Constitutionalism Equals Socialism!!
The governments envisioned by the Constitution and even the Declaration of Independence are both mildly socialist in nature. That is beyond dispute. All governments, ie., states, are examples of coercive collectivism. Having "a little" socialism is like being "a little pregnant". States of any kind are engines of murder, rape and robbery, as the United States has been since its earliest days. Constitutionalism doesn't move society forward, it just repeats the mistakes of the past. I think Ron Paul uses the Constitution as a symbol and a rallying point to try to create a "libertarian" coalition. I also think he also knows that the document is deeply flawed, but he seems to be devoted to trying to prevent a complete meltdown of social order in the mean time. The unraveling of society, however, is happening so quickly that no normal political process will be able to prevent it. The real beacon of light in all this comes from Thomas Jefferson, who knowingly or not, points us in the right direction. In the opening paragraph of the Declaration of Independence he wrote.
"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them,..."
Jefferson points out the obvious, the anarchist, secessionist position that everybody has (or should have) the right to politically disassociate themselves from any other person or group of persons. This is the most fundamental form of freedom, the right to freedom of association. It also follows that any group of people who would try to claim a monopoly of governance over any region of the world, or any subpart thereof, while that area contained people who objected to that monopoly, are merely a gang of criminals employing force to move their vile agenda forward. The Constitution, written by a group of slave holders and oligarchs in the 18th Century, whose aim it was to introduce a central bank and economic despotism, authorizes no legitimate claim to power that any truly free people need recognize.
I HEARTILY ACCEPT the motto, — "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe, — "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. " Henry David Thoreau
output
From Ron Paul's friend, Walter Williams.
{ excerpt } Why did the founders of our nation give us the Bill of Rights? The answer is easy. They knew Congress could not be trusted with our God-given rights. Think about it. Why in the world would they have written the First Amendment prohibiting Congress from enacting any law that abridges freedom of speech and the press? The answer is that in the absence of such a limitation Congress would abridge free speech and free press. That same distrust of Congress explains the other amendments found in our Bill of Rights protecting rights such as our rights to property, fair trial and to bear arms. The Bill of Rights should serve as a constant reminder of the deep distrust our founders had of government. They knew that some government was necessary, but they rightfully saw government as the enemy of the people and they sought to limit government and provide us with protections.
After the 1787 Constitutional Convention, there were intense ratification debates about the proposed Constitution. Both James Madison and Alexander Hamilton expressed grave reservations about Thomas Jefferson's, George Mason's and others' insistence that the Constitution be amended by the Bill of Rights. Those reservations weren't the result of a lack of concern for liberty. To the contrary, they were concerned about the loss of liberties.......more at link.
Fair Use Doctrine of International Copyright Law ©
http://www4.law.cornell.e...
When in the course of human events...
it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume amoung the powers of the earth,
the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them,...
Why don't we let it speak for itself?
*******************
It is good and proper to respect the U.S. flag, perpetuated with the blood of American heroes. It is a fatal mistake not to recognize those who wrap themselves in the same flag to cover up their crimes against the American people. ~ Sherman H. Skolnick
First, it should be said
First, it should be said that the supposition that you have presented is just that, a supposition without fully documenting the position you are taking on the Constitution. It is necessary therefore, to delve deeper into the historical thinking that went into the crafting of the Constitution, the influences of history and philosophy upon which the principles of the Constitution would rest.
It should be noted that recently there are numerous attempts to either compare the principles found within the Constitution with either “enslavement” or, as in this case, with “socialism”, both comparisons, as far as I have read, are arguments that are weak in both concept and execution. Such attempts must, or should, make everyone wonder what is actually behind such attempts, is it simply the workings of inquisitive minds or something a bit more insidious, such as the co-opting of the rEVOLution by those with motives and goals other than that of Dr. Paul. I would like to think it is simply a matter of inquisitive minds seeking healthy debate, but I take nothing for granted.
We must all recognize that each of us have a mental model of the world, our own model also includes the models of the views of others, these are influences that are inescapable; the same was true with the Founders and they were influenced by the mental models found within the writings of many notable thinkers throughout history. The Founders were well aware that the congruency of the mental models found within the writings of several historic figures would allow a proper communication of principles that they recognized as accurate and valid in respect to the type of governmental system they sought to provide to the People of this country. The Founders, when issuing the principles found within the Constitution, also realized that they would rely upon those in the future to both understand and remain faithful to those principles. They also recognized that words provide a very imperfect means of conveying actual intent or meaning; indeed they were very aware that the document they crafted was neither prefect nor was the government it created.
We do find some very interesting construction within the Constitution when the Founders used very specific and concrete words to convey broader principles, repeating at times the same principles throughout the document through the use of different specific and concrete words. This was a common practice when dealing with such vital principles in regard to individual liberty.
The principles behind the Constitution, at least as far as I have read, are unambiguous and are based, in a large part, upon centuries of writings, historical events and the political analysis of those events in relationship to the societies that rose and fell over the course of history from antiquity to the contemporary times of the Founders themselves. The majority of the Founders, except for a very few monarchist, were completely opposed to the ideals of absolutism that flourished in most of Europe and the world. Based upon their writings and letters, it is evident that they held the firm belief that government is formed to simply preserve the right to property and the rights that arise from that right, all of which were viewed as inalienable and not granted by either men or the governments they form. Locke would provide many of the greatest influences on the ideals and principles upon which the Founders used as a foundation for building this Republic; one such influence was the Lockean ideal that if any government abused the natural rights of the People instead of protecting those rights then it was the right of the People to either alter or abolish that government.
