what we have to worried about....
bob...@erols.com
while necessary, is unfortunately not sufficient.
There has been many people colluding with him.
Many people of questionable motives have been
given appointments of power by clinton.
And I fear that there are "puppet masters" behind
clinton (I don't believe he is smart enough to have
gotten away with everything he has).
Also we have to explain, understand, (and correct
somehow) how the media has supporting and glorifying
clinton.
And finally is the issue of the tens of millions of people
who apparently still support clinton.
For ultimately we DO get the government we deserve.
And that is the part that is most scary.
bob hunt
lighton...@hotmail.com
bob...@erols.com wrote:
> Removing clinton from all government power,
> while necessary, is unfortunately not sufficient.
>
> There has been many people colluding with him.
> Many people of questionable motives have been
> given appointments of power by clinton.
>
> And I fear that there are "puppet masters" behind
> clinton (I don't believe he is smart enough to have
> gotten away with everything he has).
>
Perhaps the "Trilateral Commission" or some such other fantasy of the
politicaly weird.
> Also we have to explain, understand, (and correct
> somehow) how the media has supporting and glorifying
> clinton.
That is easy, the majority of the news media has supported whoever has run on
the Democratic Party ticket. Fortunatly in a free society there is no way to
"correct" this thing called freedom of speach.
>
> And finally is the issue of the tens of millions of people
> who apparently still support clinton.
Just human n
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
lighton...@hotmail.com
In article <36c66b19....@news.erols.com>,
bob...@erols.com wrote:
> Removing clinton from all government power,
> while necessary, is unfortunately not sufficient.
>
> There has been many people colluding with him.
> Many people of questionable motives have been
> given appointments of power by clinton.
>
> And I fear that there are "puppet masters" behind
> clinton (I don't believe he is smart enough to have
> gotten away with everything he has).
>
Perhaps the "Trilateral Commission" or some such other fantasy of the
politicaly weird.
> Also we have to explain, understand, (and correct
> somehow) how the media has supporting and glorifying
> clinton.
>
That is easy, the majority of the news media has supported whoever has run on
the Democratic Party ticket. Fortunatly in a free society there is no way to
"correct" this thing called freedom of speach.
> And finally is the issue of the tens of millions of people
> who apparently still support clinton.
Just human nature. People are herd animals and look to find a leader
to follow. Look at all of those who follow exposed evangecial frauds
or any beleif system without question.
> For ultimately we DO get the government we deserve.
> And that is the part that is most scary.
>
> bob hunt
That we have not gotten YOUR government is promising. Are you not the
same Bob Hunt who at the last anti-American US Libertarian Party
convention burned the American flag? And this on no less than July the
4th. ?
--
Kevin O'Connell
Light on Liberty - The anti-Libertarian Party internet site.
http://members.tripod.com/~Kevin_OConnell
Billy Beck
lighton...@hotmail.com wrote:
>That we have not gotten YOUR government is promising. Are you not the
>same Bob Hunt who at the last anti-American US Libertarian Party
>convention burned the American flag? And this on no less than July the
>4th. ?
So what? Wiliam Lloyd Garrison set fire to the constitution at
Framingham Grove, Massachusetts on July, 1854. Go look it up and see
what it was about.
Here's a "light" for you: "liberty" isn't about obescience to the
state.
Smoke up.
Billy
VRWC fronteer
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/promise.html
bob...@erols.com
>In article <36c66b19....@news.erols.com>,
> bob...@erols.com wrote:
>> Removing clinton from all government power,
>> while necessary, is unfortunately not sufficient.
>>
>> There has been many people colluding with him.
>> Many people of questionable motives have been
>> given appointments of power by clinton.
>>
>> And I fear that there are "puppet masters" behind
>> clinton (I don't believe he is smart enough to have
>> gotten away with everything he has).
>>
>
>Perhaps the "Trilateral Commission" or some such other fantasy of the
>politicaly weird.
>
>> Also we have to explain, understand, (and correct
>> somehow) how the media has supporting and glorifying
>> clinton.
>
>That is easy, the majority of the news media has supported whoever has run on
>the Democratic Party ticket. Fortunatly in a free society there is no way to
>"correct" this thing called freedom of speach.
Hopefully freedom of speach can be the correction.
Internet, more news, more speakers, more exposure.
>
>>
>> And finally is the issue of the tens of millions of people
>> who apparently still support clinton.
>
>Just human n
>
lighton...@hotmail.com
A second post was made of it which you missed.
the missing part is pasted below
In article <369edade...@news.erols.com>,
bob...@erols.com wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Dec 1998 10:40:46 GMT, lighton...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >In article <36c66b19....@news.erols.com>,
> > bob...@erols.com wrote:
> >> Removing clinton from all government power,
> >> while necessary, is unfortunately not sufficient.
> >>
> >> There has been many people colluding with him.
> >> Many people of questionable motives have been
> >> given appointments of power by clinton.
> >>
> >> And I fear that there are "puppet masters" behind
> >> clinton (I don't believe he is smart enough to have
> >> gotten away with everything he has).
> >>
> >
> >Perhaps the "Trilateral Commission" or some such other fantasy of the
> >politicaly weird.
> >
> >> Also we have to explain, understand, (and correct
> >> somehow) how the media has supporting and glorifying
> >> clinton.
> >
> >That is easy, the majority of the news media has supported whoever has run on
> >the Democratic Party ticket. Fortunatly in a free society there is no way to
> >"correct" this thing called freedom of speach.
>
> Hopefully freedom of speach can be the correction.
> Internet, more news, more speakers, more exposure.
>
> >
=======================
The missing last half of the post is pasted in below
=======================
> And finally is the issue of the tens of millions of people
> who apparently still support clinton.
Just human nature. People are herd animals and look to find a leader
to follow. Look at all of those who follow exposed evangecial frauds
or any beleif system without question.
> For ultimately we DO get the government we deserve.
> And that is the part that is most scary.
>
> bob hunt
That we have not gotten YOUR government is promising. Are you not the
same Bob Hunt who at the last anti-American US Libertarian Party
convention burned the American flag? And this on no less than July the
4th. ?
Light on Liberty - The anti-Libertarian Party web page
http://members.tripod.com/~Kevin_OConnell
lighton...@hotmail.com
wj...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> lighton...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >That we have not gotten YOUR government is promising. Are you not the
> >same Bob Hunt who at the last anti-American US Libertarian Party
> >convention burned the American flag? And this on no less than July the
> >4th. ?
>
> Framingham Grove, Massachusetts on July, 1854. Go look it up and see
> what it was about.
>
> Here's a "light" for you: "liberty" isn't about obescience to the
> state.
>
> Smoke up.
>
> Billy
>
> VRWC fronteer
> http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/promise.html
>
I have a really wackey idea, let's let Mr. Hunt speak for himself!
I know that is an odd thought compared to interpreting an event that
happened over 100 years ago. I know many people don't value the
relevance of what a living individual did, alive and can speak with
first hand knowledge, a few months ago rather than what is written in a
book about people dead for a century, but hey I said it was a wacky idea.
--
Kevin O'Connell
Light on Liberty - The anti-Libertarian Party internet site.
Billy Beck
lighton...@hotmail.com wrote:
>In article <3686c9d4...@news.mindspring.com>,
> wj...@mindspring.com wrote:
>>
>> lighton...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >That we have not gotten YOUR government is promising. Are you not the
>> >same Bob Hunt who at the last anti-American US Libertarian Party
>> >convention burned the American flag? And this on no less than July the
>> >4th. ?
>>
>> So what? Wiliam Lloyd Garrison set fire to the constitution at
>> Framingham Grove, Massachusetts on July, 1854. Go look it up and see
>> what it was about.
>>
>> Here's a "light" for you: "liberty" isn't about obescience to the
>> state.
>>
>> Smoke up.
>I have a really wackey idea, let's let Mr. Hunt speak for himself!
>
>I know that is an odd thought compared to interpreting an event that
>happened over 100 years ago. I know many people don't value the
>relevance of what a living individual did, alive and can speak with
>first hand knowledge, a few months ago rather than what is written in a
>book about people dead for a century, but hey I said it was a wacky idea.
...not to mention a cheesy dodge. Here you are indicting Bob for
burning a flag, and refuse to consider the patriotism to the ideals of
liberty exemplified in the act of a man who burned the constitution
over the matter of slavery. To you, there is no good reason in the
world to consider the reasoning behind such an act, and you don't even
try.
All this aside, of course, from your remarkable dismissal of the
facts and importance of history.
(MW)
sto...@DELETEwinTHIISternet.com says...
> >
> > But I'll say this, here & now: I'll strike *myself* before I ever
> > unilaterally do that.
>
>
> While obeisance (if I may label begrudged endurance with that word) to
> tyranny may keep you alive to fight (?) another day, I do not see why you
> feel that your restraint (let alone restraint prolonged over years and
> decades) in doling out just retribution constitutes a "strength of
> character".
>
> As you correctly observe: We aren't going to vote our way out of this.
> To which I will add: We aren't going to *talk* our way out of it either.
>
> *Somebody* is going to fire the first shot at the first asshole, and
> when it happens, it'll be _way_ too late in coming.
Speaking of overthrowing governments and the values of a constitutional
government to protect indiviual rights - and why the experiment has
failed miserably - Mike the sooner you get up here to help us with this
Split thingy the better.
I have taken a sojourn for the Xmass season, and because of my Grampa's
poor health - (Kidney and Liver failing).
Because of that there has been an increased urgency in his attitude to
get moving on this.
You were saying sometime around my birthday?
Let me know - let's make the arrangements ok?
Meaghan
johnz
(snip)
>
> ...not to mention a cheesy dodge. Here you are indicting Bob for
> burning a flag, and refuse to consider the patriotism to the ideals of
> liberty exemplified in the act of a man who burned the constitution
> over the matter of slavery. To you, there is no good reason in the
> world to consider the reasoning behind such an act, and you don't even
> try.
I understand why Hunt did what he did (and the Garrison reference as well)
but there is still something disturbing and ugly about the
spectacle, although the reaction involved is purely emotional.
Perhaps it's just sad nostalgia for something dead and gone, that we'll
never see again. Whatever it was, possibly it was fatally flawed from the
beginning,
but for some brief moments, it did try to approach the ideals that gave
it birth. Burning the flag makes a certain kind of point, maybe a
necessary point, but it seems at the same time to be a kind of brutal
epitaph. I couldn't do it. Perhaps it's also my belief that nothing better
will replace what we have lost - that we are headed for the abyss, and
there is no way out. If I look at what the future is going to be like hard
enough, I find that the present is already overlaid with a kind of
nostalgic haze.
Of course, burning flags at the convention of a political party that
intends to try and elect anybody is the kiss of political death. That's a
secondary consideration. But the Libertarian Party is doomed anyway - it
hasn't got a chance.
> All this aside, of course, from your remarkable dismissal of the
> facts and importance of history.
That's usual with liberals. And their phony patriotism that they
brandish in defence of a fascist thug and their
methodical destruction of everything good that the flag ever stood for
is disgusting.
JS
lighton...@hotmail.com
>
>
> >I have a really wackey idea, let's let Mr. Hunt speak for himself!
> >
> >I know that is an odd thought compared to interpreting an event that
> >happened over 100 years ago. I know many people don't value the
> >relevance of what a living individual did, alive and can speak with
> >first hand knowledge, a few months ago rather than what is written in a
> >book about people dead for a century, but hey I said it was a wacky idea.
>
> ...not to mention a cheesy dodge. Here you are indicting Bob for
> burning a flag, and refuse to consider the patriotism to the ideals of
> liberty exemplified in the act of a man who burned the constitution
> over the matter of slavery.
No, I refuse to consider Libertarian Party member Robert L. Hunt's actions
compaired to the historical actions of any other person until Hunt speaks
for himslef. Any comparison to any event in the past is only an acedemic
exercise and without any useful result until Hunt provides some info.
>To you, there is no good reason in the
> world to consider the reasoning behind such an act, and you don't even
> try.
>
> All this aside, of course, from your remarkable dismissal of the
> facts and importance of history.
>
> Billy
I recognize history for what it is, the dead past. There are many
important lessons to be learned from history. But history is not
an exact set of instructions. Whatever occured in history before
we are responsable for the interpredation of current events.
We must make our own evaluations of current or recent events and
from these make our own decesions.
A thought for a good paper on the lesson's of history is to compare the
interferance (micro management) with battlefield military actions
by Adolph Hitler and Lyndon Johnson.
Hilter altered the order of bombing of England and lost the air battle for
Briton. Johnson's office altered to order of bombing of North Vietnam nd
lost that air war. Hitler actually gave orders to field units in individual
battles. and Johnson actually selected daily individual bombing targets.
President Bush stayed out of most of the Gulf War battle commands and
the military acheived a quick battlefield victory just like it was
supposed to do.
There are many important lessons in history. But it is usless and even
counter productive to pick and individual prevous event and demand that
all subsequent similer events be conducted or considered the same.
Billy Beck
jo...@aa.nospam.net (johnz) wrote:
>In article <368817e2...@news.mindspring.com>, wj...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
>(snip)
>>
>> ...not to mention a cheesy dodge. Here you are indicting Bob for
>> burning a flag, and refuse to consider the patriotism to the ideals of
>> liberty exemplified in the act of a man who burned the constitution
>> over the matter of slavery. To you, there is no good reason in the
>> world to consider the reasoning behind such an act, and you don't even
>> try.
>
>I understand why Hunt did what he did (and the Garrison reference as well)
>but there is still something disturbing and ugly about the
>spectacle, although the reaction involved is purely emotional.
>
>Perhaps it's just sad nostalgia for something dead and gone, that we'll
>never see again. Whatever it was, possibly it was fatally flawed from the
>beginning,...
This might depend on what one calls "the beginning". Personally,
I maintain that, as a matter of seminal political statement and
formula, the very height of what America was all about was stated in
the Declaration of Independence. After the Revolutionary War, the
essential *political* work in favor of this country was done. I could
quibble over details that might have followed, but I cannot see myself
at war with anything in America if not for the outrageous presumption
of men who set out to bind *my* life to their concept of "the general
welfare".
I have little doubt of their benign intent. OTOH, there is a
well-known road: we all know what it's paved with, and where it goes.
There are many desperate flaws in the constitution. The very
first, of course, is the horrifying endorsement of slavery. That
goddamned thing speaks for itself, and I don't imagine how politics in
this country could ever get over that appalling contradiction - in the
wake of all the noise about "freedom", etc. - simply because of the
fact that it is handy to various po-mo's and other irrational trash
who gleefully use it to point out that the first rational impulse to
liberty - unprecedented in all of human history, except for here, just
223 years ago - was just a lie or a "myth", and that there was never
anything the least noble about any of it. As long as there is a
single weasel in this country, we'll never hear the end of it, even as
they turn around and bark at us about that fucking "law of the land"
bullshit, now that they have almost a century of constitutional
deconstruction in the legal bag.
