America Is Dead...

[R.H. Lee]

One would have to be an idealogue living in a vacuum to accept the woe-is-me handwringing victimization put forth by some on this forum. America is the greatest and most free country in history. You can argue all you want about the "morality" of the Civil War, which was a dark and bloody time in our history, but the outcome has been decided. It is over. General Robert E. Lee, a man of great integrity, honesty and vision, surrendered.

Is the federal government too big, too powerful, and does it take too much of our money? Damnbetcha. But the federal government is not America, and it damn sure is not the American people. Remember, we still have the power and those that tell you otherwise are either chicken little alarmists, or just not in touch with reality.

 

[Glock Glockler]

I guess what I'm getting at is what was your point with that candy bar cost statement? Aside from some ranting about how inflation is some big bad boogeyman, a notion easily found to be false with a little study of elementary economics, I'm really not getting your point.

Yes, wages are also inflated along with the prices of goods and services but any money earned prior to that inflation has lost value. It's a nice trick by politicians, to just print money and spend it in the economy when it has its highest value but our purchasing power is lessened when it trickles through.

I cannot see why you wouldn't see inflation as a bad thing.

 

[spartacus2002]

I don't have a defeatest attitude, just pointing out facts. Trust me, I'm doing what I can to turn it around. But a Pollyanna attitude serves nobody and fixes nothing.

I agree that there are a tremendous amount of people in America who still believe in personal responsibility, hard work, and ingenuity. However, that number is decreasing in proportion to those who know nothing about law or history and those who expect the gummint to take care of them from womb to tomb.

 

[auschip]

I cannot see why you wouldn't see inflation as a bad thing.

It is both good and bad depending on the situation.

"Costs of Inflation
Almost everyone thinks inflation is evil, but it isn't necessarily so. Inflation affects different people in different ways. It also depends on whether inflation is anticipated or unanticipated. If the inflation rate corresponds to what the majority of people are expecting (anticipated inflation), then we can compensate and the cost isn't high. For example, banks can vary their interest rates and workers can negotiate contracts that include automatic wage hikes as the price level goes up. "

http://www.investopedia.com/university/inflation/inflation1.asp

Itcan have a negative impact, but it can be positive as well. Next time you make a mortgage payment think about the effects inflation would have on your mortgage.

 

[moa]

Skytrooper, a question. I do not have a copy of the Constitution handy, but I read it (for the first time) not too long ago. I seem to recall that the Federal Government has the right, under the Constitution, to suspend Habeas Corpus during times of rebellion. True?

Regarding Pres. Lincoln, IIRC, he arrested a number of members of the Maryland legislature and locked them up in Fort McHenry in Baltimore so that they would not take a vote on secession from the Union.

I was not aware that Lincoln actually had an arrest warrant drawn up for US Chief Justice, Roger B. Taney, who incidentally was a Marylander. I thought Lincoln was only considering arresting Taney, but did not follow through.

 

[sumpnz]

Most people spend their inflated dollars around the time they earn it. If you save your money, you can usually at least keep pace with inflation with even fairly poor investments.

I got an insurance settlement when I was 17 as a result of a car wreck when I was 16 (I was in the backseat, we got T-boned, plastic surgeon needed almost 2 hours to put my forehead back together - I still have pain from nerve damage). I took that money, and invested it in a mutual fund (this was about 9 years ago). Since then, that money has nearly tripled in value (it had tripled, then fell to below the doubling mark, then hovered for a while, and then went back up) while inflation, which has been historically low during that time, has eroded maybe 10-15% of its value. Why am I supposed to consider that a bad thing? Sure, I'd like to see that kind of gain without the inflation, but the reality is that without inflation it would not have gained as much value and in the end I'd be at the same net worth for that investment.

Now, it's been a good 8 years since I took my college economics class, and I probably slept through more of it than I stayed awake through so forgive me if I'm 100% clear. Inflation is actually necessary for economic growth on a macro scale. People tend to make more money the longer they work, and companies tend to want to increase their profits each year. Between the two you wind up with inflationary pressures becuase as people make more money, they are willing spend more to get nicer stuff. As companies make more profit they are able to reward their top performers with more money, which enourages other employees to work harder so that they can get that benifit, which further increases profits, which means more pay for more people. All of this leads to greater overall demand, and since supply tends to lag behind demand by some amount which causes prices for any given good or service to go up. This then feeds right back into the start of the loop. If inflation all of a sudden went away that ability to reward people's performance goes away and the overall economy begins to suffer. The other thing is that inflation spurs spending, at least on durable goods, because people know that if they put off some purchase, it is only going to get more expensive as time goes by.