There is also evidence that several of the Founders were familiar with the essay written by Étienne de la Boétie entitled “The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude”. The Founders were well aware of the principles behind the Magna Charter, not only that, but they were readers of the writings of those such as Cato, Dante Alighieri, Thomas Gordon, Algernon Sidney, Thomas Hobbs, James Harrington, James Tyrrell, Johannes Althusius, Andrew Fletcher, Voltaire, Charles de Montesquieu, Edmund Burke, Jacques Turgot and numerous others. Thomas Jefferson’s favorite political philosopher was undoubtedly Marcus Tullius Cicero, He read the works of Alexander Pope, Publius Virgilius Maro, Publius Ovidius Naso, Titus Livius. Two of his favorite authors were Henry Saint-John, Viscount of Bolingbroke and David Hume.
Thus to propose that the Constitution can be equated with a type of socialism or collectivism must be based on supposition rather than factual information provided to us by history and the influences upon the Founders. It is only possible to make such suppositions if one has not read or either ignores the various historical writings and commentaries held in very high esteem by the Founders.
Based on the thoughts of both the Founders and those whose writings influenced them, it becomes evident that the primary principles dealing with government power and authority, at least as documented in the writings of the Founders, was: “Potestas stricte interpretatur in dubiis, non praesumitur pro potentia”, or that a power is strictly interpreted and in cases of doubt, the presumption is not in favor of a power. Now, this one principle not only provides a great deal of information about the mind of the Founders in their crafting of the Constitution, but it also denotes a very “non-collectivist” view of how American society should govern itself. Not only that, but considering that the Founders viewed this country as a Republic of Republics, all independent, free and sovereign completely negates any supposition that the Constitution was crafted in any other manner than one to promote the most individualistic society possible with the least degree of government power.
Another principle that you must confront, if you are to defend your supposition, is that the Founders fully understood and expounded the fact that delegated powers cannot be subdelegated and all powers delegated to the government, whether it was the federal government or State governments, were narrow, while all rights were broad. Additionally, there is another principle that is completely neglected and overlooked today, even here on the DP. That principle is that while the Constitution did allow certain narrow powers to regulate, that power was not delegated to provide the government with the ability or power to prohibit or regulate all modalities within society. It was little more than a power, delegated by the People in concurrent consent, to issue prescriptions intended to “regulate” or “make regular” in the sense of the good application of law without arbitrary application.
Now, concerning Dr. Paul’s understanding and obvious esteem of the Constitution there is no better place to find that then his writings and speeches on the subject.
“Article IV, section 4 of the Constitution is quite clear: "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a Republican Form of Government (emphasis added). The emphasis on democracy in our modern political discourse has no historical or constitutional basis.
In fact, the Constitution is replete with undemocratic mechanisms. The electoral college is an obvious example. Small states are represented in national elections with greater electoral power than their populations would warrant in a purely democratic system.
Similarly, sparsely populated Wyoming has the same number of senators as heavily populated New York. The result is not democratic, but the Founders knew that smaller states had to be protected against overreaching federal power. The Bill of Rights provides individuals with similar protections against the majority. The First Amendment, for example, is utterly undemocratic. It was designed to protect unpopular speech against democratic fervor. Would the same politicians so enamored with democracy be willing to give up freedom of speech if the majority chose to do so?
Our Founders instituted a republican system to protect individual rights and property rights from tyranny, regardless of whether the tyrant was a king, a monarchy, a congress, or an unelected mob. They believed that a representative government, restrained by the Bill of Rights and divided into three power sharing branches, would balance the competing interests of the population. They also knew that unbridled democracy would lead to the same kind of tyranny suffered by the colonies under King George. In other words, the Founders had no illusions about democracy. Democracy represented unlimited rule by an omnipotent majority, while a constitutionally limited republic was seen as the best system to preserve liberty. Inalienable individual liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights would be threatened by the "excesses of democracy." Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty
Again, Dr. Paul makes it very clear that he is a firm supporter of the Constitution and indeed a “Champion of the Constitution”, the following speech given by the good Dr. should be sufficient to debunk the entire idea that Dr. Paul is simply using the Constitution as a rallying point for a political purpose:
“The form of government secured by the Declaration of Independence, the American Revolution, and the Constitution is unique in history and reflects the strongly held beliefs of the American Revolutionaries.
At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results, and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished, asked him directly: "Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" "A republic if you can keep it" responded Franklin.
The term republic had a significant meaning for both of them and all early Americans. It meant a lot more than just representative government and was a form of government in stark contrast to pure democracy where the majority dictated laws and rights. And getting rid of the English monarchy was what the Revolution was all about, so a monarchy was out of the question.
The American Republic required strict limitation of government power. Those powers permitted would be precisely defined and delegated by the people, with all public officials being bound by their oath of office to uphold the Constitution. The democratic process would be limited to the election of our leaders and not used for granting special privileges to any group or individual nor for defining rights.
Federalism, the binding together loosely of the several states, would serve to prevent the concentration of power in a central government and was a crucial element in the new Republic. The authors of the Constitution wrote strict limits on the national government and strove to protect the rights and powers of the states and the people.
Dividing and keeping separate the legislative, executive, and the judiciary branches, provided the checks and balances thought needed to preserve the Republic the Constitution created and the best way to preserve individual liberty.
The American Revolutionaries clearly chose liberty over security, for their economic security and their very lives were threatened by undertaking the job of forming a new and limited government. Most would have been a lot richer and safer by sticking with the King. Economic needs or desires were not the driving force behind the early American patriotic effort.