Almost as serious is the interstate commerce clause. The power
to tax is clear enough, prima facie, as the power to destroy, but the
power to regulate interstate commerce was the entreé to virtually the
entire practice of federal government as we deal with it, now. Not
one person who ever voted for ratification would have imagined a day
when any court in the land would even *hear* a suit against a gun
manufacturer, but every fool who did also bears responsibility for
what's going to happen to gun manufacturers *now*. That's because
they handed down the authority for such bloody rot when they granted
this government the power to arbitrarily intervene in market action,
even to the least degree. (It's not for nothin' that The Russian Rage
argued for a complete separation of economics and government, "in the
same way as a separation of church and state, and for all the same
reasons." She was perfectly correct.) My respect for men like Ethan
Allen, who swore a sacred oath that Vermont would *never* ratify the
constitution as long as he drew breath, grows immensely with every
passing year. Only slightly less esteemed are those like Patrick
Henry, who, even though he later endorsed federalism, initially made
all the right arguments against it. He had it right the first time,
and I have no doubt that he would apologize for his later errors if he
could see what this has come to.
If we mark the constitution as your "beginning", then yes: this
whole thing was fatally flawed. What we see today is a straight-line
logical consequence of premises contained in the constitution. It
could go no other way.
If we consider a "beginning" somewhat earlier, then it's a lot
more difficult to pin down. All the best pre-revolutionary literature
was essentially egoist in character - espousing the sanctity of
individual human lives - but ethics is a derivative science, and the
prior fundamentals of knowledge theory and metaphysics were never
really developed in support of the proposition of egoist ethics and a
logically derivative politics of liberty. In short: it was generally
agreed that people were free (it was all "self-evident"), but they
didn't take the effort to fully state what a human being *is*, or how
we know it. In the meantime, saboteurs like Immanuel Kant were
brewing up their assaults on the validity of knowledge and the
existence of reality while this culture coasted along on the sheer
inertia of people who fought for their liberty with blood devotions
(may history bless them evermore) instead of keen analysis and a depth
of reason requisite to the project of *keeping* what had been won.
Barely a century later, we get Pierce with what some see as the only
original American contribution to philosophy - pragmatism - and his
mutant childrens' crazy bashing through the china cabinet (e.g.:
Dewey's "experimentalism", as well as the Eurpoeans who hailed their
water-headed American cousins, like Ayer and later French assholes -
there is no other suitable word for them).
In brief, and as I pointed out here some time ago: the entire
process of *thought* has to be built again, from the ground, up.
Everything won in the Enlightenment has now been cast to the wolves,
and we get 'em beamed into our homes, nightly, as they howl their
carefully preened ignorance. This is an active culture of
*ignorance*, and no nation can survive that.
It might have had a shot, John, but it missed the mark, and we
might as well live in any other time or place on earth except
"America", which is now nothing but the wistful dream of "loons" like
you, me, and a handful of others around here.
>but for some brief moments, it did try to approach the ideals that gave
>it birth. Burning the flag makes a certain kind of point, maybe a
>necessary point, but it seems at the same time to be a kind of brutal
>epitaph. I couldn't do it.
Ever go to baseball games, John? I do. D'ya know the part where
they play the Star-Spangled Banner and everybody stands up and holds
their hand over their heart?
I don't. I sit flat on my ass through the whole charade, and I
don't give a damn who thinks what about it.
I will not lie like that.
>Perhaps it's also my belief that nothing better
>will replace what we have lost...
That's the damned truth.
>... - that we are headed for the abyss, and
>there is no way out. If I look at what the future is going to be like hard
>enough, I find that the present is already overlaid with a kind of
>nostalgic haze.
Hell, mate: I had that sensation already in the eighth grade.
There was never a hope in hell that I was going to be a "good
citizen".
Can you imagine being "nostalgic" at the age of twelve or
thirteen?
There is something really sick about that, and it's an aspect of
my character to which I honestly cop when these various flatworms come
on with their "loon" bullshit. The fact is that I'm probably the most
original "loon" in this group. I was virtually born to it.
>Of course, burning flags at the convention of a political party that
>intends to try and elect anybody is the kiss of political death. That's a
>secondary consideration. But the Libertarian Party is doomed anyway - it
>hasn't got a chance.
You're absolutely right. That's because there is no chance that
anyone will ever vote their way out of this.
No significant number of people who vote will vote for anything
like the Libertarian Party, because they have nothing to offer from
the cannibals' pot. Nobody *seriously* interested in liberty will
vote at all, because they know that's not where the action is, which
is in the day-to-day *practice* of the concept.
>> All this aside, of course, from your remarkable dismissal of the
>> facts and importance of history.
>
>That's usual with liberals. And their phony patriotism that they
>brandish in defence of a fascist thug and their
>methodical destruction of everything good that the flag ever stood for
>is disgusting.
...and more.
*My* problem is that all this "progress" has outstripped my
capacity for invective.
It's a remarkable sensation, to me, to be at a loss for words in
dealing with the soul-deep revulsion at hearing what I do from insects
missing a pair of limbs, walking upright, and feeding on the empty
shell of something they know *nothing* about.
In my *nature*, I am not a violent man. However, I live in a
time so cynically constructed to specifically violate my nature that
it's a testament to my strength of character that I have not, long ago
now, *strangled* any number of two-bit apparatchiki who dared to look
me in the eye as I was "duly processed".
Every goddamned one of them was dealing with lightning, and they
never knew.
But I'll say this, here & now: I'll strike *myself* before I ever
unilaterally do that.
Billy Beck
Yikes.
lighton...@hotmail.com wrote:
>Whatever occured in history before we are responsable for the
>interpredation of current events.
I have no illusion that you deliberately set up that little
bastard pun, but I find it *deliciously* apt.
Enter it in the lexicon immediately, and spread it far & wide.
Mk Schn.eder
> >That's usual with liberals. And their phony patriotism that they
> >brandish in defence of a fascist thug and their
> >methodical destruction of everything good that the flag ever stood for
> >is disgusting.
>
> ...and more.
>
> *My* problem is that all this "progress" has outstripped my
> capacity for invective.
>
> It's a remarkable sensation, to me, to be at a loss for words in
> dealing with the soul-deep revulsion at hearing what I do from insects
> missing a pair of limbs, walking upright, and feeding on the empty
> shell of something they know *nothing* about.
>
> In my *nature*, I am not a violent man. However, I live in a
> time so cynically constructed to specifically violate my nature that
> it's a testament to my strength of character that I have not, long ago
> now, *strangled* any number of two-bit apparatchiki who dared to look
> me in the eye as I was "duly processed".
>
> Every goddamned one of them was dealing with lightning, and they
> never knew.
>
> But I'll say this, here & now: I'll strike *myself* before I ever
> unilaterally do that.
While obeisance (if I may label begrudged endurance with that word) to
tyranny may keep you alive to fight (?) another day, I do not see why you
feel that your restraint (let alone restraint prolonged over years and
decades) in doling out just retribution constitutes a "strength of
character".
As you correctly observe: We aren't going to vote our way out of this.
To which I will add: We aren't going to *talk* our way out of it either.
*Somebody* is going to fire the first shot at the first asshole, and
when it happens, it'll be _way_ too late in coming.
Replace stuff before @ with mike1. ==== If I look at what the future
is going to be like hard enough, I find that the present is already
overlaid with a kind of nostalgic haze. -- John Sabotta ===========
Victim not shot with a .38: http://www.federal.com/oct26-98/Story01.html
Coup USA: gopher://freenet.akron.oh.us:70/00/SIGS/JFK/FAQ/faq-daeron/3-faq
Why were the black GIs murdered? The Slaughter: http://www.theslaughter.com/
They screwed people left and right: http://users.aol.com/beachbt/screwold.txt
Mk Schn.eder
> Yikes.
>
> lighton...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >Whatever occured in history before we are responsable for the
> >interpredation of current events.
>
> I have no illusion that you deliberately set up that little
> bastard pun, but I find it *deliciously* apt.
>
> Enter it in the lexicon immediately, and spread it far & wide.
Uhm.... I've missed something here (perhaps for the better...?): That
phrase is a ungrammatical non-sentence without a predicate.
What was he *really* trying to say?
Kipawa Condor
> In article <3688ce23...@news.mindspring.com>, wj...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> > Yikes.
> >
> > lighton...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > >Whatever occured in history before we are responsable for the
> > >interpredation of current events.
> >
> > I have no illusion that you deliberately set up that little
> > bastard pun, but I find it *deliciously* apt.
> >
> > Enter it in the lexicon immediately, and spread it far & wide.
>
> Uhm.... I've missed something here (perhaps for the better...?): That
> phrase is a ungrammatical non-sentence without a predicate.
I believe that:
1) The sentence was originally intended to read: "[Regardless of W]hatever occured
in history before[,] we are responsable for the interpredation [interpretation] of
current events."
2) Beck was amused at imagining a properly-inserted hyphen: "...the
inter-predation of current events"
Corrections welcome.
Kipawa
Martin McPhillips
Provided that time itself had stopped, don't you think?
Projecting forward from the Articles of Confederation,
through 200 years of sovereign state governments,
when does slavery end? What becomes of the west?
How is Europe stayed from forming alliances both
within the "united states" and without, with *other* countries
in places like Florida or Greater Louisiana?
> I have little doubt of their benign intent.
I have little doubt that there was not a single man in the
room at the Federal Convention who did not realize the
magnitude of the risks they were taking. There was little
that was "benign" about their intent. They only had to
look over at Europe and back into history----and they did---
to know that attempting to *create* a state was like lighting
their pipes with gunpowder: it was something that could
easily blow up in their faces. And it did, in other faces, just
70 years later.
It is not for nothing that the most serious war that the U.S.
has ever fought was with itself.
> OTOH, there is a
>well-known road: we all know what it's paved with, and where it goes.
You've misinterpreted these men. The Constitution is a relentless
series of distrusts----and the first thing distrusted *is* government, followed
by the people who would lead governments, the people who would
elect governments, and the people who would inherit it all.
But as much as all of these things are *dis*trusted, they also had to
be trusted, and the only binding concept by which they would be trusted
was a transcendental one: virtue. If there was virtue it would succeed. Not
perfection, but basic virtue. That went for the processes of government as
engineered and executed by the people who led the government. And it went
for the people as well.
Obviously, a considerable gamble. Hardly benign.
> There are many desperate flaws in the constitution. The very
>first, of course, is the horrifying endorsement of slavery.
Well, would you consider it a desperate flaw that the principal author of
the Declaration was a slaveholder who never freed his slaves? I don't.
I don't think that there was an "endorsement" of slavery in the Constitution,
either. But, if you were going to have a country that could function in a
modernizing world in which several European nations could bide their
time before taking another bite on the North American apple, then the
South would be continuing its practice of keeping slaves. That was all
there was to it. But Hamilton, for instance, knew it was a repulsive and
backward thing, but could only trust that time would rectify it, and it did.
Just speculating, but had there been a recognizable "united states," without
the federal union, that survived to the end of the 19th Century, it is not hard
to imagine that slavery would have continued to exist to that point or beyond
in a handful of states.
So I think your conception of a "horrifying endorsement of slavery" is
specious. It was the federal union that ended slavery and rectified it
in the Constitution.
> That
>goddamned thing speaks for itself, and I don't imagine how politics in
>this country could ever get over that appalling contradiction - in the
>wake of all the noise about "freedom", etc.
"Freedom" in 1776 meant principally freedom from Britain. Residual to that
was the sense of liberty inherent in the abolition of monarchy and
nobility----the notion that there was no longer a hereditary hierarchy of humans
who would determine where people would get to "sit" at the "table."
And to a great extent, that survives. But the end of it is certainly in sight.
I just think that *blaming* the Constitution for it is malarkey. If anything,
the Constitution has slowed down the coming of the end, and the *abuses*
of the Constitution that quicken that end----given the examples we
could look to for comparison elsewhere in the world----have been
relatively difficult to attain. Had that not been true, the forces at
work during Wilson's and FDR's administrations would have done
far more damage than they did. The damage that's been done
at this point, *now*----and you *have* to understand this-----has
proceeded so rapidly because of the destruction wreaked on American
culture. Another discussion, that is.
>- simply because of the
>fact that it is handy to various po-mo's and other irrational trash
>who gleefully use it to point out that the first rational impulse to
>liberty - unprecedented in all of human history, except for here, just
>223 years ago - was just a lie or a "myth", and that there was never
>anything the least noble about any of it. As long as there is a
>single weasel in this country, we'll never hear the end of it, even as
>they turn around and bark at us about that fucking "law of the land"
>bullshit, now that they have almost a century of constitutional
>deconstruction in the legal bag.
It will be 223 years on July 4 next, and I agree with the above.
> Almost as serious is the interstate commerce clause. The power
>to tax is clear enough, prima facie, as the power to destroy, but the
>power to regulate interstate commerce was the entreé to virtually the
>entire practice of federal government as we deal with it, now.
I don't want to interpret your words, but I don't think you are really talking
about the interstate commerce clause, which was and is essential to
the vast economic growth of the United States. I think what you are
really talking about is the *abuse* of the interstate commerce clause
by the judiciary and by the legislature, which have both used it
for things that it was never intended to be used for.
You could go through the Constitution and pick out any number of
enumerated powers and say: "Look at what's been done with this!"
Same thing with cultural and political interpretations of the concepts
of the Declaration.
What's been done is exactly what gets done to everything in the
world that's *wildly* successful-----it gets abused. Is there any doubt
that Americans *themselves* have not abused their own prosperity?
And when someone abuses their own prosperity, which is their real
or liquid property, is there little doubt that they are ripe to have their
pockets picked by the government itself? Property is responsibility
as much as rights are responsibilities.
>Not
>one person who ever voted for ratification would have imagined a day
>when any court in the land would even *hear* a suit against a gun
>manufacturer, but every fool who did also bears responsibility for
>what's going to happen to gun manufacturers *now*. That's because
>they handed down the authority for such bloody rot when they granted
>this government the power to arbitrarily intervene in market action,
>even to the least degree.
At the time----and some things of necessity *have* to be done in and
for their time----they were *removing* the power of 13 states (and
eventually 50) to arbitrarily intervene in the market action between them.
> (It's not for nothin' that The Russian Rage
>argued for a complete separation of economics and government, "in the
>same way as a separation of church and state, and for all the same
>reasons." She was perfectly correct.)
In the latter case, the Constitution only barred establishment of a religion
by the federal government. Several states continued to have them, without
harm, for decades. And a number of countries have established religions,
which may or may not be of benefit to them, may or may not cause problems
for people who do not belong to them. What is most offensive is that
the notion of religious freedom has been translated by some into an odious hatred
of religion. That's the *French* Revolution at work. Not the American.
Then, the notion that the state should have nothing to do with economics,
as applied to this discussion of the "beginnings" of this country, would
have been most unfortunate. Hamilton's assumption and funding of
the Revolutionary War debt from the states, establishing financial
solvency out of debt, and gaining recognition for the United States,
from Dutch bankers, as a reliable debtor, was an essential element
not just in the dawn of the greatest prosperity the world has ever known
(while growing from 4 million to 280 million souls), but it was a key
element in establishing and keeping the political independence that
had been won from Europe. *The* most singular fear of the 1790s and
onward for at least a decade or two, was that the United States would
be "reaquired" by the British, or outflanked in the west by either the
British or the French. This was a *real* fear of a *real* possibility.
Financial solvency as engineered by Hamilton was a key piece of
statecraft in the most basic and *virtuous* meaning of that term.
>My respect for men like Ethan
>Allen, who swore a sacred oath that Vermont would *never* ratify the
>constitution as long as he drew breath, grows immensely with every
>passing year. Only slightly less esteemed are those like Patrick
>Henry, who, even though he later endorsed federalism, initially made
>all the right arguments against it. He had it right the first time,
>and I have no doubt that he would apologize for his later errors if he
>could see what this has come to.
