interested them and what they were good at rather than being processed through the one size fits all cookie cutter educational system?"

Criminals target victims. When criminals take over a country, such as America, the criminals who took over are building a Gulag, everyone will eventually be forced into labor camps where the workers are fed less than the required POWER (calories) required to survive, and that is how that works every time that is done, in human history, when the criminals take over.

It is a National (criminal) government. It is not Federal. Know what you are talking about, so what happens if this country is no longer run by criminals? How would that happen?

End the FED
End the IRS
Bring the Troops Home

Now, after that is done, the State governments may yet be run by criminals, but The People are no longer under the thumb of two Crime Bosses, one a the State level, and a bigger, more costly, Crime Ring at the National Level (and an even bigger Crime Ring, but hidden, at the Global Level), so The People can begin to force their State Employees (government) to increase the quality and lower the cost of hiring employees to run State governments.


People can choose State A over State B, and that is called Market Forces. State A starts moving toward despotism and The People get out of that State and find sanctuary in another State.

If you don't know that, then you aught to know that, as that is how a Republic is designed to work, where the Federal Government is nothing more, but nothing less, than a voluntary union with voluntary union dues that the State governments either join or do not join in just that same way as The People either join, and pay for, or not join, and do not pay for, a despotic State government within the voluntary Union of Federated States.

This is really not that difficult to understand.

"What if they were able to make financial decisions based on the assumption that their money would always have value, instead of being thin sheets of paper that can be turned to ash in moments?"

Paper money is not the problem. A Legal Monopoly (crime) is the problem. If there are 10 or 50 competitive monies to choose from, all are legal monies, which means that any of those 10 or 50 choices are "good as gold" as far as "paying tax liabilities" (legal money) then the force of competition works on all 10 or all 50 producers of legal money.

What happens when there are 10 or 50 competitive producers all asking for permission to please, please, please, use our money instead of the competitions money?

No answer?

The quality goes up, and the costs go down.

Why is it impossible to see this fact? (does the shoe fit or not?)

"What if businesses owners could find out what products people in Iran, Cuba, and Libya are interested in buying, and supply them with those things?"

Quality goes up and costs go down when competition is not destroyed by criminals who have taken over government where those same criminals call their confidence scheme "legal tender" and those criminals call their extortion rackets "taxes" and the victims actually believe the criminals without effective question, or resistance.

"What new and unimagined heights could America reach,
if it were ever allowed to be free?"

America, if the word means a list of names of all the honest productive people who will no longer aid and abet criminals who have taken over governments, then we may be vacationing on Mars all summer by 2050, before going back to work for 6 months, 4 hours a day, 4 days a week, in 2051.


Thanks for your analysis.

Your views are worthy of more than a mere reply. Let's try to keep this thread active.

Pandacentricism will be our downfall.

It is simple

The power to lie is power. The power to steal is power. The power to murder and torture and destroy and war is power.

The power to use power to make power abundant is power.

What happens if power of the productive kind is abundant?

Criminals are relatively less powerful than their victims when productive power is abundant because the victims are as powerful as the criminals.

This is abundantly clear in the case of the false front false advertizement, response conditioning, behavioral modification, that goes by the false name "Gun Control".

Look at the second amendment words in ENGLISH.



A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It does not say guns.

Bearing Arms as in arming the people is a POWER that arms the TARGETS which makes crime not pay so good especially when the criminals take over government.

I have invented a Litmus Test you can use on any person any member of the GROUP called The People.

Test this on your family.

Test this on yourself (look in the mirror).

Test this on a neighbor.

Test anyone asking you for a job such as a politician begging for you to hire them.


The test goes like this:

Take out your phone and ask anyone if this phone were not just a phone in the near future. Instead of a phone in the near future this phone was available for purchase for anyone who could afford one, anyone who could bear the cost of one, and in the near future this phone, right here, was as cheap in cost as this phone right here, and this phone, right here, soon to be available on-line, at Wal-Mart, at the local Gas Station, at the local Liqueur Store, this phone, soon to be available, is as available and as cheap as State Lottery Tickets, for anyone to bear the cost of having and using.

This phone right here, you say, to yourself, or to test someone else, calls other people just like this phone does, and this phone can take video recording just like this phone does, and this phone can do more than just those things, more than a number of applications already existing, more than that, this phone has a special new feature to it.

If you are in a crowded theater, or you are a child at school, or you are in the wrong place at the wrong time, and someone very bad will, or is, injuring innocent people, then you take out this phone and use the emergency mode, and you film the attack in progress, and then that film is connected to the internet on a live stream, and the government workers that you employ with your earnings are clued in on the crime in progress instantly.

Is that it Joe?

Phones already have that now, more or less.

No, the test is not yet unveiled to you, and if you have not guessed it, then you may be in for a self-test, and please be honest when the test hits you between the ears and eyes.