The Revolution and subsequent Constitution settled the question as to which authority should rule man's action: the individual or the state. The authors of the Constitution clearly understood that man has free will to make personal choices and be responsible for the consequences of his own actions. Man, they knew, was not to be simply a cog in a wheel, or a single cell of an organism, or a branch of a tree, but an individual with a free will and responsibility for his eternal soul as well as his life on earth. If God could permit spiritual freedom, government certainly ought to permit the political freedom that allows one to pursue life's dreams and assume one's responsibilities. If man can achieve spiritual redemption through grace, which allows him to use the released spiritual energy to pursue man's highest and noblest goals, so should man's mind, body, and property be freed from the burdens of unchecked government authority. The Founders were confident that this would release the creative human energy required to produce the goods and services that would improve the living standards of all mankind.
Minimizing government authority over the people was critical to this endeavor. Just as the individual was key to salvation, individual effort was the key to worldly endeavors. Little doubt existed that material abundance and sustenance came from work and effort, family, friends, church, and voluntary community action, as long as government did not obstruct.
No doubts were cast as to where rights came from. They came from the Creator, and if government could not grant rights to individuals, it surely should not be able to take them away. If government could provide rights or privileges, it was reasoned, it could only occur at the expense of someone else or with the loss of personal liberty in general. Our constitutional Republic, according to our Founders, should above all else protect the rights of the minority against the abuses of an authoritarian majority. They feared democracy as much as monarchy and demanded a weak executive, a restrained court, and a handicapped legislature.
It was clearly recognized that equal justice and protection of the minority was not egalitarianism. Socialism and welfarism were never considered.
The colonists wanted to be free of the King's oppressive high taxes and burdensome regulations. It annoyed them to no end that even the trees on their own property could not be cut without the King's permission. The King kept the best trees for himself and his shipbuilding industry. This violation of property ownership prompted the colonists to use the pine tree on an early revolutionary flag to symbolize the freedom they sought.
The Constitution made it clear that the government was not to interfere with productive non-violent human energy. This is the key element that has permitted America's great achievements. It was a great plan; we should all be thankful for the bravery and wisdom of those who established this nation and secured the Constitution for us. We have been the political and economic envy of the world. We have truly been blessed. The Founders often spoke of "divine providence" and that God willed us this great nation. It has been a grand experiment, but it is important that the fundamental moral premises that underpin this nation are understood and maintained. We as Members of Congress have that responsibility.
The transition in the past hundred years from essentially no welfare to an all-encompassing welfare state represents a major change in attitude in the United States. Along with its acceptance, the promoters have dramatically reinterpreted the Constitution from the way it had been for our first 150 years. Where the general welfare clause once had a clear general meaning (which was intended to prohibit special-interest welfare, and was something they detested and revolted against under King George), it is now used to justify any demand of any group, as long as a majority in Congress votes for it.
But the history is clear and the words in the Constitution are precise. Madison and Jefferson in explaining the general welfare clause left no doubt as to its meaning.
Madison said: "With respect to the words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of power connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs not contemplated by its creators." Madison argued that there would be no purpose whatsoever for the enumeration of the particular powers if the general welfare clause was to be broadly interpreted. The Constitution granted authority to the federal government to do only 20 things, each to be carried out for the benefit of the general welfare of all the people. This understanding of the Constitution, as described by the Father of the Constitution, has been lost in this century.
Jefferson was just as clear, writing in 1798, when he said: "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but only those specifically enumerated." Ron Paul
Once again, this thread provides nothing but unsupportable supposition.
http://www.1776solution.b...
“There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.”-Adams
And right out of the gate
And right out of the gate the constitution was inadequate to the task of restraining the government because the people were not free to ignore the government that it created and at the same time live unmolested by it. And thus in a few years the shackles were firmly affixed and the United States of Lyncherdom* was rolling along under a full head of steam.
* http://people.virginia.ed...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w...
Quote "The Revolution and
Quote "The Revolution and subsequent Constitution settled the question as to which authority should rule man's action: the individual or the state. The authors of the Constitution clearly understood that man has free will to make personal choices and be responsible for the consequences of his own actions".....
Sure they did....ROTFLMAO. Man, do you really believe all this smoke and mirrors? The lies? The flounder stories? The friggin CONstitution allowed them to control everything! What do you think taxation puts you under? Freedom? Nah, it makes you a slave bub. It puts you under a forced system. The founders knew EXACTLY what they were doing. They made sure they wouldn't leave a door open anywhere, thus the supreme court. Only they have the final interpretation of what rights you have. Allowing the ruling class to make slaves out of the rest of us.
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free..
Those were the words of Dr.
Those were the words of Dr. Ron Paul in a speech given before Congress back in 2000. Ask him if he believes the "smoke and mirrors"? Ask him what he believes?
What would you suggest instead of the Constitution, are you a man of such qualities then, that you can provide us with a workable alternative to the Constitution instead of simple supposition. Can you provide the evidence to back up, based on the tone, your suppositional slur that the Founders were part of some sort of conspiratorial scheme to enslave the People of this country after risking their lives, their property and their future to wage war against the most powerful force on earth at the time. That was a huge gamble, don't you think? There were many of the Founders who lost everything, some even lost their lives.
It is also interesting to read the Debates of the Constitutional Convention, like the Articles of Confederation, there was a rather intense debate, there was no real commonality of opinion as your comment implies. In order for your comment to be true then there would have been no such debate, no need to compromise, no resistance to various platforms presented before the Constitutional Convention. Your argument follows no logical path which can lead to an accurate conclusion only supposition. You must, if your argument is to be considered valid, show the progression of such a plot to enslave the population of this country, you must also invalidate the various debates and subsequent debates, documents and private letters of the men who were involved in the crafting of the Constitutional Republic. Additionally, you must show the exact mechanisms that would intentionally negate the various checks and balances originally created, the workings of those mechanisms and how the Founders could foresee such workings, implant those workings within the original document and the intent behind them.