>
> If we mark the constitution as your "beginning", then yes: this
>whole thing was fatally flawed. What we see today is a straight-line
>logical consequence of premises contained in the constitution. It
>could go no other way.
As to your first proposition, that the Constitution was the "beginning,"
that is probably true, if not debatable in larger contexts. Your claim "this whole
thing was fatally flawed" *must* be taken in a larger context, the
largest of which is human passion itself and what I have called the
"dynamic yearnings of the lifeworld" in other discussions. Institutions
simply do not copy well through time. People, big and small, see and
read into those institutions their passions, their yearnings.
Which I suppose brings us down to your alternative, which has *never*
been about the past, in my opinion, but about a potential future, which
is why I never argue with you about your underlying essential premises.
But as much as I respect your vision and your own respect for human
endeavor uncomplicated by the sticky hands of governments, their
bureaucrats, and the people who reach into their honey pots not
realizing that those pots are everyone else's pockets, I just can't
buy this pointing back into history and assigning blame to the
Constitution itself as if it in and of itself provided a sequence of
historical determinism that has led us here. Your theory breaks
down the second that you realize that *other* choices were available.
There did not have to be an Income Tax amendment. There did
not have to be a New Deal, or a Great Society, or a Bill Clinton,
just because of the commerce clause, or any other enumerated
powers. Those things were not *determined* by the Constitution,
but by men.
And men make mistakes, whenever and wherever they can.
The Constitution stands as a monumental historical achievment
against which the battering rams of human passion and ignorance,
and *democratization,* have begun to prevail.
And your contention that it was never needed to begin with does
not bear up under even modest scrutiny. Insofar as it was
created in earnest, thoughtfully, with full cognizance of the
classical and modern political knowledge available, it was
as needed as it was good, and it was good.
Billy Beck
Kipawa Condor <raynam@*dlrow*net.att.net> wrote:
>"Mk Schn.eder" wrote:
>
>> In article <3688ce23...@news.mindspring.com>, wj...@mindspring.com wrote:
>>
>> > Yikes.
>> >
>> > lighton...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> > >Whatever occured in history before we are responsable for the
>> > >interpredation of current events.
>> >
>> > I have no illusion that you deliberately set up that little
>> > bastard pun, but I find it *deliciously* apt.
>> >
>> > Enter it in the lexicon immediately, and spread it far & wide.
>>
>> Uhm.... I've missed something here (perhaps for the better...?): That
>> phrase is a ungrammatical non-sentence without a predicate.
>
> I believe that:
>
>1) The sentence was originally intended to read: "[Regardless of W]hatever occured
>in history before[,] we are responsable for the interpredation [interpretation] of
>current events."
>
>2) Beck was amused at imagining a properly-inserted hyphen: "...the
>inter-predation of current events"
>
> Corrections welcome.
Nope. That's it.
Mk Schn.eder
> > While obeisance (if I may label begrudged endurance with that word) to
> >tyranny may keep you alive to fight (?) another day, I do not see why you
> >feel that your restraint (let alone restraint prolonged over years and
> >decades) in doling out just retribution constitutes a "strength of
> >character".
>
> It's essentially because I'm not about to let *anger* substitute
> for the moment of perfect rational clarity necessary to taking a life
> in moral rectitude. Every sensible person who's paid attention to me
> knows that I won't have a problem with that if the moment arrives, but
> it's going to have to be something really clearly qualified for that
> sort of action.
>
> It's not really about "retribution", to me.
>
> It would have to be about seriously proximate life & death
> *defense*. An IRS agent running his bullshit squeeze across his desk
> from me doesn't cut it.
>
> > As you correctly observe: We aren't going to vote our way out of this.
> > To which I will add: We aren't going to *talk* our way out of it either.
>
> I hold one principle disagreement here, Mike, and it has to do
> with the civil disobedience matter.
By suffocating you under layers of bureacratic complexity, you die a
death of a thousand cuts rather than face that comparatively honestly
"proximate life & death" business that King George III deployed at bayonet
point. Now, instead of an immediately obvious foe, you're treated like
cattle in a Mossai stockade -- everywhere you turn, there's a guy with a
razor and a blood tube, nicking you behind the ears and taking a sip.
You're kept alive -- to feed them. You in particular may not bleed as much
to their liking, but so long as you never throw a hoof at their skulls,
it's enough for them.
*Fight*, Billy. *Fight*.
---
This reminds me of something.... (rumage, rumage)
Re: "Assassination Politics"
Author: Mike \Schneidr
Date: 1998/09/01
In article <35ec76c3...@news.mindspring.com>, wj...@mindspring.com wrote:
snip
> I'll tell what *I* know, however, from long experience with this
>sort of thing, including watching *really* miserable people wail about
>it in jail cells into which I'd marched on principle....: on the day when
>*your* *life* or *death* efficacy to conduct your *very life* in such
>an environment is reduced to margins so thin that the disappearance of
>your automobile and the ridiculous cost of $100 retrieval looms to the
>size of a king's ransom - almost impossibly out of reach - and when
>the requisite paper-chase starts to look like a crusade to the top of
>a holy mountain because your children are alone and hungry in the dark
>while you're out there dealing long days with perfectly irresponsible
>fat-ass bureaucrats - whose gigs are protected with all the "caring"
>rhetoric that the Clintooniac types shovel through here - but who
>really don't give a clap-ridden *fuck* whether your children live or
>starve or get eaten alive by rats as long as they can knock this
>"service" through all the proper hoops...
Rob, I want you to reflect on one thing as you reconsider that Lloyd
Benson impression you dished out in your last post: Do you think Billy
Beck could be the Billy Beck that he is (the one who marches into jail
cells on principle) if he had kids to raise?
You really don't know the depths of my anger when I see men of virtue
living alone like monks while plush-bottomed, wattle-jowled Orcs are
raising their ravenous litters of glassy-eyed whelps at the taxpayer
feed-trough.
*Blood* leaks out of my eyes whenever I see the damned Bush or Kennedy
"clans" introducing their newest scions into the blueblooded ranks of the
ruling order.
---
snip to next reply in thread:
...In no way would I march into jail, cc 1998 USA, on "principle" any
more than I'd march into the jaws of a crocodile. The state does not
*care* about principles, and it is perfectly well aware of the fact that
since it controls a critical level of "news" in this country, that it can
mash you into the cell floor grating and get completely away with - if ya
git too lippy.
Avoid "the drooling beast" if possible, or snipe at it when the time
comes, but IMO there is absolutely nothing to be gained by sacrificing
oneself to it in a futile display of martyrdom which it will simply keep
off the air. That Chinese tank driver displayed more moral qualms when he
refrained from flattening that demonstrator than I would expect of any
country correctional officer in the lower hold of the US judicial system.
If there was one small disagreement I have had with Billy, it was over
the utility of this sort of thing, and if my senses are correct, I think
he's changing his opinion a bit.
> Now before we progress further, how old are *your* kids, Mike? I have a
>17 year-old daughter, a 3 year-old son, and a 7 month-old daughter. After
>we trade this info, *then* we can wax eloquent with righteous indignation.
Rob, I don't have any kids. *Yet*.
There is no way I'd lip off like I do on the net if I thought there was
a slim chance that fixed assets like a house could be swiped. But do not
under any circumstance mistake such prudent non-exposure for an actual
change in the way I'd *think* about these things.
Another thing: Do you think I'd want my children growing up into this?
No way. They'd be out of harm's way off on Vancouver Island or some such.
---end.
If I was an 80-something year-old man who'd been finally given the bad
news by the doctor, I'd give away what I owned to those I loved, then take
a final trip to gun shop for ammo, in preparation to go out *hunting*, as
did Ambrose Bierce around a century ago.
Nothing changes until you kill the assholes.
(God *damn*. Puts me in the mood to view "Legends of the Fall" again.)
Replace stuff before @ with mike1. ==== If I look at what the future
is going to be like hard enough, I find that the present is already
johnz
tilt...@cow-net.com ((MW)) wrote:
(snip)
> Speaking of overthrowing governments and the values of a constitutional
> government to protect indiviual rights - and why the experiment has
> failed miserably - Mike the sooner you get up here to help us with this
> Split thingy the better.
> Let me know - let's make the arrangements ok?
>
> Meaghan
I havn't the slightest idea what wacky, fun-loving scheme you two are up
to, but since Schneider has been busily engaging in free exchange with
certain pastry-obsessed lungs, he's probably well equipped for whatever it
is.
JS
Billy Beck
sto...@DELETEwinTHIISternet.com (Mk Schn.eder) wrote:
>In article <3688cb44...@news.mindspring.com>, wj...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
>> >That's usual with liberals. And their phony patriotism that they
>> >brandish in defence of a fascist thug and their
>> >methodical destruction of everything good that the flag ever stood for
>> >is disgusting.
>>
>> ...and more.
>>
>> *My* problem is that all this "progress" has outstripped my
>> capacity for invective.
>>
>> It's a remarkable sensation, to me, to be at a loss for words in
>> dealing with the soul-deep revulsion at hearing what I do from insects
>> missing a pair of limbs, walking upright, and feeding on the empty
>> shell of something they know *nothing* about.
>>
>> In my *nature*, I am not a violent man. However, I live in a
>> time so cynically constructed to specifically violate my nature that
>> it's a testament to my strength of character that I have not, long ago
>> now, *strangled* any number of two-bit apparatchiki who dared to look
>> me in the eye as I was "duly processed".
>>
>> Every goddamned one of them was dealing with lightning, and they
>> never knew.
>>
>> But I'll say this, here & now: I'll strike *myself* before I ever
>> unilaterally do that.
> While obeisance (if I may label begrudged endurance with that word) to
>tyranny may keep you alive to fight (?) another day, I do not see why you
>feel that your restraint (let alone restraint prolonged over years and
>decades) in doling out just retribution constitutes a "strength of
>character".
It's essentially because I'm not about to let *anger* substitute
for the moment of perfect rational clarity necessary to taking a life
in moral rectitude. Every sensible person who's paid attention to me
knows that I won't have a problem with that if the moment arrives, but
it's going to have to be something really clearly qualified for that
sort of action.
It's not really about "retribution", to me.
It would have to be about seriously proximate life & death
*defense*. An IRS agent running his bullshit squeeze across his desk
from me doesn't cut it.
> As you correctly observe: We aren't going to vote our way out of this.
> To which I will add: We aren't going to *talk* our way out of it either.
I hold one principle disagreement here, Mike, and it has to do
with the civil disobedience matter.
John Kennedy
wrote:
>
No, the first and most fundamental flaw is the endorsement of the
assumption that men can justly rule men.
Even if every other problem you have with the constitution were fixed,
it would still have no legitimate authority over me.
John Kennedy
John Kennedy
wrote:
>
>sto...@DELETEwinTHIISternet.com (Mk Schn.eder) wrote:
>
>>In article <3688cb44...@news.mindspring.com>, wj...@mindspring.com wrote:
>>
>>> >That's usual with liberals. And their phony patriotism that they
>>> >brandish in defence of a fascist thug and their
>>> >methodical destruction of everything good that the flag ever stood for
>>> >is disgusting.
>>>
>>> ...and more.
>>>
>>> *My* problem is that all this "progress" has outstripped my
>>> capacity for invective.
>>>
>>> It's a remarkable sensation, to me, to be at a loss for words in
>>> dealing with the soul-deep revulsion at hearing what I do from insects
>>> missing a pair of limbs, walking upright, and feeding on the empty
>>> shell of something they know *nothing* about.
>>>
>>> In my *nature*, I am not a violent man. However, I live in a
>>> time so cynically constructed to specifically violate my nature that
>>> it's a testament to my strength of character that I have not, long ago
>>> now, *strangled* any number of two-bit apparatchiki who dared to look
>>> me in the eye as I was "duly processed".
>>>
>>> Every goddamned one of them was dealing with lightning, and they
>>> never knew.
>>>
>>> But I'll say this, here & now: I'll strike *myself* before I ever
>>> unilaterally do that.
>
>> While obeisance (if I may label begrudged endurance with that word) to
>>tyranny may keep you alive to fight (?) another day, I do not see why you
>>feel that your restraint (let alone restraint prolonged over years and
>>decades) in doling out just retribution constitutes a "strength of
>>character".
>
> It's essentially because I'm not about to let *anger* substitute
>for the moment of perfect rational clarity necessary to taking a life
>in moral rectitude. Every sensible person who's paid attention to me
>knows that I won't have a problem with that if the moment arrives, but
>it's going to have to be something really clearly qualified for that
>sort of action.
>
> It's not really about "retribution", to me.
>
> It would have to be about seriously proximate life & death
>*defense*. An IRS agent running his bullshit squeeze across his desk
>from me doesn't cut it.
>
>> As you correctly observe: We aren't going to vote our way out of this.
>> To which I will add: We aren't going to *talk* our way out of it either.
>
> I hold one principle disagreement here, Mike, and it has to do
>with the civil disobedience matter.
I don't follow. Surely you agree he's right, considering the tide of
history, we won't talk our way out of this.
My feeling is that the shit is going to hit the fan without any help
required from me. And then life will get a lot less pleasant. So I'll
prepare for it, but I won't hasten it, and in the meantime I'll enjoy
the imperfect liberty currently available.
>
>
>Billy
>
>VRWC fronteer
>http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/promise.html
John Kennedy
John Kennedy
>In article <368817e2...@news.mindspring.com>,
> wj...@mindspring.com wrote:
>>
>> lighton...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>
>>
>> >I have a really wackey idea, let's let Mr. Hunt speak for himself!
>> >
>> >I know that is an odd thought compared to interpreting an event that
>> >happened over 100 years ago. I know many people don't value the
>> >relevance of what a living individual did, alive and can speak with
>> >first hand knowledge, a few months ago rather than what is written in a
>> >book about people dead for a century, but hey I said it was a wacky idea.
>>
>> ...not to mention a cheesy dodge. Here you are indicting Bob for
>> burning a flag, and refuse to consider the patriotism to the ideals of
>> liberty exemplified in the act of a man who burned the constitution
>> over the matter of slavery.
>
>No, I refuse to consider Libertarian Party member Robert L. Hunt's actions
>compaired to the historical actions of any other person until Hunt speaks
>for himslef. Any comparison to any event in the past is only an acedemic
>exercise and without any useful result until Hunt provides some info.
What do you need information for? You've already made your judgement
without it.
Considering the context it seems plausible that the man was making a
philosophical or poitical point. I'd assume that a reasonable person
would need to know what that point was before passing judgement.
>
>>To you, there is no good reason in the
>> world to consider the reasoning behind such an act, and you don't even
>> try.
>>
>> All this aside, of course, from your remarkable dismissal of the
>> facts and importance of history.
>>
>> Billy
>
>I recognize history for what it is, the dead past. There are many
>important lessons to be learned from history. But history is not
>an exact set of instructions. Whatever occured in history before
>we are responsable for the interpredation of current events.
>
bob...@erols.com
>In article <3686c9d4...@news.mindspring.com>,
> wj...@mindspring.com wrote:
>>
>> lighton...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >That we have not gotten YOUR government is promising. Are you not the
>> >same Bob Hunt who at the last anti-American US Libertarian Party
>> >convention burned the American flag? And this on no less than July the
>> >4th. ?
Yes I am that same proud American, Bob Hunt.
It will probably be the act that I have done that
I most proud of. I grew up thinking I would never
be flag burner. Oh the changes of this decade.
And it was a flag that had previously flown over
the US Capital building.
