Dirt poor?

[Radar]

If though, for a minute I follow the monetarists line, it has been well proven that targetting that relationship has been a failure and as I said, Milton Friedman himself agreed only last year.

Friedman has said trying to return America to a fiat based standard has been unsuccessful. Mostly due to the uneducated people who think "managed inflation" is a good thing. I'd take deflation if it meant we'd have something other than the worthless promises of private bankers and government to back our money and so would Mr. Friedman.

You've chosen to live in a democratic state where clearly the majority support income tax, if they didn't they'd vote in someone who didn't.

Bullshit. People are under the impression that they have no power with regard to getting rid of it, and many think if they didn't get government handouts, they wouldn't be able to survive (see some of the Cellar posters).

It doesn't matter if every single person other than myself chooses to take my income, it doesn't give them a right to take it. Democracy does not make right. One person's rights are more important than the desires of a billion people.

By making that choice (and noone's putting a gun to your head are they), you choose to accept that nation's laws.

Yes someone is putting a gun to my head. The government is saying they will rob me and if I resist, men with guns will come to take me away. You still have not proven any difference between being robbed by a gang of thugs and income taxation. It doesn't matter if there are 250 million people and they call their gang "government", it's still robbery and you can't escape that fact.

The following sentence is the biggest joke of all...

Whether or not the constitution allows it or not is utterly irrelevant.

LOL

Nothing could be more relevant. I am under NO OBLIGATION WHAT-SO-EVER to follow unconstitutional laws PERIOD. (see Marbury vs. Madison).

Don't like it move somewhere that suits you, don't try and claim it's moral to overthrow a democratically elected state because YOU don't like the laws.

I don't like it and I am not leaving. I will spill blood to return America to the Constitutional republic we started with. I mean that with all sincerity and honesty. YOU stop acting like something is morally correct just because it was voted on in a democracy.

Let's say 51% of the population has dark hair and the other 49% have light hair. In your twisted and warped view, it would be perfectly ok if the 51% voted to steal everything from the 49%, and execute them because it was a democracy and they voted on it. But the simple and inescapable truth is the 51% or even 99.9999% of the population has no authority or right to even bring it up for a vote. It's not up for discussion. Human rights are unalienable and as immutable as gravity. You can't vote on whether or not you have a right to steal someone else's property, and to suggest you can is beyond stupidity.

Hey I suppose the majority of the people on your block decided your house would look better painted with purple and orange stripes, you would go ahead and paint it that way right? Because a majority said you must. DUH!!! What if they voted and said you must shave your head? Would you comply? No. Why? Because nobody on earth (including the combined population of earth) has any authority or right to tell you what you must or must not do with your hair, or your body, or the fruits of your labor.

Don't like it? Move the hell out of MY country to somewhere that wasn't based on natural law and natural rights. But America was, so move it.

If anyone stands in the way of my plan of eliminating every single unconstitutional part of government and returning America to a Constitutional republic, I will kill them without a second thought in the defense of my rights, and the rights of other Americans. Some Americans might not want to be personally responsible for their lives, and they are free to ask someone to run it for them. I'm sure they will find no shortage of volunteers, but I will not allow anyone, no matter how great the majority...and for the record the majority of Americans DO NOT support income taxes and would gladly stop paying them today if they weren't scared of being jailed for doing so.....in other words extortion.

Go ahead, try to make me sound like a whacko because I said I'd kill in my own defense and the defense of my country. I know what you'll do before you do.

[Brigliadore]

Originally posted by Radar
I will spill blood to return America to the Constitutional republic we started with.

Originally posted by Radar
If anyone stands in the way of my plan of eliminating every single unconstitutional part of government and returning America to a Constitutional republic, I will kill them without a second thought in the defense of my rights, and the rights of other Americans.

So what you are saying is any free American who doesn't believe in what you believe in deserves to die? So how does this make you any better then the current government? You are real big on saying how bad the government is because they are "putting a gun to your head" and making you pay taxes, but then you go on to say you will kill anyone who doesn't go along with your ideas. How does that make any sense?

Originally posted by Radar
Go ahead, try to make me sound like a whacko because I said I'd kill in my own defense and the defense of my country.

I don't think anyone needs to "try" and make you sound like a wacko, your doing just fine all on your own.