One good example of the detrimental effect of no inflation is Japan. They've actually been experienceing deflation for quite some time and it is strangling their economy. People put off major purchases because they know that if they wait a while the price will go down and therefore make it easier to buy. That makes it harder for companies to sell their products, which leads to reduced profits which leads to reduced buying power for their employees. The whole vicious cycle just continues.

 

[Glock Glockler]

Sure, it works great for those that are in debt and it gives people an incentive to spend their money on something before the money looses value. The end result is a people who rack up massive debt and never get themselves out of a financial hole. Bravo!

Combine this with their policy of taxing the hell out of investments and you'll realize who we're a country of debtors who want the govt to desperately bail them out.

No thanks.

Most people spend their inflated dollars around the time they earn it. If you save your money, you can usually at least keep pace with inflation with even fairly poor investments.

Compare the rate of inflation with how much interest you'll earn at the bank (the only investment of most people) and then take into account that you're taxed on the interest you earn and you'll probably net a negative or just barely break even.

Inflation is actually necessary for economic growth on a macro scale

Nothing could be more incorrect. If you have an growing economy (more goods and services are produced) and you dont have a similarly growing economy you will have a net deflationary effect, so now your bar or gold will buy a house instead of needing 3 bars of gold. This will effect how money lending is conducted, maybe mortgages will operate on a floating rate instead of a fixed rate. And maybe people will use other mediums of exchange instead of gold, maybe silver or platnum, or commodity backed notes will gain strength when gold gets too expensive.

 

[Frohickey]

TheRabbi/moa

Of course the government has rights. The Constitution expressly grants them. It does not have *natural* rights, which is what one poster was referring to. I doubt people have natural rights as well, but that is another debate.

I seem to recall that the Federal Government has the right, under the Constitution, to suspend Habeas Corpus during times of rebellion. True?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

People have rights.
States have powers.
Federal government has powers.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

 

[CZ52GUY]

Republican Senate and Republican-nominated Supreme Court

Given the actually ideological make-up of the Senate (way too many RINO's), and that the Supreme Court membership is probably 2/3 ideologically Democrat or RINO (indistinguishable), I would respectfully dissent from the allocation of blame to the present "regime". We didn't get to 7/14/04 starting on 1/20/01 or even 1/20/81.

This has been a long time coming. Some might argue that 1/20/61 is closer to the truth...or thereabouts...

Other than that, there is much that can be agreed with regarding the state of affairs on 7/12/2004 vs. 7/4/1776 and the 25 years that followed which intended to shape our nation.

Dead, maybe not...on life support...I'd agree.

Stay safe,

CZ52'

 

[Frohickey]

The way I see it, inflation gives the federal government the most benefits in buying power, since they are the first in line to cash in. They are also the ones that mint/print the money, so they would be the ones to cause inflation to begin with.

 

[Skytrooper]

Nightwatch: There are no supernatural deities, but I appreciate the thought.

Boats: Multi-millionaire Donald Scott was an "economic winner" in California in 1992 when a herd of cops and federal agents murdered him (after committing perjury to obtain a bogus search warrant) in order to steal his Malibu ranch for the U.S. Park Service. Please explain to Scott's widow how she's a "loser" and should cease her whining.

GeneC wrote: "The most one could say is some antiquated laws and ideas that no longer apply are dead. So what?"

Antiquated laws and ideas? Oh, you mean Article I, Section 8 and the Second, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, Tenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution along with the fundamental concepts of individual liberty on which the USA was founded. Well, GeneC, you are correct that to most contemporary politicians, judges, LEOs and common citizens those "antiquated laws and ideas" are effectively dead. As far as "so what?", if you cannot grasp the significance of this (and you obviously cannot) then there is nothing I can say that will instill reason or moral consciousness into an unreceptive mind.

The Rabbi wrote: "Of course the government has rights. The Constitution grants them."

NO, the government does not have rights and nowhere in the Constitution does it say what you claim. You obviously graduated from a government youth indoctrination center (aka - a public school). Article I, Section 8 states "Congress shall have Power To" and then enumerates the federal government's delegated powers, not rights. The Sixteenth Amendment states, "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes..." Power, not right.

A "right" is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context. Only individual human beings have rights. To suggest otherwise is irrational. Rights are not created by a government; nor can rights be conferred or legitimately abrogated by a government. The Founding Fathers realized this and their recognition is reflected in the clear language of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.