And please explain how the Libertarian Party is
"anti-American". I don't think you can without distortion.
>>
>> So what? Wiliam Lloyd Garrison set fire to the constitution at
>> Framingham Grove, Massachusetts on July, 1854. Go look it up and see
>> what it was about.
>>
>> Here's a "light" for you: "liberty" isn't about obescience to the
>> state.
>>
>> Smoke up.
>>
>> Billy
>>
>> VRWC fronteer
>> http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/promise.html
>>
>
>I have a really wackey idea, let's let Mr. Hunt speak for himself!
I have no worry that Billy Beck would ever usurp my rights.
I can't say that about most people anymore.
What rights are and where there come from has been
butchered in the minds of most people.
PS: I have to work. So I fall behind on some lists during the week.
>
>I know that is an odd thought compared to interpreting an event that
>happened over 100 years ago. I know many people don't value the
>relevance of what a living individual did, alive and can speak with
>first hand knowledge, a few months ago rather than what is written in a
>book about people dead for a century, but hey I said it was a wacky idea.
Fact: the current administration has tarnished the flag far more than
I ever could or would.
bob hunt
Mke Schn.eder
(John Kennedy) wrote:
> >> As you correctly observe: We aren't going to vote our way out of this.
> >> To which I will add: We aren't going to *talk* our way out of it either.
> >
> > I hold one principle disagreement here, Mike, and it has to do
> >with the civil disobedience matter.
>
> I don't follow. Surely you agree he's right, considering the tide of
> history, we won't talk our way out of this.
>
> My feeling is that the shit is going to hit the fan without any help
> required from me. And then life will get a lot less pleasant. So I'll
> prepare for it, but I won't hasten it, and in the meantime I'll enjoy
> the imperfect liberty currently available.
The prospect of civil unrest is akin to the prospect of applying a
glowing brand to a gangrenous wound: Sure it'll hurt like fucking hell --
but you *do* want to save your leg, don't you? Just because you can still
walk on it now doesn't mean something doesn't have to be done about it.
The rot spreads, and will eventually consume all unless checked.
Replace stuff before @ with mike1. ==== Democracy: in which you say
what you like and do what you're told. -- Gerald Barry. ===========
Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: http://www.proparanoid.com/truth.html
Mke Schn.eder
(John Kennedy) wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Dec 1998 12:39:40 GMT, wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck)
> wrote:
>
> > There are many desperate flaws in the constitution. The very
> >first, of course, is the horrifying endorsement of slavery.
>
> No, the first and most fundamental flaw is the endorsement of the
> assumption that men can justly rule men.
>
> Even if every other problem you have with the constitution were fixed,
> it would still have no legitimate authority over me.
You have passed the final of the Seven Challanges, and may now assume
the role of Custodian of The Book of Ultimate Wisdom, presently tasked to
me and of whose responsibility I grow weary and seek to retire from.
*Please*!
(Inside joke based on "Circle of Iron". BTW, wasn't it Scott Erb
shriveling himself in that giant pot of oil, entreating passers-by
to join him? "Thirty years I have been in here...." And didn't the
Monkey King bear a more-than-passing resemblence to Zepp?)
John Kennedy
storm...@DELETEwinTHIISternet.com (Mke Schn.eder) wrote:
>In article <368b1066...@news.ntplx.net>, kenne...@my-dejanews.com
>(John Kennedy) wrote:
>
>> >> As you correctly observe: We aren't going to vote our way out of this.
>> >> To which I will add: We aren't going to *talk* our way out of it either.
>> >
>> > I hold one principle disagreement here, Mike, and it has to do
>> >with the civil disobedience matter.
>>
>> I don't follow. Surely you agree he's right, considering the tide of
>> history, we won't talk our way out of this.
>>
>> My feeling is that the shit is going to hit the fan without any help
>> required from me. And then life will get a lot less pleasant. So I'll
>> prepare for it, but I won't hasten it, and in the meantime I'll enjoy
>> the imperfect liberty currently available.
>
>
> The prospect of civil unrest is akin to the prospect of applying a
>glowing brand to a gangrenous wound: Sure it'll hurt like fucking hell --
>but you *do* want to save your leg, don't you? Just because you can still
>walk on it now doesn't mean something doesn't have to be done about it.
>
> The rot spreads, and will eventually consume all unless checked.
>
You make a strong case.
But society is not my body, and though it may be rotting, I am not.
I am in grave danger, whatever course I take.
I don't say you're wrong to treat the matter as you've indicated. But
there are other ways to be clean too.
John Kennedy
John Kennedy
storm...@DELETEwinTHIISternet.com (Mke Schn.eder) wrote:
>In article <368b0da8...@news.ntplx.net>, kenne...@my-dejanews.com
>(John Kennedy) wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 29 Dec 1998 12:39:40 GMT, wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck)
>> wrote:
>>
>> > There are many desperate flaws in the constitution. The very
>> >first, of course, is the horrifying endorsement of slavery.
>>
>> No, the first and most fundamental flaw is the endorsement of the
>> assumption that men can justly rule men.
>>
>> Even if every other problem you have with the constitution were fixed,
>> it would still have no legitimate authority over me.
>
>
> You have passed the final of the Seven Challanges, and may now assume
>the role of Custodian of The Book of Ultimate Wisdom, presently tasked to
>me and of whose responsibility I grow weary and seek to retire from.
>*Please*!
Nice try Sensei. I'm sure you'd also be pleased to bestow upon me the
honor of painting your house.
Another imaginary book? This threatens to become an embarrassment of
non-existent riches.
John Kennedy
lighton...@hotmail.com
> >> lighton...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >That we have not gotten YOUR government is promising. Are you not the
> >> >same Bob Hunt who at the last anti-American US Libertarian Party
> >> >convention burned the American flag? And this on no less than July the
> >> >4th. ?
>
> Yes I am that same proud American, Bob Hunt.
> It will probably be the act that I have done that
> I most proud of. I grew up thinking I would never
> be flag burner. Oh the changes of this decade.
> And it was a flag that had previously flown over
> the US Capital building.
>
> And please explain how the Libertarian Party is
> "anti-American". I don't think you can without distortion.
>
I won’t go into a long and detailed essay here, perhaps on my website some
day.
Anybody can read the Libertarian Party Platform and come to the same
conclusion that I have, the Libertarian Party is an anti-American
organization.
For those not familiar the Libertarian Party calls for declaring the boarders
open, revoking US passports and stripping us of the ability to defend the
nation. There are numerous demands in the platform that would result in the
end of the US.
Libertarians claim this is not so, that they are only restoring things to the
way they should be. But an outsider can readily see that Libertarians really
mean to change things to the way THEY think things should be.
What the Libertarians propose is to take your Chevy Impala, take it
completely apart, throw away all the parts but the emblem. Then they are
going to cobble together a collection of non-Impala parts, put the emblem
back on and proudly declare that it is still a Chevy Impala.
<SNIP>
>
> I have no worry that Billy Beck would ever usurp my rights.
> I can't say that about most people anymore.
> What rights are and where there come from has been
> butchered in the minds of most people.
>
> PS: I have to work. So I fall behind on some lists during the week.
>
Same here, also I don’t subscribe to these lists. I was browsing and found
your post and just replied to it.
<SNIP>
>
> Fact: the current administration has tarnished the flag far more than
> I ever could or would.
>
> bob hunt
>
>
But you burned the American flag. If you really cherish it and feel that it
has been tarnished then champion it, don't burn it. -- Kevin O'Connell Light
John Kennedy
wrote:
Not relentless enough by half.
>
>But as much as all of these things are *dis*trusted, they also had to
>be trusted, and the only binding concept by which they would be trusted
>was a transcendental one: virtue. If there was virtue it would succeed. Not
>perfection, but basic virtue. That went for the processes of government as
>engineered and executed by the people who led the government. And it went
>for the people as well.
>
>Obviously, a considerable gamble. Hardly benign.
>
>> There are many desperate flaws in the constitution. The very
>>first, of course, is the horrifying endorsement of slavery.
>
>Well, would you consider it a desperate flaw that the principal author of
>the Declaration was a slaveholder who never freed his slaves? I don't.
Of course it was a desperate flaw in Jefferson. That man had every
reason to know better.
>
>I don't think that there was an "endorsement" of slavery in the Constitution,
More precisely, the Constitution sanctioned slavery.
>either. But, if you were going to have a country that could function in a
>modernizing world in which several European nations could bide their
>time before taking another bite on the North American apple, then the
>South would be continuing its practice of keeping slaves. That was all
>there was to it.
So those who loathed slavery had no choice but to sanction it to
remain free themselves? Then they were using slaves as a shield.
That's essentially what happened, but it's not morally defensible.
>But Hamilton, for instance, knew it was a repulsive and
>backward thing, but could only trust that time would rectify it, and it did.
No, what he could have done was to decline to sanction slavery and
decline to recognize the legitimacy of any state that did sanction it.
The constitution is fatally flawed. It claims authority over many who
never consented to it. There is no legitimate basis for that claim.
In fact, the Constitution protected those establishments of religion.
"Congess shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
meant also that the federal government had no power to prevent
establishments of religion in the states.
But the Civil War settled all questions of states rights once and for
all, and this has been forgotten.
The Constitution was doomed to fail because it embraced the
contradiction that freedom could be secured by ruling men without
their consent. The framers knew that government could not be just
without the consent of the governed, and they also knew that this was
impossible and fully intended to rule many who did not consent. Which
is just what they did.
>There did not have to be an Income Tax amendment. There did
>not have to be a New Deal, or a Great Society, or a Bill Clinton,
>just because of the commerce clause, or any other enumerated
>powers. Those things were not *determined* by the Constitution,
>but by men.
>
>And men make mistakes, whenever and wherever they can.
>
>The Constitution stands as a monumental historical achievment
>against which the battering rams of human passion and ignorance,
>and *democratization,* have begun to prevail.
It asserts the legitimacy of democracy.
>
>And your contention that it was never needed to begin with does
>not bear up under even modest scrutiny. Insofar as it was
>created in earnest, thoughtfully, with full cognizance of the
>classical and modern political knowledge available, it was
>as needed as it was good, and it was good.
>
>
Your need is not a mortgage on another persons life.
John Kennedy
lighton...@hotmail.com
kenne...@my-dejanews.com (John Kennedy) wrote:
<SNIP>
>
> What do you need information for? You've already made your judgement
> without it.
> Considering the context it seems plausible that the man was making a
> philosophical or poitical point. I'd assume that a reasonable person
> would need to know what that point was before passing judgement.
>
Okay, what you are referring beofre I have quoted below.
"That we have not gotten YOUR government is promising. Are you not the
same Bob Hunt who at the last anti-American US Libertarian Party
convention burned the American flag? And this on no less than July the
4th. ?"
If you can excerpt a quote from the above post that shows I have made a
judgement please quote it.
You will notice I did ask Hunt about what he did. He has replied saying that
he , bob...@erols.com is the same Bob Hunt that burned the American flag at
the Libertarian Party convention last July. He did not really give any
detailed reason for what he did.
John Kennedy
>In article <368b133a...@news.ntplx.net>,
> kenne...@my-dejanews.com (John Kennedy) wrote:
><SNIP>
>
>>
>> What do you need information for? You've already made your judgement
>> without it.
>
>> Considering the context it seems plausible that the man was making a
>> philosophical or poitical point. I'd assume that a reasonable person
>> would need to know what that point was before passing judgement.
>>
>
>Okay, what you are referring beofre I have quoted below.
>
>"That we have not gotten YOUR government is promising. Are you not the
>same Bob Hunt who at the last anti-American US Libertarian Party
>convention burned the American flag? And this on no less than July the
>4th. ?"
>
>
>If you can excerpt a quote from the above post that shows I have made a
>judgement please quote it.
Doesn't "on no less than July the 4th" contain a judgement?
If one were simply ascertaining a fact, the phrasing is rather odd.
lighton...@hotmail.com
kenne...@my-dejanews.com (John Kennedy) wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Jan 1999 02:25:19 GMT, lighton...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >In article <368b133a...@news.ntplx.net>,
> > kenne...@my-dejanews.com (John Kennedy) wrote:
> ><SNIP>
> >
> >>
> >> What do you need information for? You've already made your judgement
> >> without it.
> >
> >> Considering the context it seems plausible that the man was making a
> >> philosophical or poitical point. I'd assume that a reasonable person
> >> would need to know what that point was before passing judgement.
> >>
> >
> >Okay, what you are referring beofre I have quoted below.
> >
> >"That we have not gotten YOUR government is promising. Are you not the
> >same Bob Hunt who at the last anti-American US Libertarian Party
> >convention burned the American flag? And this on no less than July the
> >4th. ?"
> >
> >
> >If you can excerpt a quote from the above post that shows I have made a
> >judgement please quote it.
>
> Doesn't "on no less than July the 4th" contain a judgement?
>
> If one were simply ascertaining a fact, the phrasing is rather odd.
>
judgemental. Hunt has never bothered to answer was to his own motives.
John Kennedy
>In article <368c74c0...@news.ntplx.net>,
> kenne...@my-dejanews.com (John Kennedy) wrote:
>> On Fri, 01 Jan 1999 02:25:19 GMT, lighton...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >In article <368b133a...@news.ntplx.net>,
>> > kenne...@my-dejanews.com (John Kennedy) wrote:
>> ><SNIP>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> What do you need information for? You've already made your judgement
>> >> without it.
>> >
>> >> Considering the context it seems plausible that the man was making a
>> >> philosophical or poitical point. I'd assume that a reasonable person
>> >> would need to know what that point was before passing judgement.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Okay, what you are referring beofre I have quoted below.
>> >
>> >"That we have not gotten YOUR government is promising. Are you not the
>> >same Bob Hunt who at the last anti-American US Libertarian Party
>> >convention burned the American flag? And this on no less than July the
>> >4th. ?"
>> >
>> >
>> >If you can excerpt a quote from the above post that shows I have made a
>> >judgement please quote it.
>>
>> Doesn't "on no less than July the 4th" contain a judgement?
>>
>> If one were simply ascertaining a fact, the phrasing is rather odd.
>>
>No , it odes not contain a judgement. It may be inflamitory but is not
>judgemental. Hunt has never bothered to answer was to his own motives.
What is the meaning of "on no less than"?
Billy Beck
(...recast for a new place in my archive.)
I told you, Martin, that this was a "serious challenge" and that
I would not ignore it.
cay...@nyct.net (Martin McPhillips) wrote:
No. I don't think so at all.
Here's a bit of why:
>Projecting forward from the Articles of Confederation,
>through 200 years of sovereign state governments,
>when does slavery end? What becomes of the west?
>How is Europe stayed from forming alliances both
>within the "united states" and without, with *other* countries
>in places like Florida or Greater Louisiana?
I don't know, and it doesn't essentially matter to me enough to
engage the conjecture. The only one of those three questions that's
immediately pertinent to me is the first one, and I maintain that
slavery would have been *starved* out of the market by *free* states.
Further, I'm convinced that free states would have emerged sooner than
they did if not for the three-fifths clause. This has to do with
principles of fiat prescription and proscription: set standards of
certain human dynamics *at law*, and they will much more rarely be
exceeded or even challenged. The case of slavery isn't necessarily a
very clear example of this in action, but I see no way for anyone to
seriously argue that it was not endorsed in the constitution. The
*principle* of liberty dictates a binary solution-set - for or
against, with no "degrees" between - but the constitution didn't make
anything about it that clear, and people learned to live with it.