[Radar]

So what you are saying is any free American who doesn't believe in what you believe in deserves to die? So how does this make you any better then the current government? You are real big on saying how bad the government is because they are "putting a gun to your head" and making you pay taxes, but then you go on to say you will kill anyone who doesn't go along with your ideas. How does that make any sense?

My ideas are not mine alone. They are the ideals this nation was founded on. In essence they are EVERYTHING that is American. Others are free to believe anything they choose, but if they act on those beliefs and try to steal what I have earned I will kill in the defense of myself, my property, my loved ones, and my country. Notice I used the word DEFENSE. It is THEY who are the ones INITIATING violence to rob me, and my countrymen. I would only respond with violence in defense. It makes sense to use violence in your defense when others are using it to rob you.

I fully support your right to believe anything you choose, but if you try to legislate the theft of my property, you will face the consequences associated with stealing from me. If the government of America suddenly made a law that said nobody would be allowed to leave the country and that your family must be killed for an arbitrary reason such as your hair color. Would you happily march into the ovens or would you kill those who attempted to harm you? This is no different. Our property is an extension of ourselves. It is the result of our labor which is part of our body. Violating our property is no different than violating our persons.

I don't think anyone needs to "try" and make you sound like a wacko, your doing just fine all on your own.

The funny part is I'm one of very few on this thread that doesn't sound like a whacko.

[ladysycamore]

Originally posted by Brigliadore

I don't think anyone needs to "try" and make you sound like a wacko, your doing just fine all on your own.

For real! I thought he was all about not infringing on the rights of others, but he's ready to shoot to kill the first person that dares to disagree with his views...nice.

Yep..."person of interest", indeed. Typical madness.

[lumberjim]

i'll not pretend that i have read the entire thread.....yet...i will eventually, but having seen this debate take place before, I'd like to add a little something.

Radar is NOT nuts. his views are right on. what he says about the PHILOSOPHY of Libertarianism is unarguably true.

What I see is a tendency to argue his point to the extreme. If this country had stayed true to the core beliefs espoused in the constitution from the beginning, we would all be libertarians. However, the practical application of changing what we have today back to what we SHOULD HAVE HAD is impractical and potentially catastrophic. This does not give us the right to shout the man down when he points out glaring deviances of our current systems. If he seems like a whacko to you, that's fine, but keep in mind, without people like Radar, we would all be led around by our noses because we dont care enough to risk our personal images and the comfort of knowing that we play well with others. Hell, we'd still be English...and I know no one wants that, right?

I say...radar, keep calling foul if you see foul...but....I hope that if you really DO have political aspriations, you can appreciate the positions of those that would argue with you, and realize that when you make extreme statements, you damage your credibility. It's a fine line to walk, being an activist and not a nutter.

I give you points for your passion if nothing else.

[Undertoad]

I'll further debate that things were "more free" at an earlier time of the nation. That's one of those things that's simply untrue at its face by modern standards, for example; how could you say it was "more free" when slavery existed or before women got the vote? More free for some, incredibly unfree for others? How can any real legitimate comparison be made between such different periods of history?

Is strict constitutionalism "better" when it encourages things like prohibition to be written into the national document?

Originally posted by Radar



If anyone stands in the way of my plan of eliminating every single unconstitutional part of government and returning America to a Constitutional republic, I will kill them without a second thought in the defense of my rights, and the rights of other Americans. Some Americans might not want to be personally responsible for their lives, and they are free to ask someone to run it for them ... Go ahead, try to make me sound like a whacko because I said I'd kill in my own defense and the defense of my country. I know what you'll do before you do.

Hey, sounds like the voice of calm reason to me. There's plenty of precedent for people killing those who don't agree with them. Pol Pot killed intellectuals, Hitler killed Jews, Stalin killed quite a few dissidents.

If you are an example of what Libertarian thought is all about, I think Homeland Security should be notified about you and any potential followers you might have in your Libertarian cult. It is pointless to argue with a homicidal maniac. I hope for your own safety, and, most especially for the safety of others, that you are locked up quickly.

No, you don't have the faintest idea what I will do. You are, to put it bluntly, gone mad. God help you.

[Troubleshooter]

Ok, Marbury vs. Madison keeps getting slung around here like a lariat so I went and read it. Anybody else with some time on their hands and an interest can go look here:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...vol=5&page=137

Near as I can tell, MvM refers to the act of judicial review and the constitutionality of laws.