The right to bear arms was not created by the Second Amendment. The Framers recognized this pre-existing individual liberty and wrote the Bill of Rights (against the protests of the Federalists such as Alexander Hamilton) to prevent the newly-created national government from abridging Americans' individual rights. The ink on the Bill of Rights was scarcely dry before pernicious politicians and judges ignored the First Amendment by fining and imprisoning people who criticized federal officials (Sedition Act of 1798). Disregard of the Constitution by politicians, judges and LEOs and ignorance and apathy by the general public has only accelerated since that period.

"Don't blame personal problems on the Feds." Tell that to Donald Scott's widow, Randy Weaver, the handful of surviving Branch Davidians, or anyone whose life was ruined by vile BATF agents.

moa: Here are the answers to your questions (and why, sir, did it take you so long to read the Constitution ... for the first time?):

Article I, Section 9 authorizes Congress (not the President) to suspend "the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus" in "Cases of Rebellion or Invasion." Lincoln closed unfriendly newspapers and arrested his political enemies long before Congress authorized his acts. Also, Lincoln and his cronies only violated habeas corpus in the Northern states which were not in rebellion and which had not been invaded. The judicial system was intact throughout the war; no legal support exists to justify Lincoln's acts.

Lincoln did indeed order the arrest of many members of the Maryland state legislature in 1861 because he feared they might honor their constituents' wishes and vote to secede. Three points, sir. (1) How could Lincoln determine in advance how a legislator would vote? (2) What was Lincoln's authority to arrest people who had violated no law, state or federal? (3) America was founded on the principle of self-determination. We preach that notion to other countries, but often fail to adhere to it at home. By the way, the first states to consider secession were the New England states (at the Hartford Convention in 1814).

President Lincoln did indeed sign a warrant for the arrest of Chief Justice Taney. This was after Taney signed writs of habeas corpus, freeing people illegally imprisoned by federal officials. A U.S. marshal refused to execute Lincoln's illegal warrant. That reflects great credit upon the marshal, but none to Lincoln.

 

[Glock Glockler]

Rabbi,

The 13th Amendment forbids involuntary servitude, so no, they don't have the authority to institute a draft.

 

[The Rabbi]

NO, the government does not have rights and nowhere in the Constitution does it say what you claim. You obviously graduated from a government youth indoctrination center (aka - a public school). Article I, Section 8 states "Congress shall have Power To" and then enumerates the federal government's delegated powers, not rights. The Sixteenth Amendment states, "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes..." Power, not right.

Skytrooper,
Please learn to read my posts before responding inapproprirately and opening yourself up to ridicule.
I stand by what I said. What you assert is a natural right, which the Founders saw as an individual thing that people have qua individuals. Right by itself simply means the power to do something. If I buy a stock option Ihave the "right" to buy or sell the stock at some underlying price. That is not a natural right. That is a contractual right. The gov has rights by virtue of the Constitution. It does not, I agree, have natural rights. I would also argue that people do not have natural rights either.

BTW and FWIW I probably had a longer,better, and certainly more expensive education than anything you encountered.

A draft is neither slavery nor involuntary servitude. No court has ever ruled otherwise.

 

[cuchulainn]

Rabbi,

First, some people here are treating you wrongly.

However, the Founders did distinguish between citizens' "rights" and government "powers." The Founders thought of citizens' "rights" as inalienable, or at least deserving of extra-special protections, while they thought of the government's "powers" as totally subject to the will of the people. Thus "rights" refers to what must not be taken away from the people while "power" refers to what is allowed to the government.

The idea people are trying to convey is that when discussing constitutional matters, you should use "rights" the way the Founders used it, not the way we commonly use it today.

People (including me) dislike the use of the word "rights" to describe government powers because it allows confusion that the governments' powers are deserving of the same type of protection that we extend to citizens' rights.

That said, you shouldn't be subjected to harsh attacks over terminology.

 

[Skytrooper]

The Rabbi: Please be aware of the following:

(1) I did read your posts. I wish I hadn't, but I did.

(2) Words have meanings. If the Framers intended the federal government to have "rights" then they would have used that word. They used the word "power" which is not the same thing, no matter how you seek to misconstrue it.

(3) Evidently your "longer, better, and certainly more expensive education" did not include reading The Debate on the Constitution, the definitive collection of all Federalist and Antifederalist speeches, articles, and letters during the struggle over ratification, September 1787 to August 1788. In these 2,389 pages, there is not a shred of historical support for your position.