>> I have little doubt of their benign intent.
>
>I have little doubt that there was not a single man in the
>room at the Federal Convention who did not realize the
>magnitude of the risks they were taking. There was little
>that was "benign" about their intent. They only had to
>look over at Europe and back into history----and they did---
>to know that attempting to *create* a state was like lighting
>their pipes with gunpowder: it was something that could
>easily blow up in their faces. And it did, in other faces, just
>70 years later.
>
>It is not for nothing that the most serious war that the U.S.
>has ever fought was with itself.
I understand that, but it's not as if they set *out* to light the
fuse of a civil war, and I don't believe a single one of them would
have gone anywhere near it if they'd realized what they were leaving
open.
When I talk about "benign intent", I extend them the courtesy of
presuming that they were doing the best they could. It's also a
different thing from high-fiving them for a worthy effort, because I
can't honestly do that.
>> OTOH, there is a
>>well-known road: we all know what it's paved with, and where it goes.
>
>You've misinterpreted these men. The Constitution is a relentless
>series of distrusts----and the first thing distrusted *is* government, followed
>by the people who would lead governments, the people who would
>elect governments, and the people who would inherit it all.
I disagree. At the *root* of *all* government of *any* stripe is
a "distrust" of its *subjects*, Martin. The people who presume to
institute governments distrust their *fellows*, and that's why they do
it. That's the "first thing".
Perhaps you're familiar with some of Patrick Henry's arguments in
the Virginia Ratifying Convention. He was one of the first to raise
the essential question of who watches the watchers, and the
fundamental thrust of that question is, "why the hell should *anyone*
trust them?" not "can they trust each other?"
Beyond all that, I suppose I could accept an argument that their
road (running down to this day) is *not* "paved with good intentions"
if, indeed, I've misintepreted them.
>But as much as all of these things are *dis*trusted, they also had to
>be trusted, and the only binding concept by which they would be trusted
>was a transcendental one: virtue. If there was virtue it would succeed. Not
>perfection, but basic virtue. That went for the processes of government as
>engineered and executed by the people who led the government. And it went
>for the people as well.
>
>Obviously, a considerable gamble. Hardly benign.
Then why did they do it? Shall we agree that they had *evil*
intent?
As for virtue: government *always* and *inevitably* destroys it.
Sooner or later, one way or another: it either breeds it out of people
with the long-range effects of assumptions (that is: invalid pretense)
of virtue in *stead* of that which resides in individuals (which is an
essential denial of the *source* of virtue) by teaching them that they
are, in their nature, evil, which is the entire rationale for the
existence of government, or it simply puts a gun against virtue's head
and cooly pulls the trigger in the name of "the general welfare". The
former method is, of course, starkly evident in today's general clamor
for socialism in the vast herds who've been brought up to understand
that they do not exist beyond the grip of the state (a process begun
long ago). The latter method is observable as early as the Whiskey
Rebellion, an example of rank execution of the virtue of defiance of
the dictates of the state.
>> There are many desperate flaws in the constitution. The very
>>first, of course, is the horrifying endorsement of slavery.
>
>Well, would you consider it a desperate flaw that the principal author of
>the Declaration was a slaveholder who never freed his slaves? I don't.
I absolutely do.
>I don't think that there was an "endorsement" of slavery in the Constitution,
>either.
I don't see what else one could call it without resort to
euphemism or outright contradiction.
>But, if you were going to have a country that could function in a
>modernizing world in which several European nations could bide their
>time before taking another bite on the North American apple, then the
>South would be continuing its practice of keeping slaves.
This is a mystery to me, Martin. I usually understand what
you're saying fairly clearly, but it's looking to me as if you're
saying that security from a threat of attack was - in whole or in part
- *dependent* on the institution of slavery.
In any case, let 'em ("several European nations") try it. To
begin with, people in pre-Federal America successfully ejected the
greatest power on earth in a time when political anarchy was never
more fully evident in our history, and never would be again. Further:
even if we stipulate to a federal government - without the
three-fifths clause - who, in all of a world engaged in this grisly
practice, would have fought with more dedication than a *free* black
man, for a country that had taken a *fully consistent* stand for
freedom, alone against every other flag? Alternatively: if the
Southern states had their objections to an emancipation clearly-stated
in the original constitution, then they probably would not have
ratified it, and the issue would have been brought into its necessary
relief at the correct moment: the very beginning. With the lines
clearly drawn, the *competition* of liberty in the northern states
would have put the South in its proper economic place by comparison,
something that happened even under all the constraints of a federal
government, and the day of freedom for untold numbers of slaves would
have been advanced in any number of ways such as early and florid
variants of external private initiative (freedom train types), or
sheer *business* imperatives in the South, simply because slavery
isn't productive.
As for the "modernizing world", I would have to know what you're
referring to before I take it up.
>That was all there was to it. But Hamilton, for instance, knew it was a repulsive
>and backward thing, but could only trust that time would rectify it, and it did.
Swell. I hate to whack *you*, Martin, of all people, with the
implications of a principle, but I cannot imagine that many whose
lives were wasted under the yoke of slavery would have traded those
years (so blithely consigned to fate by people like Hamilton, for whom
I've a very narrow regard) cheered in the thought that their suffering
would redeem the future.
IOW: "Take it up with each of the victims."
>Just speculating, but had there been a recognizable "united states," without
>the federal union, that survived to the end of the 19th Century, it is not hard
>to imagine that slavery would have continued to exist to that point or beyond
>in a handful of states.
I agree. I do not imagine that it would have instantly
disappeared. However...
>So I think your conception of a "horrifying endorsement of slavery" is
>specious. It was the federal union that ended slavery and rectified it
>in the Constitution.
...start at the *beginning*.
You may have your opinion, sir. *I* find the concept of
"three-fifths of other persons", yes, horrifying on its face, and it's
not as if there was a crippling shortage of enlightened people who
were simliarly convinced. Even if the ratification effort had failed
on this single point, it would have been an eminently worthy point on
which to stand.
>> That
>>goddamned thing speaks for itself, and I don't imagine how politics in
>>this country could ever get over that appalling contradiction - in the
>>wake of all the noise about "freedom", etc.
>
>"Freedom" in 1776 meant principally freedom from Britain.
It most certainly meant no such "principl[e]" thing. Britain was
merely the working example of the day. Pre-revolutionary literature
is rife with egoist ethics and logically consequential politics. The
most noteworthy example, of course, is Thomas Paine. It's not for
nothin' that Jefferson acknowleged his debt to Paine, that "Common
Sense" was, in the six months between its publication and the
Declaration, bootlegged as much as Grateful Dead tapes are today, and
Paine was dead-nuts-on when he said that "The cause of America is in a
great measure the cause of all mankind," none of the rest of whom were
engaged in a struggle against Britain. The case of Lafayette might be
questioned because of the contemporary French antipathy to Britain,
but he didn't attack London: he came to *America*, in large part
because he understood the depth of the struggle at issue. Chatham,
Fox, and Burke essentially chose to *rebel* in Parliament against the
Crown in sympathy with the American cause, playing a very edgy game
which was vindicated in the American victory.
The word "tyranny" was no mere euphemism for "Britain." It was
its *own* universal concept. Britain was instantly exemplary and
immediately precipitant of something naturally *bound* to burst forth
in the wake of the Enlightenment. This is the thing that makes the
American Revolution a *world* event, far beyond the narrow scope of
"freedom from Britain".
>I just think that *blaming* the Constitution for it is malarkey.
There is no escape from premises, Martin. They will *always*
find concrete expression.
>If anything, the Constitution has slowed down the coming of the end,
>and the *abuses* of the Constitution that quicken that end----given the
>examples we could look to for comparison elsewhere in the world--
...at this point I'm compelled to point out that, in this regard,
I haven't the least interest in comparison to the rest of the world.
(There is one special exception to this, which I'll point out later in
this post.) That's an essential admission of ineptitude, a comparison
of debilities.
A brief digression related to this point:
I'm occasionally cited for pessimism or worse in my relentless
attack on the United States government. It's often said that I have
nothing constructive to posit. I dismiss these remarks as
conceptually lame and beneath my attention. Implicit in my attack, at
all times, is the *opposite* of the situation of my homeland: *every*
*thing* about American politics today is precisely 180 degrees out of
phase with the ideals that drove the Revolution. If anyone is
interested in "constructive" engagement in the direction of *freedom*,
then the thing to do is *destroy* the politics we now live with. Note
that this is *not* "nihilism" (in the parrot-cheap mashings of a creep
like Lochner). This is not destruction for the sake of destruction.
This is a project of plowing away masses of rubble.
I care not one whit about "the rest of the world". The rest of
the world is for millenia born & bred to the yoke of slavery, and I
have no general concern for animals who cannot or will not raise their
own heads to the level of humanity. Let them cud their "examples". I
am an American, and would welcome their exodus to these shores if: A)
this was a place where they could be authentically human, and B) they
had sense enough to understand that and make the effort. Otherwise, I
won't hear about them.
>--have been relatively difficult to attain. Had that not been true, the forces
>at work during Wilson's and FDR's administrations would have done
>far more damage than they did. The damage that's been done
>at this point, *now*----and you *have* to understand this-----has
>proceeded so rapidly because of the destruction wreaked on American
>culture. Another discussion, that is.
I know. I included a taste of it in my earlier post. There is a
reason why I bend peoples' ears off with philosophy. It's because
there is no other primal force in fully human affairs.
In any case, as for the "damage"; you *have* to understand this,
in the context of a discussion of a constitution, and with particular
regard to your references to two of the most destructive
administrations of this century:
"If it can be *written down*, it can be *erased*."
I said that first, and it is available to widespread quotation.
If you don't understand what it means, then please ask, and I will do
my best to clarify.
>> Almost as serious is the interstate commerce clause. The power
>>to tax is clear enough, prima facie, as the power to destroy, but the
>>power to regulate interstate commerce was the entreé to virtually the
>>entire practice of federal government as we deal with it, now.
>
>I don't want to interpret your words, but I don't think you are really talking
>about the interstate commerce clause,...
I very certainly am.
>...which was and is essential to the vast economic growth of the United
>States.
*Rubbish*. Excuse me, Martin, my friend, but that's simply
nonsense. To begin with, there should never be any mistake that the
prima facie rationale for, for instance, the Interstate Commerce Act
of 1887 is Article I, Section 8, paragraph 3 of the constitution, in
the very same way that the current welfare state is rationalized by
reference to the Preamble, except that the interstate commerce clause
is far more explict in intent. The main things of interest about it
regarding the Interstate Commerce Act are that I-8-3 is not explicated
to the degree manifest in the Act, and that it took ninety-eight years
for the audacity of the Act to rear its monstrous head upon the
American economic scene.
Further: if you look into the history of the matter, you'll find
that, in 1885, the Senate authorized a five man select committee on
interstate commerce (the Collum Committee) to "investigate and report
upon the subject of the regulation of transportation". (Senate Report
46, 49th congress, 1886.) The whole intent of this "investigation"
was to answer the call of certain railroads for federal intervention
in contractual arrangements between others which the former found to
be "ruinous competition" (in the threadbare parlance of the day). I'm
not entirely sure what you understand of the economics of such things,
but the essential consequences include defective pricing and
misallocation of resources, generally in very narrow margins between
life and death for entrepreneurs, as well as prohibitive entry costs
for newcomers.
Now, these are *immutable* market principles, and they were
originally and implicitly codified at Article I, Section 8, paragraph
3, by its very existence. None of that, of course, addresses the
subsequent "long train of abuses" that has brought us, among myriad
other divertissements, "the vast economic growth" of seats on overseas
trade missions sold for campaign cash and "the worst storm of the
decade" at Dubrovnik.
Any claim that the regulation of interstate commerce is
"essential to the vast economic growth of the United States" is hooey
directly contrary to the facts of history. More important, it
proceeds from the premise that regulation is responsible for
*production*, and nothing on earth could be further from the fact or
truth, except, perhaps, the motto inscribed above the gates at
Auschwitz.
>I think what you are really talking about is the *abuse* of the interstate
>commerce clause by the judiciary and by the legislature, which have both
>used it for things that it was never intended to be used for.
"The Commission can be made of great use to the railroads. It
satisfies the public clamor for a government supervision of the
railroads, at the same time that the supervision is almost entirely
nominal. Further, the older such a commission gets to be, the more it
will be found to take the business and railroad view of things. It
thus becomes a sort of barrier between the railroad corporations and
the people who and a sort of protection against crude legislation
hostile to railroad interests. The part of wisdom is not to destroy
the Commission, but to utilize it."
(US Attorney General Richard Olney to Charles E. Perkins,
President of the Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad, December
28, 1892, cited at p. 3 of "The New Individualist Review" - University
of Chicago - Spring, 1963.)
Observe the implicitly *arbitrary* character of what Olney
offers: the Interstate Commerce Commission is open to any subjective
"abuse" that can be successfully argued by anyone who knows the right
office door to knock on.
Oh... waitaminnit... you didn't say anything about the executive.
You said "judiciary" and "legislature". Very well. Go dig out Bork's
"The Tempting Of America" and have a look at his recap of Justice John
Marshall's arbitrary constructions of the commerce clause as early as
the 1820's & 30's. You'll find them at p. 27.
It is *always* foolish to grant any government the power to
"regulate commerce" in *any* way. Protests of "abuse" of that power
will *always* be subject to assertions that can *only* be arbitrarily
reasoned (i.e. - with disintegrated logic) unless the principle of
authority is struck down in the very first case, and for all time
thereafter. Otherwise, the practical development will be that some
are exempt and others are not. Who are which will depend not on any
fully rational validation of *facts*, but, rather, on such vagueries
as political influence (in the case of administrative confrontations -
see Olney's invitation, above), or subjective "interpretations" and
"opinions" of the sorts evident in court decisions which stand as
precedents at law. More: once these sorts of precedents (*any* sort
of power to regulate commerce) are set, especially within their
irrational political contexts, hulking monstrosities such as
anti-trust law are *inevitable*.
I believe you might understand that there is no business in
America today that *cannot* be prosecuted under some provision of
anti-trust law.
If that power to regulate commerce did not *exist*, it could
never be "abused". Now, you might think this an "extremist" view, but
an authentic regard for *liberty*, sir, does not permit
contradictions, and it understands that a *single* violation is not
something to be glossed over as an impertinence in the historical
scheme of things, because these are not airy theoreticals: there are
*human lives* at stake, and every one of them is the proper object of
our concern.
That's because you or I could be next.
I could go on in this vein at length. Perhaps, however, my point
can be glimpsed, if not firmly grasped.
>You could go through the Constitution and pick out any number of
>enumerated powers and say: "Look at what's been done with this!"
Damned right. I certainly could. That's exactly why I condemn
the entire document and, indeed, the very concept.
>Same thing with cultural and political interpretations of the concepts
>of the Declaration.
Like whose ("interpretations")? Cite examples, and I'll beat 'em
to death.
I don't deal in "interpretations", and I have no regard for those
who do. That's because I know the difference between an
"interpretation" (weaselly bullshit trotted out as a matter of
evasion) and an *understanding* (a valid grasp of the concepts denoted
by words).
>What's been done is exactly what gets done to everything in the
>world that's *wildly* successful-----it gets abused. Is there any doubt
>that Americans *themselves* have not abused their own prosperity?
Yes. I have infinite "doubt".
That's because I have no way of knowing who you're talking about.
