Live Free or Die !

[squarooticus]

Originally Posted by Jose

Kyle, you are an ignorant fool.

I'm glad to see you haven't started to resort to name calling in lieu of making a real point.

In a Constitutional Republic such as ours, the pure majority does not rule. Even legsilators are constrained by the Constitution. The fact that the Constitution is nowadays ignored often does not condemn the idea of our founding fathers.

Lots of people have great ideas. Sometimes those ideas are implemented well. Sometimes they are good ideas that are implemented poorly. And sometimes those ideas are unworkable. It is commonly accepted than communism is an unworkable idea. But I assert that constitutional republicanism is another unworkable idea... and my proof is the situation we now find ourselves in.

What good are protections that no one can enforce? It certainly isn't in the best interests of government to enforce our rights: they naturally want as much control over us as they can acquire, because it benefits the elite who run it. It is up to we, the People, to do that... but today most people just don't care, so the few freedom lovers out there are forced to live under the same rules as the soccer mom who thinks "guns are just awful" and "we need to do *something* about the poor!"

I certainly judge the founders on the efficacy of their work. And the bottom line is that constitutional republicanism, i.e., classical liberalism, has been shown over the course of the past 150 years to be an abject failure in terms of protecting the liberties of the people, the most important of which are enshrined in the Bill of Rights. The Incumbent Protection Act and the AWB are but two examples of the many instances of even our most basic rights being stripped from us.

If anarchy is what you want, you best find some other place to look for it. There are some, including me, who will fight all the way to restore our Constitutional Republic and keep it from becoming a socialist hellhole or its opposite, an anarchist's wet dream.

You are fighting for a system. I am fighting for an ideal: liberty. The system you advocate is demonstrably incompatible with liberty. The proof is right in front of your eyes.

I've said it before and I will say it again: I would be perfectly willing to live in the system the founders created. You know the one: where the Union is voluntary, where property rights are respected (i.e., a man/woman's home really is his/her castle), where the feds stick to the explicitly enumerated powers in Article I, where I can give any amount of money to anyone for any reason, where that money is backed by something of real value, where an obscene percentage that money is not stolen from me under the threat of force... and where I can build/buy/possess any weapon of any magnitude up to and beyond owning my own private Air Force in order to enforce those rights. But I contend that such a system is unsustainable: somehow, some way... we will again lose those rights gradually until we end up right back at the point we are now. I'd rather not give up my natural rights in the first place. That's the only way to really protect them.

Kyle

[squarooticus]

Originally Posted by calsdad

I didn't miss it - I just think we have much less of a republic than we do a "democracy".

...

Uhh - yeah. If our allegedly "republican" form of government is not a tyranny of the majority then why do we all constantly worry about the government passing legislation to take away our guns - even though those laws are specifically forbidden by the Constitution??

Because the "majority" of persons vote for said laws when they pass thru our Congress. Tyranny of the majority - what would you call it?

+1

Kyle

[dwarven1]

"This situation is exploding so fast in this nation and internationally that the Illuminati around the world are becoming very aware"

Very true... NOW I know about him!

Other visitors said they were visiting Brown to lend moral support but did not plan to participate in any gun battle. Tim and Marylisa Logsdon spent the weekend at the house with their three young children. Tim Logsdon said he did not feel he was putting his family in any danger.

"The building is pretty secure," he said. "And the feds have promised that they won't raid."

While I wouldn't mind showing solidarity with him - I think he's right, to an extent - I certainly woudn't bring any children and I wouldn't believe any promise by the "feds" (marshalls, FBI, BATF, or any other alphabet soup) that "they won't raid".

[squarooticus]

Originally Posted by dwarven1

While I wouldn't mind showing solidarity with him - I think he's right, to an extent

So do I, but I think he's doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. The income tax amendment somehow wasn't passed legally? (As if the ones passing it don't have the power to tell you what the rules mean, anyway.) Now there's a Zionist conspiracy to control the world? Bleh. I don't want to be associated with this whack job.

If Lew Rockwell or Hans-Hermann Hoppe decided to mount an income tax revolt, I'd be there in a heartbeat: they are principled, so I would be proud to show my support for them. Still, I wish him the best: anyone with the courage to pull a Crazy Ivan on the leviathan has my respect for that, even if for nothing else.