(4) Bill and Hillary Clinton also have "more expensive" formal educations than mine. The Clintons share your odious political views ("people do not have natural rights"). I am comfortable sharing the political beliefs of Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, James Madison, et. al. This does, unfortunately, often subject me to "ridicule" from cretins, but, having spent a good portion of my life being shot at with real bullets by the enemies of freedom, being castigated by riffraff does not bother me.

(5) Your expensive education evidently did not extend to spelling. "inapproprirately?" Perhaps you can get a refund.

(6) "A draft is neither slavery nor involuntary servitude. No court has ever ruled otherwise." [sigh ...] The U.S. Supreme Court ruled black people could never become American citizens (Dred Scott v. Sandford) and that American citizens (who had committed no crime) could be imprisoned indefinitely without legal redress (Korematsu v. U.S.). According to almost every court decision since the mid-1930s, the Second Amendment does not mean what it says; judges routinely disregard all of the overwhelming historical evidence supporting the original intent behind enactment of the Second Amendment. Trial judges forbid defendants from mentioning the Constitution before jurors. If you are comfortable with politically-appointed jurists "interpreting" the Bill of Rights out of existence then, once again, I strongly suggest you seek a refund for your expensive education.

cuchulainn: "harsh attacks?" Oh, please ...

 

[Glock Glockler]

Thanks, Skytrooper

A draft is neither slavery nor involuntary servitude. No court has ever ruled otherwise.

Could you please tell me the definition of the work "is".

I assume a court can rule that "cat" really means desk and you'd be fine with that, I OTOH believe that laws mean what the words in them say.

 

[Linux&Gun Guy]

Some of the american people are alive and have patroitic blood in their hearts.

Most do not.

The Constitution is dead and the Constition is what makes this nation together with the people.

So to recap:

Most people are dead(in a liberty loving way)
The Constition is dead

America is 95% dead.

There is still hope. Write to your congressmen

 

[spartacus2002]

It appears there are two trains of thought in this thread.

One says that America is dead or dying.

The other says America is alive and vibrant.

To a large degree, both trains of thought agree on the same things but don't realize it. It would appear both camps agree that America's primary strength is not its institutions or government, but its people. Both camps also agree that there are plenty of people who are patriotic and energetic and plenty of people who are lethargic; the difference is which you believe is the majority.

The major disagreement is over the health of our structure of government.

 

[Gordon Fink]

I have a few questions for the America is Dead crowd
1) When did this happen? Post New Deal? Post WWI?
2) If 50% taxation is slavery then what level of taxation is not slavery?
3) If any level of taxation is slavery then where does government get funds to operate?
4) IS the franchise to vote broader or narrower today than under the Founders? Does a broader franchise equate to more slavery? Doesnt this seem contradictory?
5) The government had the right to draft people from the very beginning. Isnt a draft more like slavery than taxation? We dont have one today btw.
6) If the system is broke then how will we fix it? What is going to be better than what we have now?

Six pretty simple questions. Anyone who can give coherent answers (as opposed to slogans like “IMperial Americaâ€) might persuade me.

I agree with the hair splitters. The title of the article should have been something like “The American Republic Is Dead,†because the American nation-state is clearly alive and kicking. So let me take a stab at the Rabbi’s questions.

1) The problem began with the incomplete success of the Revolution itself. As just one example, our nation-state was still besmirched by slavery when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were ratified. Though we’ve made many advances toward freedom, we’ve retreated even more often (if in subtler ways).

Unfortunately, this failure is due to the inherent flaws in democratic systems. Humanity itself is the problem, in this respect. Human beings are too slow to take responsibility for themselves and far too quick to assert their will over others. The Constitution was a great attempt, but it wasn’t perfect.

2–3) I don’t oppose income taxes, though 50-percent rates are obviously too high. In fact, I think income taxes are the best way to fund a government, but I also think they should be tied to the electoral franchise. In other words, you should only get to vote if you also pay taxes. This could be a voluntary system, and thus only those with a vested interest would be able to decide how public funds were spent.

4) In the Founders’ day, only property owners could vote. Obviously, this discriminated against everyone who didn’t own property but still contributed to the public treasury in some way or another. My voluntary franchise-tax system would keep with the spirit of this stakeholder system but would make it more open and fair. In other words, the Founders had the right idea about limiting the franchise, but they executed it poorly.

5) The government does not have the right to draft anyone. Personally, I think the draft is unconstitutional under the Third Amendment, and Article I does not give the Congress the power to conscript the armed services.