One question arises. Is anyone here a judge or assciated with the judiciary in any way?

[BrianR]

I stood in front of one once for a parking ticket I shouldn't have gotten. He dismissed the ticket.

Does that count?

[Troubleshooter]

Originally posted by BrianR
I stood in front of one once for a parking ticket I shouldn't have gotten. He dismissed the ticket.

Does that count?

No, that just means that you're lucky.

[jaguar]

First of all, a right not to be subject to income tax is not in the goddamn bill of huamn rights, we're not talking about fucking genocide here, it's tax.

Friedman has said trying to return America to a fiat based standard has been unsuccessful. Mostly due to the uneducated people who think "managed inflation" is a good thing. I'd take deflation if it meant we'd have something other than the worthless promises of private bankers and government to back our money and so would Mr. Friedman.

Jesus fucking christ.
Read.

'The use of quantity of money as a target has not been a success.' He added: 'I'm not sure I would as of today push it as hard as I once did.' (FT, 7 June 2003).

Bullshit. People are under the impression that they have no power with regard to getting rid of it, and many think if they didn't get government handouts, they wouldn't be able to survive (see some of the Cellar posters).

People can vote. People can vote for someone that doesn't support income tax. End of fucking story. The fact they don't, and reasons why is irrelevent, if they want, they can, they don't. Adovacting doing it with a means you clearly think YOUR view is more important than everyone else's, thus really, you have no right to call yourself someone that beleives in a democratic state. Democracy doesn't go for 'right' because one persons right is another's wrong. It goes for the platform the majority of people support, thus reflecting what the majority think is right. Not perfect but it could be a lot worse. We could be living under a dictator who thinks that taxation is more important than human life.

[Radar]

Is strict constitutionalism "better" when it encourages things like prohibition to be written into the national document?

Strict Constitutionalism doesn't allow the government to exceed its legitimate authority by prohibiting what people do or don't choose to consume. Strict Constitutionalism never includes using the Constitution to limit rights, only to limit the powers of government.

I hope for your own safety, and, most especially for the safety of others, that you are locked up quickly.

I hope for the safety of my country idiots like you are sent packing to socialist countries where your twisted views will be more accepted.

One question arises. Is anyone here a judge or assciated with the judiciary in any way?

One does not need to be a judge to make a cursory judgment of the Constitutionality of a given law and one does not need to wait for judicial review before acting on that determination. If a law is unconstitutional in its face, we are not required to abide by it even if a judge has not reviewed it. For instance if Congress said that all people over the age of 50 must be put to death because they were too much of a burden on the economy. One would not have to wait for a review of the law before telling Congress to screw off.

First of all, a right not to be subject to income tax is not in the goddamn bill of huamn rights, we're not talking about fucking genocide here, it's tax.

Yes we are talking about human rights. In fact we're talking about the most sacred of human rights....self-ownership. I own myself. I own my life, mind, body, and labor. Nobody else has any claim to these. Not even the combined population of earth. And because I own all of these things outright and nobody else has a claim to them, I also own the fruits of my labor totally and completely and nobody else has any valid claim to them. When government takes the fruits of my labor, they are turning me into a slave. It's not like slavery or theft, it IS slavery and theft. You have still failed to prove how armed robbery and slavery are different. And you will always fail because they are the same thing. It doesn't matter if 1 person, 10 people, or 250 million people who call themselves “government” rob you; it's still robbery. And those people have no legitimate claim to the fruits of another persons labor no matter how many vote on it.

'The use of quantity of money as a target has not been a success.' He added: 'I'm not sure I would as of today push it as hard as I once did.' (FT, 7 June 2003).

Inflation is caused by an increase in the quantity of money and by NOTHING...I REPEAT.....N-O-T-H-I-N-G ELSE!!! If Mr. Friedman is saying the target has not been a success, it only means that he has not been successful in convincing people, not that he was incorrect about the relationship.

Adovacting doing it with a means you clearly think YOUR view is more important than everyone else's, thus really, you have no right to call yourself someone that beleives in a democratic state.

MY opinion IS more important than those of everyone else when it comes to MY property. NOBODY has any claim to what I've earned but me. Not you, not a hundred of you, not a hundred million of you. And you're correct. I do not advocate a democracy. I am happy the U.S.A. is not a democracy. It is a democratic republic where the rights of individuals are more important than the desires of millions.