That's because you're not talking about *anybody*. You're working
from a collective premise which is metaphysically and (thus)
conceptually *invalid*. For instance: *I* have not "abused [my]
prosperity" and I would take damned serious offense if you said so,
specifically about me, in the terms in which you just insulted
probably millions of your countrymen about whom you know nothing at
all in support of the allegation.
>And when someone abuses their own prosperity, which is their real
>or liquid property, is there little doubt that they are ripe to have their
>pockets picked by the government itself? Property is responsibility
>as much as rights are responsibilities.
This last sentence is quite true enough. It is also true that
the responsibility is individual in nature - in precisely reciprocal
degree to the *authority* of property rights - neither of which are
subject to communal claim or review. The short version: a person who
abuses his or her property also has no responsibility to *you* or
*me*, so we get to shut up about it. This whole line of thought is a
bit of a ricochet, though. There is no necessary connection between
the mentality of, say, a person who likes to throw his Fabergé eggs
down concrete stairs and that of a welfare-state enthusiast.
>>Not
>>one person who ever voted for ratification would have imagined a day
>>when any court in the land would even *hear* a suit against a gun
>>manufacturer, but every fool who did also bears responsibility for
>>what's going to happen to gun manufacturers *now*. That's because
>>they handed down the authority for such bloody rot when they granted
>>this government the power to arbitrarily intervene in market action,
>>even to the least degree.
>
>At the time----and some things of necessity *have* to be done in and
>for their time...
Why? This involves a very important abstraction. Please tell me
exactly why.
>----they were *removing* the power of 13 states (and
>eventually 50) to arbitrarily intervene in the market action between them.
No sale, Martin. The power of federal intervention is not a
defensible substitute simply because it replaces the power of
individual states.
(There is an equally important implication that I'll point out
later on.)
>> (It's not for nothin' that The Russian Rage
>>argued for a complete separation of economics and government, "in the
>>same way as a separation of church and state, and for all the same
>>reasons." She was perfectly correct.)
>
>In the latter case, the Constitution only barred establishment of a religion
>by the federal government. Several states continued to have them, without
>harm,...
("harm" to whom, precisely?)
All this...
>...for decades. And a number of countries have established religions,
>which may or may not be of benefit to them, may or may not cause problems
>for people who do not belong to them.
...is (again, and it's unfortunate if it gets boring to have me
constantly pointing this out) filled with arbitrary assumptions from
collective premises. It is a fallacy to talk about the "harm" to
these countries, because "countries" do not suffer "harm" in an
ethical context, which (ethics - the matter of what individuals value
- religion, in this instance) is the subject here. *People* do. In
the very same way that you arbitrarily assumed the matter of "abuse[d]
prosperity", above, you just did it again, with other peoples'
religion. Here's an example that refutes your general premise: the
Ngus had, in practical terms, established Catholicism as the state
religion in South Vietnam, a circumstance which drove individual
Buddhists to the "harm" of self-immolation.
Example nearby rejoinder: "*Who cares*?? It's just a couple of
insignificant monks! We're talking about 'harm' to the *country*!"
You don't have to tell me that you would never say something like
that, Martin, because I don't believe you would.
*This*...
>What is most offensive is that the notion of religious freedom has been
>translated by some into an odious hatred of religion. That's the *French*
>Revolution at work. Not the American.
...is eminently agreeable to me, and it's the only sort of
"comparison" to foreign examples that I normally indulge in these
sorts of discussions: when evil and irrational things evident
elsewhere rear their heads here. You're absolutely correct.
I have to point out a couple of things about this particular
battle, however, that might be a tad uncomfortable for you.
To begin with, a lot of that has to do with the left's reaction
to assertions of the *religious* foundation of human rights. Averse
as they are to the entire concept of rights, the leftists will
naturally kick and scream at every positive assertion of them, and
religious assertions will be met with particular ferocity, in part for
good reason, but a lot as a re-hash of Marxist doctrine. The "good
reason" part has to do with the aspect of *faith* (i.e. - non-rational
validation) at the bottom of religion. This can be a valid vector of
attack. *I* could attack religion from the same direction, but I
don't. That's because I don't care to crash the value of comfort that
some people derive from faith. As long as they don't force it on me,
I say, "God bless 'em." I do, however, resent the complications for a
*secular* defense of rights caused by assertions of the religious
foundation. *Reality* is a sufficient reason to tell the leftists to
shut the fuck up, and it's also a common ground available to both
religion and atheism in defense of the concept of rights.
Further, here is a political implication that we see in practical
action today: a prominent battleground over the issue of religion is
the public schools, and there will *never* be an end to it as long as
the government is in the business of education. If the religious were
not equally strident about their concern with pressing the issue of
religion as the left is about it, they would be arguing for instant
demolition of public schools. That, however, is not the general case.
Instead of fighting for the exclusive right of private education
(which implicitly means an end to public education), they wade into
the arena in defense of their tax dollars at work, just as the
god-haters do.
This will *never* be resolved. It will go on as long as public
schools exist. If public education did not exist, neither would this
front of attack, which is one that the left exploits to the fullest
extent.
>Then, the notion that the state should have nothing to do with economics,
>as applied to this discussion of the "beginnings" of this country, would
>have been most unfortunate. Hamilton's assumption and funding of
>the Revolutionary War debt from the states, establishing financial
>solvency out of debt, and gaining recognition for the United States,
>from Dutch bankers, as a reliable debtor, was an essential element
>not just in the dawn of the greatest prosperity the world has ever known
>(while growing from 4 million to 280 million souls), but it was a key
>element in establishing and keeping the political independence that
>had been won from Europe. *The* most singular fear of the 1790s and
>onward for at least a decade or two, was that the United States would
>be "reaquired" by the British, or outflanked in the west by either the
>British or the French. This was a *real* fear of a *real* possibility.
>
>Financial solvency as engineered by Hamilton was a key piece of
>statecraft in the most basic and *virtuous* meaning of that term.
I can stipulate to that. That's because I generally have no kind
regard for "statecraft".
At this point, we approach a very deep example of "the public
goods" problem, and I'm not going to get involved in it now. I would
only point out that those heroes who actually fought and/or endorsed
the Revolutionary War were also in the minority of the colonies'
population. Understand me: it makes no difference whether the rest of
them were too stupid to grasp the importance of the war and get behind
it with their money and other goods. Even *liberty* cannot, in moral
rectitude, be forced on someone, and that includes every implication
such as the expropriation of wealth in order to pay for it.
>>My respect for men like Ethan
>>Allen, who swore a sacred oath that Vermont would *never* ratify the
>>constitution as long as he drew breath, grows immensely with every
>>passing year. Only slightly less esteemed are those like Patrick
>>Henry, who, even though he later endorsed federalism, initially made
>>all the right arguments against it. He had it right the first time,
>>and I have no doubt that he would apologize for his later errors if he
>>could see what this has come to.
>>
>> If we mark the constitution as your "beginning", then yes: this
>>whole thing was fatally flawed. What we see today is a straight-line
>>logical consequence of premises contained in the constitution. It
>>could go no other way.
>
>As to your first proposition, that the Constitution was the "beginning,"
>that is probably true, if not debatable in larger contexts.
I know what you mean. "The beginning" could easily extend as far
back as something like John Locke, without whose impact it is very
questionable whether the American project would have begun rolling
down the runway, much less taken flight. Hell, I have here a volume
entitled "The Roots Of American Order" (1974) in which Russell Kirk
reaches all the way back to the Old Testament in order to trace this
thing, and it's a worthy, if not necessarily completely compelling,
case.
However, I'm here to mark the *political action* - apart from
larger philosophical contexts - of government manifest in America, and
that's why I start with the constitution. Another part of that has to
do with...
>Your claim "this whole
>thing was fatally flawed" *must* be taken in a larger context, the
>largest of which is human passion itself and what I have called the
>"dynamic yearnings of the lifeworld" in other discussions. Institutions
>simply do not copy well through time. People, big and small, see and
>read into those institutions their passions, their yearnings.
>
>Which I suppose brings us down to your alternative, which has *never*
>been about the past, in my opinion, but about a potential future, which
>is why I never argue with you about your underlying essential premises.
...implicit conjecture on the matter of devolution of power to
the levels of individual states, and *lower*, all the way down to
discrete human individuals. (That's my "anarchy", of course, and I
maintain that my position is validated by any rational examination of
*reality*: the way things *naturally are*, apart from the statists'
pretentious bullshit on pretty scrolls).
I appreciate your projection of what I say into the future.
That's a proper move, of course, but I would point out that, recently,
someone came through here with a very good example of the sort of
concretely "constructive" suggestion that some people give me hell
about not advancing:
Greg Swann posted on the matter of the Republicans' redemption,
and his suggestion was a full and literal implementation of the 10th
Amendment, with a view to essentially repudiating federalism as it's
now practiced. If you didn't see that post, let me know, and I'll dig
it up for you. Swann and I often agree very closely. This, however,
was a fine example of putting one's head to work on the nuts & bolts
of power devolution as a matter of a step somewhat less alarming than
my own exhortations to civil disobedience.
I think it was a good idea. However, I also hold out virtually
no hope that the Republicans could ever muster the spine to come to
practical terms with it while the years of my life tick away under
their shit-heeled compromises with the commies.
Anyway...
>But as much as I respect your vision and your own respect for human
>endeavor uncomplicated by the sticky hands of governments, their
>bureaucrats, and the people who reach into their honey pots not
>realizing that those pots are everyone else's pockets, I just can't
>buy this pointing back into history and assigning blame to the
>Constitution itself as if it in and of itself provided a sequence of
>historical determinism that has led us here. Your theory breaks
>down the second that you realize that *other* choices were available.
They were *discarded*, Martin, at the moment of ratification.
This is a matter of principles and premises. All the rest is
simply rates of decay.
>There did not have to be an Income Tax amendment.
Of course there did. There was no other way to pay for the
growth which is natural to constitutional government, and was also
evident from the virtual day-one.
Likewise, all...
>There did not have to be a New Deal, or a Great Society, or a Bill Clinton,
>just because of the commerce clause, or any other enumerated
>powers. Those things were not *determined* by the Constitution,
>but by men.
...this.
At its *root*, it is what it is, and it cannot possibly be
anything else but what it is. The cancer analogy is perfectly apt:
once it *is*, the only question is how long it takes to kill the host,
unless it is somehow excised, first. The details of constant
medication and other therapies are irrelevent to the fact that life is
fundamentally different, and gravely challenged, from the first moment
of the fact that it *is* what it is.
That's the way it is.
lighton...@hotmail.com
kenne...@my-dejanews.com (John Kennedy) wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jan 1999 16:19:36 GMT, lighton...@hotmail.com wrote:
<SNIP>
> >> >> Considering the context it seems plausible that the man was making a
> >> >> philosophical or poitical point. I'd assume that a reasonable person
> >> >> would need to know what that point was before passing judgement.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Okay, what you are referring beofre I have quoted below.
> >> >
> >> >"That we have not gotten YOUR government is promising. Are you not the
> >> >same Bob Hunt who at the last anti-American US Libertarian Party
> >> >convention burned the American flag? And this on no less than July the
> >> >4th. ?"
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >If you can excerpt a quote from the above post that shows I have made a
> >> >judgement please quote it.
> >>
> >> Doesn't "on no less than July the 4th" contain a judgement?
> >>
> >> If one were simply ascertaining a fact, the phrasing is rather odd.
> >>
> >No , it odes not contain a judgement. It may be inflamitory but is not
> >judgemental. Hunt has never bothered to answer was to his own motives.
>
> What is the meaning of "on no less than"?
It means what it says.
McQ
>>Martin McPhillips wrote:
>>>Billy Beck wrote:
<snip>
>>> I have little doubt of their benign intent.
>>
>>I have little doubt that there was not a single man in the
>>room at the Federal Convention who did not realize the
>>magnitude of the risks they were taking. There was little
>>that was "benign" about their intent. They only had to
>>look over at Europe and back into history----and they did---
>>to know that attempting to *create* a state was like lighting
>>their pipes with gunpowder: it was something that could
>>easily blow up in their faces. And it did, in other faces, just
>>70 years later.
>>
>>It is not for nothing that the most serious war that the U.S.
>>has ever fought was with itself.
>
> I understand that, but it's not as if they set *out* to light the
>fuse of a civil war, and I don't believe a single one of them would
>have gone anywhere near it if they'd realized what they were leaving
>open.
>
> When I talk about "benign intent", I extend them the courtesy of
>presuming that they were doing the best they could. It's also a
>different thing from high-fiving them for a worthy effort, because I
>can't honestly do that.
The Constitution, as I understand it's history and the history of
those who constructed it, was a sell-out of the principles espoused in
the Declaration of Independence. And I agree, Billy ... the DoI was
THE seminal statement of the ideals this country was founded upon.
The Declaration of Independence was a revolutionary document. The US
Constitution is a counter-revolutionary document.
OK. Put up or shut up time. To understand the "intent" of the
founders, one must ask what goals they had and how those various goals
influenced their decisions. I believe careful analysis will reveal
that the goals and "intent" expressed in the DoI do not survive in the
Constitution. I further believe that the Constitution was a
fear-driven and negative conservative reaction to the "intent"
outlined in the DoI as it pertains to government power. It is an
attempted return to the "status quo" (or as one person said, the
exchanging the government of Britain for another government less
hostile).
Interestingly, there was a government functioning in America at the
time the Constitution was framed that did indeed embody the principles
of the DoI (although not intentionally as it existed prior to the DoI
being written). It too was a "constitutional democracy", but with
institutions far different than any imagined by the colonists or
founders (except, perhaps, for the most radical).
The Iroquois Confederacy (a 5 nation confederacy founded between
1000 and 1400 AD) had been functioning for at least 300 and possibly
more years. In a nutshell, it required unanimity for a decision to be
taken (how many times have you been told that form of government is
virtually impossible? Well it operated here for hundreds of years,
quite successfully). It also had the institutions and traditions
necessary to craft that sort of decision. Unanimity at village,
tribal and federal levels. If EVERY member wasn't in agreement, then
the proposal didn't go forward. The obvious outcome was a limited
ability to engage in collective decision-making and collective action.
But it also had a VERY limited ability to intrude and coerce.
As I see it, that sort of government *wasn't* the intention of the
framers. I say that because they rejected two proposals to fashion
government in that vein.
The first was proposed by Benjamin Franklin (the Albany Plan of
Union) and was quite like the Iroquois constitution but expanded the
ability to engage in collective decision-making and collective action
ever so slightly (what that means is it required LESS consensus than
did the Iroquois). Of course, it was rejected. For our Framers, it
required TOO much consensus and therefore too much compromise.
Implemented and then rejected were the Articles of Confederation (a
purely legislative form of government without a judiciary or executive
branch). Again the "Framers" found their ability to engage in
collective decision-making and collective action much too restricted
under the Articles. More consensus than they deemed necessary or
appropriate (don't forget, many of these folks were unrepentant fans
of aristocracy).
Conclusion? The "intent" of the Framers was to create a system that
allowed MORE collective action, and demanded LESS consensus in their
decision-making process than they had under the Articles of
Confederation. As mentioned, the exchange of one hierarchical
government for another perceived to be less pernicious (under their
kind and benign hand, of course). They were quite successful. And
quite honestly I have difficulty agreeing with anyone who tries to
sell the idea that they'd be "spinning in their graves" if they could
see us today. *Today* is the logical extension and outcome of what
they put it place. The addition of the Bill of Rights simply delayed
that outcome a bit but later the Civil War and WW II brought it back
up to speed.