Additionally, the Revolution and subsequent order that was brought about by both the Articles of Confederation and then the Constitution almost completely wiped away the former governing "elite" within this country. On whole nearly 77% of those who once held power and sway were ousted, in some States, the percentages were much higher.
Concerning the method of taxation, it was far different than the method employed today, as you should know, it was based on the principle of concurrent apportionment and was an indirect tax, not a tax on the people in terms of income tax. Additionally, the ratification process was very public, it was not done behind closed doors, the State legislators, elected by the People of each of the Several States, voted to either ratify or not ratify, based upon the desires of the People of the individual States. Strange, but that does not smack of some back-room scheme dreamed up by a few "elitists".
Again, do you have an answer? Can you reach beyond your mental model of the world and spell out a solution that exceeds those crafted by the Founders, who were well aware of the flaws within the Constitution, by the way. Not only that, but the Founders continually warned us that the Constitution could not protect us any more than it would allow or disallow government actions since governments are made up of men. We, the People are the Protectors of our own Liberty, the Constitution was crafted as a well-drawn out plan to assist us in that protection. I find it odd that people continually place blame on a document when the blame rests within We, the People for our own complacency and resulting compliance.
Additionally, the Founders had amble opportunity to install a government that was not Constitutional if that was indeed their intent. There was many who sought to install Washington as King, there were even negotiations between the president of the Congress under the Articles of Confederation, to invite Prince Henry of Prussia to be King and rule over the country as a kingdom. So, in order for your supposition to hold water it must show where they took such an opportunity to install something that held the guise of a Liberty based government but that was, in reality, something heinous and corrupt. You have yet to actually show such evidence, either on this thread or others you have commented upon on this subject. It is one thing to continue with supposition after supposition, as you have, but it is another thing entirely to actually provide something of substance beyond supposition; unfortunately you have only provided the former while avoiding the latter.
It is obvious that you have found your scape-goat however, the Constitution has never been the problem as you make it out to be, the problem, once again, rests within the minds of the People, within all of us and that is the proper place to lay blame, not on an inanimate document. I am always amazed at the illogical aspects of the casting of such blame, particularly when it involves either the long dead or an object which, logically can bear no blame since blame is conditionally purely human.
http://www.1776solution.b...
“There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.”-Adams
You pown
I wish I could subscribe to your posts.
I am awestruck by the volume
I am awestruck by the volume and level of detail of your post. You make a very good case for the rich historical foundation for the framer's thinking. However, just because they drew on the thinking of intellectual giants who came before them does nothing to vitiate the fact that the end result gives us a government that relies on an exclusive territorial monopoly and which seeks to govern peaceful people who would have nothing to do with it if left free to choose.
A few words about my relations to Ron Paul:
I have great admiration for the good doctor. I was a Libertarian Party member when he ran for president on their ticket and supported him then. I sent him money in 2007 & 2008. In the recent campaign I maintained a 4' x 8' campaign sign at my residence, which is on the main street of my little town, and I battled the local authorities (who are all party lock-step republicans) when they told me a local ordinance forbid my display of the sign. I worked for the campaign locally and I made the trip Iowa to work at the republican caucuses. I also attended the 2008, July 12 REVOLUTION March on DC. I believe that Ron Paul is the best thing that has happened to the freedom movement in many years.
That said, I believe that government is best which governs least, but I firmly believe that government, in the form of the state, is ultimately incompatible with individual liberty. When you can show me a constitution that does not presume to govern with a monopoly over a geographic territory or over a population that includes people who do not willingly accept its diktats I will be able to recognize that constitution as one that is not based on coercion and gun-barrel collectivism.
By all means please read my
By all means please read my comment below on the subject of both the Constitution and the Articles of Confederation. Here is the direct link to that comment.
http://www.dailypaul.com/...
P.S. When you can provide me with an actual working alternative to the Constitutional Republic, as envisioned by the Founders, based not only supposition, but upon actual factual information regarding how the Constitution equals Socialism then I might be more inclined to listen to what you have to say on the subject however, as yet, you provide no such factual information, only supposition once again.
http://www.1776solution.b...
“There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.”-Adams
I am awestruck by the blindness..
with which you observe concerning present circumstances. It has become clear that many here who argue against the Constitution provide little information as to optional formulation of society other than the leap from socialism to anarchy. A description of that bridge would be helpful because I just can't see it. Possibly there is a recipe out there that will draw others from the "nanny state" directly into individual sovereignty, but I have yet to be presented this evidence. I am not arguing against the freedom of the individual, but against the absence of plan I find in many of these arguments against the effectiveness of the Constitution to provide structure for the sovereign individual. To me this is an argument out of time. Reigning in the federal government from it's breach of jurisdiction seems most important before any discussion of removal of government can occur. It is rather simple and misguiding to believe that a people who cannot follow the Constitution will follow the ideal of anarchy. It is like expecting a caterpillar to fly before the intercession of the cocoon. One may wade through the morass of society to deliver a message, but if it is intelligible because the concepts are foreign, the message and effort {edit: are of little} of value.
Assert Your Authority
Fabulae!
Reublicae! Your'e awesome!
"The Constitution made it clear that the government was not to
interfere with productive non-violent human energy."
Beautiful. A Daily Paul classic!