The people have no right to vote on the color of your hair, whether you will procreate, or how much of your money they are entitled to. If they put it on a ballot, they are violating their limited authority.

Government may not do anything that we as individuals don't have the right to do without government. If you are on an island with no government and you grow your own vegetables, and someone comes over and eats those vegetables without your permission, they have stolen from you. You did the work to cultivate them and they at them. They were not entitled to those vegetables regardless of how hungry they are and you are not entitled to go to their home and take what they have earned through their labor either. Because you are not entitled to take the fruits of another person's labor without their permission, what makes you think you can give this power to the government?

The limited powers of government are derived from the consent of the individuals who grant it power. As an individual you have no claim to the fruits of another persons labor therefore neither do 10 people, or 100 people, or 100 million people. You can't give a power to government that you do not have in the first place.

[jaguar]

Inflation is caused by an increase in the quantity of money and by NOTHING...I REPEAT.....N-O-T-H-I-N-G ELSE!!! If Mr. Friedman is saying the target has not been a success, it only means that he has not been successful in convincing people, not that he was incorrect about the relationship.

You idiot. See the following article for detailed information on Friedman's retraction.

The Guardian

It may be from the guardian but it quotes the Financial Times, where the quote and article was origionally published, but I can't access that without paying a heck of a lot of money.

Friedman admitted monetarism was a failure. A tried and tested failure. A failure in the US and a failure in the UK. Period. It was not a success, it did not work. Get the hell over it.

When government takes the fruits of my labor, they are turning me into a slave. It's not like slavery or theft, it IS slavery and theft.

Goddamn. I wish I knew a few ex-slaves right now, I'm sure they'd be lining up to kick you ass for equating income tax to slavery.

The limited powers of government are derived from the consent of the individuals who grant it power. As an individual you have no claim to the fruits of another persons labor therefore neither do 10 people, or 100 people, or 100 million people. You can't give a power to government that you do not have in the first place.

Ok. I see your logic now, it wasn't very clear before.
But surely then if say, one person doesn't agree murder should be illegal, the government has no right to make murder illegal and under the same arguement as you has some kind of moral 'right' to take up armed resistance because he didn't give his concent?

[Radar]

Goddamn. I wish I knew a few ex-slaves right now, I'm sure they'd be lining up to kick you ass for equating income tax to slavery.

If you found some with an education such as Frederic Douglas, they would agree with me.

But surely then if say, one person doesn't agree murder should be illegal, the government has no right to make murder illegal and under the same arguement as you has some kind of moral 'right' to take up armed resistance because he didn't give his concent?

As an individual, you have no right to take the life of others unless it is in your own defense. You have no right to murder others and you do have a right to defend yourself even with deadly force or to allow your agents to defend you so yes, individuals CAN give this power to government because it is a right that individuals would have even without government.

Government has one purpose, to DEFEND our rights, not to limit them, not to define them, and not to infringe upon them. You do not have the right to murder, but others do have the right to live; case closed. You do not have the right to steal what others have earned, but others do have the right to keep the fruits of thier labor; case closed.

As far as Friedman goes, he STILL agrees that inflation is caused by nothing other than the government increasing the supply of money and the article in question does not define "monetarism" the same was the dictionary does.

monetarism: A theory holding that economic variations within a given system, such as changing rates of inflation, are most often caused by increases or decreases in the money supply

This has NEVER FAILED, not in the UK, not in America, not anywhere on earth. Inflation = increase in the supply of currency. Money is something of value like gold. Currency (the paper printed or coins minted) has no value and is supposed to represent money. When you have no increase in the amount of money, but a large increase in the amount of currency, you get inflation. This is indisputable by you, or anyone else on the planet.

[Troubleshooter]

Originally posted by Radar
One does not need to be a judge to make a cursory judgment of the Constitutionality of a given law and one does not need to wait for judicial review before acting on that determination. If a law is unconstitutional in its face, we are not required to abide by it even if a judge has not reviewed it. For instance if Congress said that all people over the age of 50 must be put to death because they were too much of a burden on the economy. One would not have to wait for a review of the law before telling Congress to screw off.

Citation please.

As a constitutional scholar you should have a handy referrence for something that seems to be so central to your ideology.