The new phone, right here, you say, arms the potential user with a new method of immobilizing, as in putting the target to sleep, for one hours time only, and then the target is back in action as before being put to sleep without any risk or side affect other than taking a 1 hour time out.


You can't make the people bear such arms can you?

It isn't in you to let those evil people bear such arms can you?

Why, why, if, if, if, if those, you know those, those, miscreants, those little devils, those outlaws, those, those bad guys, if they had that weapon of mass destruction, why, why, why, they would abuse such POWER!

So, there needs to be strict, and very strict control of such POWER, certainly, most certainly, there has to be a law, there must be a law, to keep such POWER away from those people.


Be honest. How do you do on the test?

If you try the test on someone, watch their faces when you get to the punch line.

If anyone fails the test, anyone claiming of the need to make a law that disarms the people, then they will be confessing their infection of an abject belief in falsehood, and the only way that they can "argue" their abject belief in falsehood without question is to resort to lies, and resort to threats of violence as their ARMED employees in "government", according to those liars, those well paid liars, paid by honest working people who produce POWER worth stealing, will CONTROL your POWER to bear arms in each case, even if "THEY" have to torture and mass murder people right here in America in Houses (Vicki Weaver), Churches (Waco), in Buildings (Oklahoma, World Trade Center (3), Pentagon), Theaters, or "Public" schools, so as to make sure that the TARGETS (tax payers) are threatened and duped sufficiently to disarm themselves in mind and in spirit.

You are being dupes.

Look here:

"Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."

That is the diametric opposite of what is clearly stated in English in The Declaration of Independence.

You have been duped.

When POWER reaches near abundance The People can afford to bear arms that work effectively against criminals who take over governments.

The TRUTH is a POWER that arms the people.

What is the Amendment before the Second one?

But Joe, you are so stupid, The Constitution saves our mortal souls from the bad guys.


Look here:


"And whereas, James Wilson, an associate justice, on the 4th instant, by writing under his hand, did from evidence which had been laid before him notify to me that "in the counties of Washington and Allegany, in Pennsylvania, laws of the United States are opposed and the execution thereof obstructed by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings or by the powers vested in the marshal of that district";

"And whereas, it is in my judgment necessary under the circumstances of the case to take measures for calling forth the militia in order to suppress the combinations aforesaid, and to cause the laws to be duly executed; and I have accordingly determined so to do, feeling the deepest regret for the occasion, but withal the most solemn conviction that the essential interests of the Union demand it, that the very existence of government and the fundamental principles of social order are materially involved in the issue, and that the patriotism and firmness of all good citizens are seriously called upon, as occasions may require, to aid in the effectual suppression of so fatal a spirit;"

No, in fact The Constitution replaced The Articles of Confederation by FRAUDULENT means, and in very heated debates and skirmishes the battle for Liberty was fought ever since, including the Bill of Rights, including that Whiskey Rebellion, including The First Bank of the United States (Communist Central Bank even before Communism so where do you think the communists learned their tricks?), The Alien and Sedition Acts, the Second Bank of the United States, The War of 1812, The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, the Civil War, the Federal Reserve Act, etc.

One big happy family?

No, the crooks are among us, enemies foreign and domestic, and they lie, cheat, steal, rape, torture, and mass murder their way into POWER consistently, relentlessly, and effectively, and they mean to injure their targets and if you start out in the morning with less power and end up at the end of the day having PRODUCED more POWER, then you are a target.

Welcome home dupes.




Pandacentricism will be our downfall.


Don't care.


What could America be...

If truth were more profitable than lies?

Pandacentricism will be our downfall.

It is

Lies are only profitable for the liars, not the victims, so the net measure of "profit" for lies is negative, since the lie is merely a tool used to transfer "profit" from someone to another person, wealth distribution, it is not profitable in the sense that more power is made out of less power - unless by accident, or exception to the general rule.

Crime does not pay.

Victims pay.

Crime does not produce wealth (pay).

Victims produce pay (criminals compete with criminals) as victims produce the power that is worth stealing.

A criminal stealing from another criminal does not increase total power, total wealth, and if criminals only stole from other criminals, then who would feed the criminals?


"Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer."


Degradation of the society around the criminal...

doesn't seem to bother them.

Pandacentricism will be our downfall.

False Flags

Among the criminals are the fewer sociopaths, or psychopaths, and their sense of right and wrong is absent, and the absence of this stuff that may be called conscience is measurably absent from birth, and the measures are becoming more accurate where that is being done more accurately.

Then there are those who are born with natural born human conscience, and it may be true, I think it is true, that they are willfully destroying that power to know better from worse, and those people are then on a sliding scale into man-made, or self-made, brain damage, as if there is a moral decision made by them to become a sociopath, or pshycopath, and so the formerly human being becoming an inhuman being, in time, may construct lies along the way, and one lie may be the one you identify in your response.

I appreciate the response, and the topic.

How would you know what a liar really feels if they are well practiced in that "art" of deception?