Why do I reach this conclusion? Well consider the words of the DoI
concerning legitimate government: "...deriving their just powers from
the consent of the governed...". Note it doesn't say "some of the
governed", "a part of the governed" or "a few of the governed". The
legitimacy of government is dependent upon the consent of ALL of the
governed, just as the Iroquois understood. So any move AWAY from that
sort of consent was a betrayal of the premise dealing with legitimate
government as espoused in the DoI. I don't think there's any question
concerning whether this was done deliberately ... it most certainly
was.
"Benign intent"?
I don't think so.
<Lots more in here I'd like to comment on, but this is all I have
time for now>.
McQ
______________________________________
Join the hot-topics list for a spirited discussion
of topical subjects.
To Subscribe: e-mail to hot-topics...@egroups.com
McQ
>>Martin McPhillips wrote:
>>>Billy Beck wrote:
<snip>
>>> I have little doubt of their benign intent.
>>
>>I have little doubt that there was not a single man in the
>>room at the Federal Convention who did not realize the
>>magnitude of the risks they were taking. There was little
>>that was "benign" about their intent. They only had to
>>look over at Europe and back into history----and they did---
>>to know that attempting to *create* a state was like lighting
>>their pipes with gunpowder: it was something that could
>>easily blow up in their faces. And it did, in other faces, just
>>70 years later.
>>
>>It is not for nothing that the most serious war that the U.S.
>>has ever fought was with itself.
>
> I understand that, but it's not as if they set *out* to light the
>fuse of a civil war, and I don't believe a single one of them would
>have gone anywhere near it if they'd realized what they were leaving
>open.
>
> When I talk about "benign intent", I extend them the courtesy of
>presuming that they were doing the best they could. It's also a
>different thing from high-fiving them for a worthy effort, because I
>can't honestly do that.
The Constitution, as I understand it's history and the history of
Billy Beck
mcq...@ix.netcom.com (McQ) wrote:
>>Billy Beck contributed the following:
>> When I talk about "benign intent", I extend them the courtesy of
>>presuming that they were doing the best they could. It's also a
>>different thing from high-fiving them for a worthy effort, because I
>>can't honestly do that.
>
> The Constitution, as I understand it's history and the history of
>those who constructed it, was a sell-out of the principles espoused in
>the Declaration of Independence. And I agree, Billy ... the DoI was
>THE seminal statement of the ideals this country was founded upon.
>The Declaration of Independence was a revolutionary document. The US
>Constitution is a counter-revolutionary document.
[...]
> "Benign intent"?
>
> I don't think so.
>
> <Lots more in here I'd like to comment on, but this is all I have
>time for now>.
Know what?
When I sat down to take up McP's post, I thought to myself, "This
is about where I was with McQuain about six or seven years ago," and I
wondered if you'd see this.
McQ
>>>Billy Beck contributed the following:
> Know what?
>
> When I sat down to take up McP's post, I thought to myself, "This
>is about where I was with McQuain about six or seven years ago," and I
>wondered if you'd see this.
Know what? Same thought crossed my mind. Kismet.
This is an important starting place because once you unwrap the
"myth" in regard to the US Constitution, you're better able to
understand the point that regardless of initial "intent", without
consent and consensus, almost every type of government (but the most
carefully crafted one, such as the type the Iroquois put together)
must become oppressive. It is the nature of the beast.
Consent and how seriously the consent of the governed is factored
into the collective decision-making apparatus is the critical factor.
If, as with the Iroquois, it is the most important component, THEN one
"vote" actually DOES makes a difference. Then ANYONE can stop
governmental tyranny and oppression dead in it's tracks by a simple
"no" vote.
Where we are today isn't a problem with "straying", over time, from
the ideals formerly set forth in the Declaration of Independence and
then embodied in the Constitution (per the myth). Those ideals were
in fact abandoned when the Constitution was adopted. Consent and
consensus were given lip service at best. When the "Framers" decided
they wanted to focus on NATIONAL goals through collective action (vs.
the protection of individual rights per the DoI) they needed the
ability to do so with less consensus, not more, and the Constitution
provided that vehicle. They chose the goals of the state over the
rights of individuals.
So while we're a powerful and rich nation, our individual freedom is
only relatively better than elsewhere and becoming less and less so.
The important point here is to understand that we aren't where we
are because the past leaders and legislatures have failed to live up
to the ideals of the Constitution, but that those who framed the
Constitution failed to live up to the ideals of the Declaration of
Independence.
The American Revolution in fact *died* with the ratification of the
US Constitution.
Billy Beck
mcq...@ix.netcom.com (McQ) wrote:
> The important point here is to understand that we aren't where we
>are because the past leaders and legislatures have failed to live up
>to the ideals of the Constitution, but that those who framed the
>Constitution failed to live up to the ideals of the Declaration of
>Independence.
*Write that down*, kids. Cust & paste that bitch here, there, &
everywhere. McQuain is at the head of the class.
> The American Revolution in fact *died* with the ratification of the
>US Constitution.
Rob Robertson
>
> mcq...@ix.netcom.com (McQ) wrote:
>
> > The important point here is to understand that we aren't where we
> >are because the past leaders and legislatures have failed to live up
> >to the ideals of the Constitution, but that those who framed the
> >Constitution failed to live up to the ideals of the Declaration of
> >Independence.
>
> *Write that down*, kids. Cust & paste that bitch here, there, &
> everywhere. McQuain is at the head of the class.
Amen to that, Billy. Honest to god, my eyes were misting when I read
that, thankful that there is someone like McQ who not only sees the
essentials so clearly, but can express them so eloquently.
Well done, McQ.
> > The American Revolution in fact *died* with the ratification of the
> >US Constitution.
>
> Billy
>
> VRWC fronteer
> http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/promise.html
_
Rob
John Kennedy
>In article <368e61e...@news.ntplx.net>,
> kenne...@my-dejanews.com (John Kennedy) wrote:
>> On Sat, 02 Jan 1999 16:19:36 GMT, lighton...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
><SNIP>
>
>> >> >> Considering the context it seems plausible that the man was making a
>> >> >> philosophical or poitical point. I'd assume that a reasonable person
>> >> >> would need to know what that point was before passing judgement.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Okay, what you are referring beofre I have quoted below.
>> >> >
>> >> >"That we have not gotten YOUR government is promising. Are you not the
>> >> >same Bob Hunt who at the last anti-American US Libertarian Party
>> >> >convention burned the American flag? And this on no less than July the
>> >> >4th. ?"
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >If you can excerpt a quote from the above post that shows I have made a
>> >> >judgement please quote it.
>> >>
>> >> Doesn't "on no less than July the 4th" contain a judgement?
>> >>
>> >> If one were simply ascertaining a fact, the phrasing is rather odd.
>> >>
>> >No , it odes not contain a judgement. It may be inflamitory but is not
>> >judgemental. Hunt has never bothered to answer was to his own motives.
>>
>> What is the meaning of "on no less than"?
>
>It means what it says.
What does it say? What is the difference between the neutral "on July
4th" and "on no less than July the 4th"?
It seems clear to me that there is a value judgment intended in the
latter, that a certain offense has been exacerbated by the timing.
McQ
>>McQ was all like...
>> The American Revolution in fact *died* with the ratification of the
>>US Constitution.
>
>Ok. So now what? If this is indeed a given, what next? Does
>understanding why it happened or where the blame falls help in the
>process of correcting it (or can it be corrected at this point in
>time)?
Rather hard to fix a problem if you haven't identified it as such,
wouldn't you say? And the point expressed above definitely isn't
"conventional wisdom" and certainly not what is taught in our
fine schools.
"Demystifying" the seemingly semi-sacred "Constitution" and denying
it a place beside the Declaration of Independence seems almost an act
of heresy to most. But we're living what they wrote in the former not
the latter. And no amount of tinkering with today's politicians is
going to fix that problem. The politicians aren't the problem, the
document is. They're simply the result of the system the Constitution
established.
>It seems the most vociferous arguing occurs on everything that would
>naturally lead to the above statement. Not unusual considering what is
>invested in the present by those who profit mightily and well from
>such a usurpation.
>Still, what to be done other than recognize?
Maybe nothing. At this point I'd be satisfied if even a small
minority WOULD recognize the problem for what it is. That would mean
they took the time to check it all out (it really isn't that hard ...
a couple or three good history books, a little digging, etc.). The
fact that maybe only 4 or 5 here understand the problem would suggest
that maybe the "what is to be done" is to help MORE recognize the
problem and it's probable logical end.
>(p.s.: Fate indeed. <g>)
Mummy ... btw, got your email and I do apologize for not responding.
Bad couple of months in Black Rock.
johnz
> mcq...@ix.netcom.com (McQ) wrote:
>
> > The important point here is to understand that we aren't where we
> >are because the past leaders and legislatures have failed to live up
> >to the ideals of the Constitution, but that those who framed the
> >Constitution failed to live up to the ideals of the Declaration of
> >Independence.
>
> *Write that down*, kids. Cust & paste that bitch here, there, &
> everywhere. McQuain is at the head of the class.
>
> > The American Revolution in fact *died* with the ratification of the
> >US Constitution.
>
Yes, probably so, although I hate to say it. Still and all, it was a
pretty good run, wasn't it? As these things go, of course.
JS
johnz
(McQ) wrote:
> >Epitome contributed the following:
> >>McQ was all like...
>
> >> The American Revolution in fact *died* with the ratification of the
> >>US Constitution.
> >
> >Ok. So now what? If this is indeed a given, what next? Does
> >understanding why it happened or where the blame falls help in the
> >process of correcting it (or can it be corrected at this point in
> >time)?
>
> Rather hard to fix a problem if you haven't identified it as such,
> wouldn't you say? And the point expressed above definitely isn't
> "conventional wisdom" and certainly not what is taught in our
> fine schools.
>
> "Demystifying" the seemingly semi-sacred "Constitution" and denying
> it a place beside the Declaration of Independence seems almost an act
> of heresy to most.
Unfortunately, we are caught in a dreadful impasse here. The Constitution is
imperfect, in fact, it's the seed from which the present unbearable governmental
monster has grown and derived justification. Very well, let's concede this
point.
The problem is that, regardless of the strict facts of the case, which Mr.
Beck and others have demonstrated very well, the Constitution also
codifies certain
defenses, weakened, often ignored, incomplete as they are, against an even more
overbearing and obnoxious state. These defenses may be *logically* undercut by
the very existence of the Constitution and the state it gave birth to, but
they still exist in some vaguely understood, almost superstitious fashion
in the
minds of a great many Americans. The Constitution and the flag, all the
emotional symbols of "the republic" do stand as a kind of barrier, however
imperfect, to the total surrender to the total state. (Of course, I know
that the total state will use these symbols as well) The Bill of Rights
reminds men of the rights that they should understand without the Bill of
Rights. If the "superstition of the Constitution" is eliminated, what
other superstitions, far worse, will take it's place? The superstition of
the dictatorship of the proletariat? The superstition of "racial
brotherhood"? The superstition of Hillary's village? Of course it hasn't
in your mind, Billy or in yours, McQ, but
you are not very typical.
I would argue that we are in a house built right on the edge of a
precipice. The supports are giving way and the house is about to fall in.
The house should never have been built on the edge of the precipice, and
perhaps should never have been built at all (although later architects
have made many unsound additions to the structure, far beyond what the
original builders intended). But
the house in question is all there is. There is no time left to build a
new house, or even to get out of the old one before it crashes into the
abyss. And chopping away at the supports won't send the house floating
away into the sky - quite the opposite.
Somehow this seems like I am endorsing a "useful lie", to hypnotise the
masses who will not accept the idea of individual rights without a heavy
coating
of patriotic emotion and superstitious reverence for words on old
parchment. I suppose so. And it is a miserable thing to demand that Beck
and others keep up the pretense of believing in this lie. So I don't
demand any such thing. I don't demand that you help shore up the supports
(the LP position) . I don't believe (and have not believed since at least
1996) that the supports can be repaired.
The structure has failed, is failing, and I have every regard for those who want
to bail out. (Although I see no exit) And I would think it wrong in any
case to force those who decline to do so to pay for or vote to support the
structure, even if it were as solid as a rock.
I might hesitantly suggest that given time and space and the advance of
technological progress, "men's minds might be fitted" to the great change
that would produce a truely anarcho-capitalist world. To those who say
that it would - never- be possible, I would point out that any Roman in 50
BC who claimed that someday civilisation would exist without chattel
slavery would be considered as impractical or as crazy as any
anarcho-capitalist would be considered today. (Not that this means, I
hasten to add, that the grotesque evil of slavery should not have been
instantly smashed, civilisation or no civilisation, 50BC or 1860AD. No
slave is obliged to remain enslaved for the sake of my "gradualism")
However, it appears that this time will not be allowed. That's the
bitterest tragedy of all - what might have been.
Still, there's a few years left and we might as well enjoy what's
available as the shadows lengthen...
JS
bob...@erols.com
Great SF book with two versions of the DOI, one version leading
to the overthrow of the USC and a requirement that there must
be an afirmative vote of over 90% of the entire population for
the Continnental Congress to be allowed to even meet.
On Wed, 06 Jan 1999 05:06:39 GMT, mcq...@ix.netcom.com (McQ) wrote:
>>Epitome contributed the following:
>>>McQ was all like...
>
>>> The American Revolution in fact *died* with the ratification of the
>>>US Constitution.
>>
>>Ok. So now what? If this is indeed a given, what next? Does
>>understanding why it happened or where the blame falls help in the
>>process of correcting it (or can it be corrected at this point in
>>time)?
>
> Rather hard to fix a problem if you haven't identified it as such,
>wouldn't you say? And the point expressed above definitely isn't
>"conventional wisdom" and certainly not what is taught in our
>fine schools.
>
> "Demystifying" the seemingly semi-sacred "Constitution" and denying
>it a place beside the Declaration of Independence seems almost an act
>of heresy to most. But we're living what they wrote in the former not
>the latter. And no amount of tinkering with today's politicians is
>going to fix that problem. The politicians aren't the problem, the
>document is. They're simply the result of the system the Constitution
>established.
>
>>It seems the most vociferous arguing occurs on everything that would
>>naturally lead to the above statement. Not unusual considering what is
>>invested in the present by those who profit mightily and well from
>>such a usurpation.
>
>>Still, what to be done other than recognize?
>
> Maybe nothing. At this point I'd be satisfied if even a small
>minority WOULD recognize the problem for what it is. That would mean
>they took the time to check it all out (it really isn't that hard ...
>a couple or three good history books, a little digging, etc.). The
>fact that maybe only 4 or 5 here understand the problem would suggest
>that maybe the "what is to be done" is to help MORE recognize the
>problem and it's probable logical end.
>
>>(p.s.: Fate indeed. <g>)
>
> Mummy ... btw, got your email and I do apologize for not responding.
>Bad couple of months in Black Rock.
>
>
>
McQ
>>McQ) was all like...
>
>> Rather hard to fix a problem if you haven't identified it as such,
>>wouldn't you say? And the point expressed above definitely isn't
>>"conventional wisdom" and certainly not what is taught in our
>>fine schools.
>
>heard some say if you don't 'get it' then you're not worth bothering
>with and they pretty much drop you and move on. Others seem to find
>value in the process of trying to educate those around them, but claim
>no real responsibility to achieve that end other than the 'trying'.