6) I think we can “fix the system†with more freedom. That’s why I joined the Libertarian Party. Given human failings and the notable paucity of sage kings, though, I fear we will not succeed through any political system. Only if the people themselves change can we succeed in building a truly free nation-state. However, American voters continue to re-elect the same politicians who fail them again and again and can’t seem to understand why, so I hold little hope that they will change. Nevertheless, I struggle in my own small way to show people what I think is right.

But who knows? Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe humans just can’t live in a free society. Tyranny has to a greater or lesser extent been the way of civilization for most of human history. Perhaps I should take some comfort in that fact. When the American nation-state finally does flounder all the way into tyranny, the people will live on—in bondage, even slpendid bondage, but they will live on. Then, someday in the future, we may try again.

~G. Fink

 

[moa]

Skytrooper, thanks for the response. You make some excellent points, especially about Lincoln.

You ask why I recently got around to reading the Constitution (and Bill of Rights). Good question. Chalk it up to laziness, I guess. G. Gordon Liddy has it on his website. That made it very convenient.

 

[Glock Glockler]

In fact, I think income taxes are the best way to fund a government, but I also think they should be tied to the electoral franchise

Ok, so we would still have the IRS but my right to vote would be dependent on proving to them that I didnt cheat on my taxes? Think about how open to abuse that would be, that I report an income of 40k and pay taxes on that but they assert that I actually made 43k and I cannot vote until my complaint is processed and a hearing is scheduled.

Also, if I pay 100k in taxes do I get 10x the vote of someone who paid 10k in taxes?

 

[R.H. Lee]

I think income taxes are the best way to fund a government, but I also think they should be tied to the electoral franchise.

I completely disagree. Income taxes are punitive, counterproductive, administratively burdensome, capriciously selective and subject to huge fraud and manipulation. A consumption tax would be fair and easily administered and (almost) foolproof (inescapable).

 

[Boats]

Skytrooper wrote:

Boats: Multi-millionaire Donald Scott was an "economic winner" in California in 1992 when a herd of cops and federal agents murdered him (after committing perjury to obtain a bogus search warrant) in order to steal his Malibu ranch for the U.S. Park Service. Please explain to Scott's widow how she's a "loser" and should cease her whining.

Been There, Done That, Thread Got Locked I said America wasn't necessarily dead, not that it was in perfect health.

 

[Gordon Fink]

Glockler and Riley, the details would obviously have to be worked out, but I think the idea is worth exploring. It’s equally obvious that the existing tax code would have to be completely overhauled. A vastly simplified code would be much less subject to chicanery.

~G. Fink

 

[sumpnz]

A consumption tax would be fair and easily administered and (almost) foolproof (inescapable).

In general I agree. Ones tax liability in that case is tied to their level of gluttony. However, how does one decide what is exempt and what is not? Or is every business transaction taxable? What about the sale of personal property (e.g. garage sales, selling your car or a gun, or your house). Is a $3/lb steak exempt, but a $9/lb steak not exempt? If the govt only taxed "junk food" who decides what qualifies. If PETA got a say, all meat would be heavily taxed, and if cattle ranchers had their say beef would be exempt but pork and vegitables would not be exempt. If it's based on the level of "luxury" who decides what counts as a luxury. My house cost me $145,000 three years ago. The same house, on the same size lot (1 acre) in San Fran, or Hollywood would probably be $14.5million. Trying to decide what gets taxed and at what rate would be a nightmare.

The other problem is that it would be very hard to implement such a system in conjunction with elimination of the income tax. Too many politicians would see a national sales tax as just an extra revenue source. They might try to reduce income taxes by an equivalent amount, but you could bet that within a few years those rates would start to creep right back up. Short of a constitutional ammendment repealing the 16th ammendment I would heavily oppose any attempt to add a consumption tax. Of course I'd also like to see the 17th, and Sec 2 of the 21st repealed but that's a 'nother matter.

The problem with everybody pays some fixed amount is that the poor probably would not be able to make enough to pay their share. If you're working a minimum wage job (lets say 2 jobs at 30 hours/week each) you're going to make a little over $16,000/year assuming $5.25/hour. If you assume that the federal budget is $3trillion (probably low) and that there are 300million people in this country, that $10,000/person. Someone only making $16k would probably not be able to meet the food/clothing/shelter minumum with only $6k left, especially if they had any kids in most parts of this country. Putting poor people in that kind of a bind would be political suicide. The other thing is, does that "equal amount" count every man, woman, and child, or only those over, say 18? If only those over 18, that will bump up the share each person has to pay and make it even harder for the hypothetical person listed above. How would it be fair to tax someone like this when they are under 18 and therefore can't vote, or enter into any legal contracts?