I love
Reading your posts. Very informative.
$1000.00 socialist
When do you want my address ?
REMEMBER comrad , share the wealth.
*They have to do it LEGALLY
Good people make the difference, you-no
you know
Socialism is the most ideal form of government we could have. However, we as a species have not yet evolved enough for it to work. Until then, capitalism is the fairest/best option.
Socialism is little more
Socialism is little more than a form of economic and therefore, political servitude to the State. It is a horrible system of economic manipulation that completely destroys the foundations of freedom and individual liberty.
http://www.1776solution.b...
“There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.”-Adams
Do you know
that socialism and capitalism are not forms of government? They are economic systems. I have to disagree with your thoughts on socialism being the most ideal form of economic system too.
Everybody should own 100% of the friuts of his own labor, otherwise he is a slave to some degree.
Ideally, in a utopian world, we would be able to share our own fruits with whomever we wish to share them with without having them taken away by force (guns and jail). This is the opposite of socialism.
well
We have not even made it to socialism. Socialism is the transitional phase until we reach that utopia you are referring to. As far as keeping 100% of your fruits, socialists advocate the creation of a society in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly based on the amount of work expended in production. Where as capitalism concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital, creates an unequal society, and does not provide equal opportunities for everyone in society.
But, like I said we have not yet evolved enough for this to work. The people in power want to own everything and we want to have more than our neighbor. Almost all of humanity is eaten up with greed. And yes, you are correct socialism is an economic system but, it is a system advocating state or cooperative ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. That sounds like government to me. However, I ask myself do I really want the people that are in power now to have that kind of power? Hell no. I would rather wipe the slate clean and have a fresh start. I think the constitution would give us an excellent frame work to start with.
Let me put all of this another way
If Christ actually comes back and rules for a thousand years, I think it would be a socialist type structure. Think about the definition of socialism and think about Christ being the head of this structure. In those terms it would work. If I were face to face with any of you I could express myself to the point you would understand what I am trying to say. My chicken pecking limits me to what I'm willing to type. I can promise you this, I am not your enemy. I am all for capitalism until some benevolent creature can come down and help us out. Let's face it, our track record with any system has been abysmally awful. We had a great start in this country but have since screwed it up.
I strongly suggest you read
"Socialism is the most ideal form of government we could have. However, we as a species have not yet evolved enough for it to work." rodowers
I strongly suggest you read some of the works of such notable Fabian Socialists as Bernard Shaw, H.G. Wells, Sidney Webb, G.D.H. Cole, Graham Wallas and then tell me that Socialism should be a goal of any of us here who value Individual Liberty and Freedom. In the works of those Socialist Ideologues you will find that height of Socialistic thought and theory. After you read their works then by all means come back to defend such heinous of ideologies.
http://www.1776solution.b...
“There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.”-Adams
Wrong!
"Where as capitalism concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital, creates an unequal society, and does not provide equal opportunities for everyone in society."
You have things backwards. Capitalism is decentralized, do not confuse it with corporatism or soft fascism.
"Government spending cannot create additional jobs. If the government provides the funds required by taxing the citizens or by borrowing from the public, it abolishes on the one hand as many jobs as it creates on the other.", www.mises.org
well,
were has capitalism lead us? It has always lead to corporatism or soft fascism. Socialism sounds good to me on paper. I understand that it has not yet worked.
We have not seen true free
We have not seen true free market capitalism since at least the 1860s. Actually, it was not capitalism that lead to corporatism or soft fascism, on the contrary, capitalism had to be morphed by government intervention in order to replace the restraining limitations produced by free market capitalism on government with a more advantageous economic system for the government and its politically connected elite, that system is one of corporate socialism. Like all socialistic systems, it provides for a managing elite, those who are considered to be of a higher caliber of humanity, to govern the masses with an "eqalitarian" standard. This socialism, like any other, only provides the equality of wide-spread poverty through the inability of the system to adequately distribute resources, production and labor. Socialism, of any stripe, always defies the principles that govern economic mobility therefore, it becomes necessary for government to attempt to replace those principles with edict, regulation, coercion and force. Socialism has not worked yet because socialism cannot work, eventually the system will collapse due to the problems associated with economic calculation problems within its managed and manipulated system.
http://www.1776solution.b...
“There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.”-Adams
The reason why capitalism is not working
is because of the corruptness of our elected officials. Whether by legal or illegal elections, they are there. Their special interests are energy, fuel, insurance, pharmacy and FDA. As long as these evil doers are in office, capitalism does not work to it's optimum. But your comments are a prime example of the brainwashing of the masses, whereas we must let the government control our food, money, business and so forth to "save us" from the corruptness of those institutions that have "deceived us". Where all along, those institutions and elected officials have been bedding each other for decades. Capitalism does work, but under the auspice of a free marketplace and just government. Our legal system was put in place to sue those corporations that are unjust, not to ask big daddy government to take over and "keep us safe".
+...Pray for Your Enemies and Moral Courage for Righteous Leaders, so that Justice Will Be Delivered to the Innocent...+
Capitalism does not
Capitalism does not concentrate wealth in the hands of the few- socialism, fascism, and corporatism achieve that. Socialism will only make everyone equally poor and starving. Look up the calculation debate regarding socialism with Ludwig Von Mises. He's shown that not only is a socialist economy undesirable- but it is IMPOSSIBLE.
A free market system
A free market system is the most fair system that naturally keeps the wealth evenly distributed by not allowing the State to endow special favors for their special interest groups.
Taking money by force (guns and jail) from one group of people and giving it to politicians to distrubute to their favorite groups is not fair and is basically legal plunder.