Kyle

[dwarven1]

Originally Posted by squarooticus

So do I, but I think he's doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. The income tax amendment somehow wasn't passed legally? (As if the ones passing it don't have the power to tell you what the rules mean, anyway.) Now there's a Zionist conspiracy to control the world? Bleh. I don't want to be associated with this whack job.

Of course there's an Illuminati-led Zionist conspiracy! Haven't you noticed all the publicity that the Freemasons are getting lately? Heck, I even know of several Lodges that are mostly Jewish!

We're taking over, I tell you! (*looking nervously over his shoulder so his boss won't catch him surfing the net during the day*) It's coming soon!

OK, seriously, I cringe when I see all the conspiracy crap this guy throws out. But I resent the government forcing me to pay, at gunpoint, money that they will then spend on things I disapprove of and sent to places that do NOT deserve our help. So I can see his point, to a certain extent.

[squarooticus]

Originally Posted by dwarven1

OK, seriously, I cringe when I see all the conspiracy crap this guy throws out. But I resent the government forcing me to pay, at gunpoint, money that they will then spend on things I disapprove of and sent to places that do NOT deserve our help. So I can see his point, to a certain extent.

We are 100% in agreement. Well, on this point at least: I won't ascribe the rest of my insanity to you. (Imagine the laughter of the Irish guy in Braveheart.)

Kyle

[calsdad]

I think this guy has a point - the problem is that he is now making himself out to be a real nutjob with all the talk of the Illuminati and killing judges and so forth. I have read quite a bit of the claims that Illuminati are ruling the world and so forth - I even know a couple of Ivy League educated guys who claim it is true - not sure if I believe it or not - but the fact is most people think stuff like this is nuts, and I tend to believe that people just aren't capable of keeping a conspiracy like that going - human nature always takes over.

In any case - The thing that all of us should take note of however is the fact that this guy is gaining support - whether you think he is a nut or not this is a good thing for anybody who thinks that our government is out of control and that we are too far away from the republic that we started out with.

For a little bit of perspective go back and read some history of the times leading up to the Revolutionary war - some of the people who were resisting the British were probably considered just as nutty in their day as this guy is considered right now - but a revolution - and a nation - grew from that resistance. No matter how it turns out - I still think this guy deserves at least a little bit of respect for doing something none of the rest of us have quite worked up the courage to do yet.

If he continue to gain supporters he might still get nationwide coverage - never underestimate how this effects people - even if the effects are not felt until years later.

[Pilgrim]

Not that I mind, but this thread has drifted about as far from the original post as any I have ever seen !

[calsdad]

Squarooticus:

I agree with some of what you are saying - I am in the process of reading:

Hologram of Liberty:
http://www.amazon.com/Hologram-Liber...e=UTF8&s=books

And I have read most of Mary Ruwart's online version of "Healing our World" which is available here:

http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/


Both worth reading if you have the time.

[squarooticus]

Originally Posted by calsdad

Squarooticus:

I agree with some of what you are saying - I am in the process of reading:

Hologram of Liberty:
http://www.amazon.com/Hologram-Liber...e=UTF8&s=books

And I have read most of Mary Ruwart's online version of "Healing our World" which is available here:

http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/


Both worth reading if you have the time.

After reading some reviews, I've ordered copies of both. It sounds like there won't be anything groundbreaking for me in Healing Our World, but I like to have copies of good intro-to-libertarianism books around to lend to other people. Hologram of Liberty OTOH may provide me with some useful ammo to use against toilet paper lovers.

If you haven't read Hoppe's "Democracy: The God That Failed," I recommend it with the caveat that it's a tough, analytical read: Hoppe is an economist, not a pulp writer. Rothbard's "What Has Government Done To Our Money?" is available online as a PDF (just do a google search) and is a great eye-opener into one of the ways government picks our pockets.

I also really need to come up with a "links" page on my blog to point people to articles of interest that I've read. It's generally a lot easier to get people to read a 5-minute article than it is to get them to read an entire book.

Kyle