Robbing from Peter to pay Paul is stealing.
When the State gets involved in redistributing the wealth the direction of the redistribution will tend to be go towards the group of people that benefit the politicians the most. This is the group with the money and the power. Therefore, your descriptions of the different systems is exactly backwards.
Believe me I worked with
Believe me I worked with people who did not produce nearly as much as others & they got paid the same = SOCIALISM..STINKS.
*They have to do it LEGALLY
Good people make the difference, you-no
Socialists advocate the
Socialists advocate the creation of a society in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly based on the "amount" of work expended in production. So if you contribute very little, you receive very little in return. And I do agree socialism in practice stinks, it has never worked. I'm just saying, in theory it sounds good to me, but in reality it does not work.
The free market actually
The free market actually does what Socialism cannot do, unlike Socialism, free market capitalism distributes wealth and power based on the amount of work or creativity that is extended in production. If you contribute very little then you receive very little in return. Socialism is not based on that at all, but on government intervention into the markets, resource management with production and pricing controlled, wages controlled...all of which produces their egalitarian ideal of a level and equal standard where no one is above or below another, at least in the lower echelons of the working productive serfdom. As always, the management class enjoys the fruit of the labor of those "underlings" who are productive.
http://www.1776solution.b...
“There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.”-Adams
Oh
I would also like to mention, that I would much rather make a declaration of independence rather than go back to the constitution. Trying to work backwards is much harder than starting anew. Ever try to remodel an old home or restore an antique car? They are at least twice the work
What foreign country are you
What foreign country are you living in or are you enjoying the fruits of Capitalism from the past accomplishments of America ?I have never heard that all the socialist countrys gave a dime to American Capitalist system..They only TAKE ..Spread the WEALTH is not the message broadcast from any other Country except those which want our wealth spread their way. Since you are a socialist I could use $1000. please forward as soon as possible .
*They have to do it LEGALLY
Good people make the difference, you-no
I don't think you get it.
You wrote snip: "The Constitution, written by a group of slave holders and oligarchs in the 18th Century, whose aim it was to introduce a central bank and economic despotism, authorizes no legitimate claim to power that any truly free people need recognize." { end snip }
Yes a few of them had slaves or indentured servants, but that was a carry over from the British and the rest of the world. If you had inherited a plantation and slaves to run it, would you free them so someone else could capture them and sell them,,,and leave you to do the farm work by yourself?
I didn't think so.
Here is what happened to them:
Another snip: "Have you ever wondered what happened to the 56 men who signed
The Declaration of Independence ?
Five signers were captured by the British as traitors,
and tortured before they died.
Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned.
Two lost their sons serving in the Revolutionary Army;
another had two sons captured.
Nine of the 56 fought and died20from wounds or
hardships of the Revolutionary War.
They signed and they pledged their lives, their fortunes,
and their sacred honor.
What kind of men were they?
Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists.
Eleven were merchants.
Nine were farmers and large plantation owners;
men of means, well educated,
but they signed the Declaration of Independence
knowing full well that the penalty would be death if
they were captured.
********************************************************************************
Hamilton was the only one who wanted a central bank and he also paid the price for that with his life from the gun of another early patriot.
As far as free people, Americans of today don't even realize exactly what made them free.
It was full control of the "POWER" of money which was in the hands of the people not a central bank, this means that if you or me saved enough Gold/Silver I could open my own bank, which many people did.
Just like any other business some failed.
The J.P. Morgans, Rothschilds, Senator Nelson Aldrich, and the rest of the banking gang that started the Federal Reserve in 1913 simply wanted and received a "MONOPOLY" on banking from the dumbed down Legislators of 1913.
The founders gave you and I real Freedom when they ratified the Constitution in 1791 after 16 years of deliberation, the very first country in the world to limit the power of government.
Please do some more truthful Constitutional homework.
Happy Fourth Of July !!!
Hamilton.....
Hamilton and John Adams as well as even James Madison fought the Zionist British colonizers back then as well, right there during the revolutionary war.
They fought these men like Lord Norrington and Aldrich Ames I believe and they also fought General Cornwallis. The same exact traitorous bankers which we are still fighting today.
We are the rugged, the descendants of our forefathers and little has changed....The Zionists/Globalists are still here trying to force their economic slavery on the people, still trying to ruin the Jews & Christains and take over the world - and still trying to convince their progenitors that the best way to have prosperity is to steal it & frankly shove it into a giant gambling ponzi scheme of rotating fraud.
That, by those words is a Federal Reserve..
More on Hamilton the banker.
Hamilton was a British subject of King George and an astute banker.
Here is a video that mentions who Hamilton worked for:
http://www.youtube.com/wa...
Since I wasn't alive at the time I can only guess that this is authentic.
Yeah Hamilton was one of them in fact....
I got him mixed up with Madison.
Hamilton was part of the force trying to destroy this country.
Madison fought them in the war, much about this has not changed either...
GEE I thought the
GEE I thought the Constitution was written to help guarantee my rights to be Independant ?? How about You ??
*They have to do it LEGALLY
Good people make the difference, you-no
Actually the constitution
Actually the constitution was written to create a strong central government so a central bank could be established and taxes imposed to fund it. The delegates violated the instructions from their respective states which ordered them not to replace the Articles of Confederation with any new document.
I have yet to find anywhere
I have yet to find anywhere within the Constitution or the ancillary documents supporting the Constitution that promotes a strong central government. The idea of a centralized government, along with centralized banking, did not originate with the Constitution, but with the doctrine of "implied powers" propagated by Hamilton and The Federalist Party which, by the way, was anything but federalist in concept. Also, if you actually take the time to research the matter you will find that there were numerous opposing forces and ideas within this country prior to the Declaration, during the War, during the ratification of the Articles, as well as the Constitution. Once the Convention began there quickly arose various opinions with very little agreement, it was not a concerted effort on the part of all the Founders to create a government, as you imply, that would be centralized, nor was it the intent to create a central bank to fund the government. The intent was to create a system that would be able to sustain itself while providing the greatest degree of individual Liberty with the least amount of government intervention and that did indeed take place. The massive debt that accumulated during the War was a fantastic tool in the hands of those ultra-nationalists, such as Hamilton and Morris, who sought to steer this country toward either a very strong centralized nation government with only a national Constitution or those, like Jefferson and most of the anti-federalist who sought to maintain a Republic of Free and Independent State Republics, which happened until it was subverted and consolidated by force of arms under Lincoln in 1861.
So, did the Founders, in crafting the Constitution, illegally dismantle the Articles of Confederation contrary to the instructions given to the delegates by their individual States? To understand what was happening in this country under the Articles we must look at a history that is rarely mentioned and that is of the various influences within this country that adeptly used the insufficiencies within the Articles to their political advantage, many of these forces could be considered “nationalists”, but among these were also “Tories” and, in particular, land speculators which were using their power to implement both a political and economic agenda that would completely distort the principles behind the Declaration of Independence and the Revolution that emanated from that Declaration.
Remember, there was a concerted effort prior to the ratification process of the Articles of Confederation for the larger states to agree to relinquish all claims on massive tracts of land in what was considered the “West” and the Articles, you notice, were not ratified until those concessions were made. This allowed for a huge amount of land speculation to take place unabated without any real oversight by any government body, including the States that made the concessions of that land. Congress Assembled, under the Articles was powerless in some respects, but in respect to the degree that corruption could take place unabated it held sway in ways that we would cringe at today. We think Congress is corrupt now, you should read what took place under the Articles of Confederation.
There were some extreme nationalists who sought to create a centralized government that could operate more like a monarchy, fortunately the then General George Washington resisted the schemes of the ultra-nationalists. Even in the those early years it was already recognized, by many, that the proposed Articles needed to be revised if the power of the nationalists was to be abated, for there was nothing in the Articles that provided any checks or balances on power. Under the Articles, most of the property abandoned by the Tories or Loyalists was “confiscated” by both those in the military and some who were newly appointed to Congress. Corruption was flourishing for there was little to prevent such corruption. During the period under the Articles of Confederation there was no protection provided for private contracts, there was a growing push by States to legislate restrictions on trade, there was a growing degree of influences from foreign governments within the States and most foreign countries did not take the American government seriously enough to place any reliance upon any decision that came from Congress; after all, Congress has pretty much repudiated the country’s foreign debt by repaying it in what amounted to worthless fiat paper currency. There were internal social dislocations within the country and growing disturbances, so much so that in 1786, Nathan Gorham, the president of Congress Assembled at the time, was deeply involved in negotiations with Baron von Steuben. These negotiations involved an invitation to Prince Henry of Prussia to rule America.
“At this period America has it in her power to adopt either of the following modes of government: She may dissolve the individual sovereignty of the States, and become one consolidated empire; she may be divided into thirteen separate, independent and unconnected commonwealths; she may be erected into two or more confederacies; or, lastly, she may become one comprehensive Federal Republic.” James Wilson at the Constitutional Convention.
Under the Articles there was absolutely no proper restraint upon the States to avoid either the concentration of power or the abuse of power, it was becoming very evident to many, that there was a type of majoritarianism forming within some of the State legislatures that would provide some very special and powerful special interests with a platform for their particular agenda and not only on a State level, but on a vast scale that would influence the country and negatively effect the ability of the People to actually pursue Life, Liberty and Happiness proposed by the Declaration of Independence.
The Articles did not provide for the protection of what we now consider the most fundamental and inalienable rights. There were many States which provided no real protections for property rights, speech, the press or religion. In fact, many of the States retained their religious qualifications for various government positions within the State which disavowed any hint of actual religious freedom or freedom of speech for that matter.
While the Constitution is far from perfect, it provides what is perhaps one of the most protective constructions of government for the People and has provided those protections, to one degree or another, for generations. In light of the insufficiencies of the Articles of Confederation it should be noted that the Constitution can be considered a good alternative to the extreme nationalists on one side and the extreme majoritarianism that would have eventually stemmed from the lack of protection provided by the Articles of Confederation.
Today, we face no less of a threat to our Liberty and property rights than they did in the 1780s, like that period, the State legislatures are, for the most part, almost as intrusive upon the rights of the People as they were under the Articles of Confederation. The Founders, at least many of them, were concerned with the usurpation of power and authority and they witness such usurpation under the Articles, it was necessary therefore, to provide an adequate system, though flawed and imperfect, of checks and balances that were simply lacking from the Articles of Confederation. For the most part, the Constitution, while bruised and battered, has maintained, to a large degree, a check on both unbridled corruption and the usurpation of power, such cannot be said for very many governments or the constitutions that created them.
While I am not completely happy with the way the Constitution has been manipulated, I realize that it is not the Constitution that is the problem, but the men and women within and without the government, including ourselves who are the problem.
http://www.1776solution.b...
“There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.”-Adams
Wrong ! Wrong ! Wrong !
Are you English, or an Obama supporter?
The Constitution was written to "LIMIT" the power of government, once it was ratified.
The Articles of Confederation were only "TEMPORARY" guidelines that were discarded once the Constitution was fully ratified in 1791, as the Constitution became the "SUPREME" Law of the Land ! { Article V I in 1787 }
Giving the POWER to the people was putting the law into the Constitution that ONLY Gold and Silver can be used in the 13 colonies.
This insured that the wealth created was wide spread throughout the 13 colonies, and later the additional states.
It says nothing about a central bank and demands that the Treasury under the supervision of an honestly elected congress spend money from excises imposed { Excises-;a tax levied on manufacturing, sale or consumption, of a commodity within a country } ( This clearly states that profitable companies or farms ONLY will pay taxes ! No personal income tax is mentioned and the tax that is mentioned in the Article I section 8 applies to ""FOREIGN"" people doing business in the country only,,,please look up the original tax laws. )
The delegates didn't violate anything they created a NEW document that superseded the Articles of Confederation !
I'm pretty sure Dr. Paul could verify all this, after all,apparently he and Edwin Vieira are the only Constitutional experts still alive....the other so called Constitutional lawyers twist the original intent of the Constitution, in my opinion !!!!
Anarchy like Socialism
Only works in small communities where people do it voluntarily and in the imaginations of people removed from the real world.
If you do not like my constitution you are free to leave, find a new place and make your own government.
Even Anarchy is a political system. It is a bunch of people agreeing not to make rules. But what if a person wants rules, must he then be forced to live with out rules? Therefore Anarchy is socialistic.
Q: "But what if a person
Q: "But what if a person wants rules, must he then be forced to live with out rules?"
A: Depends on who he wants his rules to govern. He is free to make all the rules he wants to govern himself, but usually what he wants are rules to govern others, whether they like it or not. To rule others must be one of the Unalienable Rights.
"If you do not like my constitution you are free to leave, find a new place and make your own government."
This is a prime example of the small minded authoritarian collectivism that is the leading threat to liberty today. Why don't all of the people like you work things out under "your constitution" and leave the rest of us peaceful folks alone?
Let's see, if 51% of 42% of the total population vote for a thing then they can rule 100% of their fellow citizens
You are deeply confused
The constitution protects us from majority vote.
I am more than happy to leave you alone once you stop attacking our Constitution. What you just attempted to is equivalent to walking up to guy bigger than you, punching him the face and complain because he kicks the crap out of you. You attacked and you got refuted.
The Constitution protects Unalienable rights. One of those rights is the right for you to declare your sovereignty. So take my advice find a place, move their and declare your sovereignty and stop attacking.
The Constitution declares a
The Constitution declares a monopoly of one government for all the people in the geographic area of what we call the United States. I don't know any living person who voted for that. Clearly this violates the most fundamental rights of freedom of association and freedom of self-determination.
Why can't people who love the Constitution band together and sign a contract to live by its terms and leave others alone? But no, under this model of coercion everybody has to be dragged along and forced to endure the monopoly, which of course is the root of all the troubles we face today.
National health care will be modeled on the same half-baked collectivist reasoning. Instead of putting together a voluntary pool of people who want the same kind of care, a one-size-fits-all plan will be forced on all and people who complain will be told to get out of the country if they don't like it.
Well Said Big T
We need strength in numbers while still honoring individual rights.
Then go ahead.
Disassociate yourself and declare sovereignty.
You have the right.
What do you need us for?
Do it.
You're an individual that can do as you want.
What's stopping you?
Are you waiting for somebody to give it to you, or what?
Oh, you mean you can't do it all by yourself?
Why not?
Isn't this a good place for
Isn't this a good place for a robust exchange of ideas about liberty? I mean constitutionalism is folly. It's religion dressed up as reason. By continuing to vote and support politicians you are propping up the system. I'm trying to spread the message and possibly save lives, especially my own!.
By the way, Ron Paul favorably quotes Thoreau and considers Lew Rockwell one of his best friends. He also considers the late Murray Rothbard, the anarcho-capitalist economist, as one of his most important intellectual influences. Pretty anarchistic if you ask me. I think Paul is just working the system while planting the seeds for a stateless society.
So if Ron Paul says: "I am a Champion of the Constitution"...
...he's a stand-up guy.
But if a Ron Paul supporter says: "I am a Champion of the Constitution" then he's a socialist douche-bag right?
Whatever Mr Troll.
"I believe the true significance of the Gold Commission is that the politicians and central bankers were so alarmed at such a thing that they made sure it was packed by an array of Keynesians and monetarists." (Ron Paul 1985)
Sure.
But, you already have "the right".
What you lack is the ability to assert your right, and defend it.
The founders asserted their independence, and backed it up when the British tried to stop them.
They won it, and have defended it since then.
So, they have the rights they won and could defend.
When you can do the same, you can have what you want.
But you can't, so you don't.
Stupidity equals ignorance.
Thoreau lived off of the generosity of others. I loved "Walden", but the guy was a hypocrite just like most of the rest of us. In other words Walden preached anarchy but was a socialist-leech in reality. Socialists think everything you work for belongs to everyone else. You don't deserve anything you work for, how silly of you to think it should. It belongs to whoever the government wants to give it too, Thoreau (like many others) simply thought we should delete the government. In other words they are quite willing to take without anyone's permission, especially the person who worked for something.
demolay...
we just might have a lot in common. I was never a great Thoreau fan either. There's something about a fellow who lived by the pond a the end of the road and ate Sunday dinner with his mother, all the while writing as if he'd been on the frontier, devoid of human contact for months and years. That may be an exaggeration, but I think you might pick up on the irony of that situation. I do, however, like Emerson's "Self Reliance"
Assert Your Authority