>Still others believe the act of investing (knowing, believing, <insert
>semantic set required to get the point here>) in a thing as an
>absolute truth makes it encumbant upon one to try and help others
>understand or know the truth. This last smacks just a little too much
>of religion and arrogance to suit me, but I think if one truly does
>believe one has a line on the 'one and only truth', then such a result
>is not unexpected.
Well there's perhaps a fourth alternative: To point it out. I feel
no particular responsibility to make sure you get it, to educate you
or to say I have found any absolute truth.
What I've read of history supports my conclusion. You can take it
or leave it.
>But all of this aside -- if you have identified it as a problem and I
>have agreed it is such -- why do you ask me the above? Are you asking
>me whether or not I agree on the need for proselytizing? Or as you
>saying that until everyone agrees it is a problem, it cannot be fixed?
When does a "problem" finally become a problem?
>Further -- if one is living as an individual, responsible only for
>self, why would one care if it 'got fixed' for the rest of the world?
Because it effects me individually.
>I suppose I can see the idealist wishing it would work for the world,
>but it seem to me there is a contradiction somewhere in here.
What would work out "for the world?" Pointing out a problem with
conventional wisdom doesn't make one responsible for finding a
solution or even putting one forward.
>>>Still, what to be done other than recognize?
>>
>> Maybe nothing. At this point I'd be satisfied if even a small
>>minority WOULD recognize the problem for what it is. That would mean
>>they took the time to check it all out (it really isn't that hard ...
>>a couple or three good history books, a little digging, etc.). The
>>fact that maybe only 4 or 5 here understand the problem would suggest
>>that maybe the "what is to be done" is to help MORE recognize the
>>problem and it's probable logical end.
>
>I too, would like for people to see things the way I do. I realize the
>chances of this occurring are more than relatively slim. The way I see
>it, I have a choice -- do what I can and recognize I can't do it all,
>or nourish within myself the belief I can do it all and live a very
>frustrated and unhappy life.
How about a false dichotomy? There are other choices than those
two. Point out the problem and move on, for instance. Let people deal
with it as they see fit.
>The ideal of exponential growth is flawed in this instance, I think.
>Even if you could convince those 4 or 5 others (and they tell two
>friends, and so on...and so on....) the manner in which people would
>try to correct the situation (if indeed they ever undertook direct
>effort to do so) would vary and all of THOSE differences would require
>resolution before anything else could occur. Bearing in mind the human
>tendency to work using force (old habits die hard -- no pun intended),
>I cannot see where there is an eventual final solution. I do not think
>that having people agree there is a problem necessarily ensures they
>will all agree on what solution should be pursued.
You've made a few false assumptions here. I've mentioned nothing
about exponential growth. I simply said I'd be surprised if more than
4 or 5 recognized this as a problem and would be gratified if my words
helped a few more figure it out. Nothing exponential about that, nor
was it expected.
As for a final solution, I have no idea what that might be. I'm not
talking about solutions at this point ... I'm pointing out a problem.
>In the meantime, just tell me you still have the book. I'm thinking of
>undertaking the process over the next year and wish to follow up on
>particulars.
Yup ... got it.
McQ
>> > McQ wrote:
>> > The American Revolution in fact *died* with the ratification of the
>> >US Constitution.
>>
>
>Yes, probably so, although I hate to say it. Still and all, it was a
>pretty good run, wasn't it? As these things go, of course.
Depends on which side of the whip or feathered head-dress you were
on, wouldn't you say? Afterall, slavery and "The Trail of Tears" were
both perfectly acceptable under that "run".
Billy Beck
mcq...@ix.netcom.com (McQ) wrote:
>>Epitome contributed the following:
>>>McQ) was all like...
>>
>>> Rather hard to fix a problem if you haven't identified it as such,
>>>wouldn't you say? And the point expressed above definitely isn't
>>>"conventional wisdom" and certainly not what is taught in our
>>>fine schools.
>>
>>A call to proselytize? It would seem there is a division here. I've
>>heard some say if you don't 'get it' then you're not worth bothering
>>with and they pretty much drop you and move on. Others seem to find
>>value in the process of trying to educate those around them, but claim
>>no real responsibility to achieve that end other than the 'trying'.
>>Still others believe the act of investing (knowing, believing, <insert
>>semantic set required to get the point here>) in a thing as an
>>absolute truth makes it encumbant upon one to try and help others
>>understand or know the truth. This last smacks just a little too much
>>of religion and arrogance to suit me, but I think if one truly does
>>believe one has a line on the 'one and only truth', then such a result
>>is not unexpected.
>
> Well there's perhaps a fourth alternative: To point it out. I feel
>no particular responsibility to make sure you get it, to educate you
>or to say I have found any absolute truth.
Quite.
"Tick-tock, baby," and this stuff requires *initiative*. If I
knew I would live forever, I might relax, but I know better, and I
just don't have time for it. Anyone can make what they will of that,
but they might better devote the thought to other things, like
figuring it out. It's an *active* process that, at root, doesn't
really require the leadership of a "teacher".
johnz
(McQ) wrote:
> >johnz contributed the following:
> >> > McQ wrote:
>
> >> > The American Revolution in fact *died* with the ratification of the
> >> >US Constitution.
> >>
> >
> >Yes, probably so, although I hate to say it. Still and all, it was a
> >pretty good run, wasn't it? As these things go, of course.
>
>
> Depends on which side of the whip or feathered head-dress you were
> on, wouldn't you say? Afterall, slavery and "The Trail of Tears" were
> both perfectly acceptable under that "run".
"As these things go, of course"
JS
>
> McQ
Mike_ Schneder
Without a constitutionally-authorized federal government, there'd have
been no treaties for it to break (i.e., no false sense of security for the
Cherokee to belabor under until stabbed in the back), and no army to
force-march them to Oklahoma.
Replace stuff before @ with mike1. === Democracy: the expression of the
inate need of most humans to have an Alpha leader tell them what to do.
They like the idea of creating one via an "election". It's a vicarious,
Frankenstein-esque dependancy enablement syndrome. -- Bill Kasper =====
===================================================================
"I know it's HIS! He's the only white man I slept with that month."
-- Bobbie Ann Williams
McQ
<snip>
>The problem is that, regardless of the strict facts of the case, which Mr.
>Beck and others have demonstrated very well, the Constitution also
>codifies certain defenses, weakened, often ignored, incomplete as they are,
>against an even more overbearing and obnoxious state. These defenses may
>be *logically* undercut by the very existence of the Constitution and the
>state it gave birth to, but they still exist in some vaguely understood,
>almost superstitious fashion in the minds of a great many Americans. The
>Constitution and the flag, all the emotional symbols of "the republic"
>do stand as a kind of barrier, however imperfect, to the total surrender
>to the total state. (Of course, I know that the total state will use
>these symbols as well) The Bill of Rights reminds men of the rights that
>they should understand without the Bill of Rights. If the "superstition
>of the Constitution" is eliminated, what other superstitions, far worse,
>will take it's place? The superstition of the dictatorship of the proletariat?
>The superstition of "racial brotherhood"? The superstition of Hillary's village?
>Of course it hasn't in your mind, Billy or in yours, McQ, but you are not
>very typical.
Sometimes I think "Atypical" should be my middle name.
Let me point out something John ... your defense of the nominal
freedom found in this form of government could be the same argument
used with any form of government which was marginally better than
another. Would anyone argue that the nominally benevolent monarchy
found in Saudi Arabia is not more desirable than the authoritarian
regime of Iraq? Of course not ... but would YOU want to live in
Saudi Arabia under that form of government?
The fact that what we have is better than what might be ignores the
other side of the coin. It isn't as good as it COULD be. To make
your argument then, there has to be a certain level of satisfaction
in the status quo. To understand that point, consider that not a
single Jew in 1939 Germany that would have made your argument, but
there were MANY Germans who did.
Yes, those other less desirable forms could emerge as dominant,
but then a more desirable form could also emerge. Do we continue
the course out of fear or change course in hope?
>I would argue that we are in a house built right on the edge of a
>precipice. The supports are giving way and the house is about to fall in.
>The house should never have been built on the edge of the precipice, and
>perhaps should never have been built at all (although later architects
>have made many unsound additions to the structure, far beyond what the
>original builders intended).
And I would simply point out that just because the house exists
and has been reasonably functional in no way ties me to the house
OR it's existence. A rational man would, if he could, simply
build a new house AWAY from the precipice. All I was pointing out
is we had that opportunity in the beginning(Albany Plan of Union,
Articles of Confederation) and we chose the precipice. Now we're
reaping what was sown.
>Somehow this seems like I am endorsing a "useful lie", to hypnotise the
>masses who will not accept the idea of individual rights without a heavy
>coating of patriotic emotion and superstitious reverence for words on old
>parchment. I suppose so. And it is a miserable thing to demand that Beck
>and others keep up the pretense of believing in this lie. So I don't
>demand any such thing.
Good for you. Let me point something out to you if I may. I think
you'll agree that patriotism is a form of loyalty, in fact a
particular form of loyalty. Loyalty, as a concept is collective in
nature. It asks, no actually it REQUIRES that you subjugate your will
and your moral judgement to that of another. IOW, it requires you to
go along with the collective will DESPITE your personal moral
misgivings. And loyalty has always been presented as a "positive"
value for the individual.
Well I'm here to tell you the opposite. Not only is it of no value
to me, it is detrimental to me as an individual. When all is said and
done, in EVERY instance of moral judgment ONLY an individual can make
them. Remaining loyal to something or someone abrogates your
responsibility to make reasoned moral judgements. One cannot be a
"moral agent" and subscribe to loyalty in any form or fashion EXCEPT
to themselves and their values.
That's more of what I see in your argument to continue "the lie" and
that is what is making you uncomfortable. Why do you feel compelled
to be loyal to the Constitution?
>I might hesitantly suggest that given time and space and the advance of
>technological progress, "men's minds might be fitted" to the great change
>that would produce a truely anarcho-capitalist world.
Here I get a little more of a sense of the "why" as pertains to your
argument. Yes, evolution instead of revolution. I agree. But I'll
not defend this as "nominally better" when that sort of defense seems
only to encourage a continuation of the status quo.
One of the things we can do HERE is help those who are experiencing
misgivings about loyalty to understand that it is OK to have
misgivings and there is no moral requirement to be loyal to something
you consider to be morally wrong (despite all the patriotic propaganda
and rhetoric to the contrary they've heard all of their lives).
So maybe "men's minds" can "be fitted" to self-government, but in
the meantime I'll not rhetorically support that which I wish to see
replaced simply because it is the lesser of two evils. To make a
political analogy, that's PRECISELY why Bill Clinton is president and
precisely why I didn't condone him or any other with a vote.
>To those who say that it would - never- be possible, I would point out
>that any Roman in 50 BC who claimed that someday civilisation would
>exist without chattel slavery would be considered as impractical or
>as crazy as any anarcho-capitalist would be considered today.
We agree. Imagine a feudal baron contemplating universal
suffrage and popular democracy.
McQ
>>McQ was all like...
>
>
>> Well there's perhaps a fourth alternative: To point it out. I feel
>>no particular responsibility to make sure you get it, to educate you
>>or to say I have found any absolute truth.
>
>pointing it out at all?
Because its there. I mean do you climb a mountain because you have
a responsibility to do so or do you do it because you choose to do so?
>It makes no sense other to salve the idealist conscience.
How about I just don't like to see what I consider to be erroneous
info propagated. That certainly carries no responsibility to make
sure you get it or to come up with some clever solution to the
identified problem.
>I'm really stumped at this one. If you really don't care
>if someone else 'gets it or not' -- why the heck do you try to 'point
>it out' to them?
Who said I'm pointing it out to just them? I may be pointing it out
to myself as well.
>Is this the convenient loophole through which the A/C
>absolves personal responsibility for the problem?
Could we be reading too much into this ... a bit of over-analysis?
The fact that I put something up here that I think is factually
correct doesn't carry an attendant responsibility to ensure the person
being addressed gets the point. That is THEIR responsibility.
>They 'point it out'??
Yeah. Then the person addressed gets to engage THEIR brain and
FIGURE it out.
>> What I've read of history supports my conclusion. You can take it
>>or leave it.
>
>With this said, how many times must one reiterate before one can say
>one has succeeded in 'pointing it out'?
As many times as one cares to do so. How many times have you been
able to use boilerplate answers to Usenet questions? They all come in
a little different wrapping each time, so "pointing it out" takes on a
different little twist in each slightly different context.
>Considering Usenet for a moment and 'pointing out' that most people engage
>in slightly more than 'pointing it out' here.)
That's their business, quite honestly. The fact that I'm "pointing
something out" doesn't demand that be THE sole reason for being on
Usenet. Some are here to flame, some to proselytize, some to inquire,
some to preach, some to rant ... in this particular case I'm simply
pointing out something I believe to be true. It wasn't an argument,
it was a statement. Not everything I do here consists of "pointing
out" something. I'm not sure why your so intent on making some huge
generalization about A/C over this fairly minor matter.
>>>But all of this aside -- if you have identified it as a problem and I
>>>have agreed it is such -- why do you ask me the above? Are you asking
>>>me whether or not I agree on the need for proselytizing? Or as you
>>>saying that until everyone agrees it is a problem, it cannot be fixed?
>>
>> When does a "problem" finally become a problem?
>
>It seems you are trying to say a problem is not a problem until
>everyone agrees it is.
No ... it becomes a problem when it is recognized as such.
>I disagree. If indeed it is a problem, it is a
>problem independently of how 'everyone' chooses to think of it. And of
>course, in such case - it is almost impossible to correct until such
>time as 'everyone' agrees it is (especially if your solution requires
>all to be in agreement in order to move on a solution).
Why do you suppose I put the first 'problem' in "" and wrote the
second without them? Yes, the problem always exists even without
recognition, but the solution isn't sought out UNTIL it is recognized
as a problem. No recognition, no proper solution (unless you're
a believer in the abundance of blind luck).
>Since you cannot *make* 'everyone' agree it is a problem, and since
>you don't really care if they ever 'get it', but are only 'pointing
>things out' -- then are you saying in the end, you aren't really
>looking for that solution? Can you see the contradiction I'm seeing
>here?
I'm not looking to enlist or involve anyone in MY solution. Far to
early for that. Nor am I putting my solution forward. I'm simply
pointing out a problem for others to consider in terms of a solution.
I'll leave it to them to come up with a solution to THEIR problem
(it's as much their problem as mine). Then we can talk. Kind of an
essential of the biz that I don't DICTATE a solution, wouldn't you
say? Afterall I have no intention of trying to IMPOSE one.
>>>Further -- if one is living as an individual, responsible only for
>>>self, why would one care if it 'got fixed' for the rest of the world?
>>
>> Because it effects me individually.
>
>Duh, McQ. But fixing something on this level takes more than an
>individual, doesn't it?
I don't know ... does it? Who'd have believed the wall would come
down? As I recall that was due to a collection of mostly INDIVIDUAL
actions.
>And if indeed you *need* a solution, are you not somehow obligated (you
>to yourself) *by* that need to work with others to achieve it?
Obligated? No. Willing to do so if necessary? Sure. But a need
for a solution does not OBLIGATE me to anyone or anything.
I know what I'd like to see in this world as a "solution" but I'm a
realist in that regard ... i.e. because of the evolution necessary to
make it successful I realize it won't happen in my lifetime. So,
recognizing the truth of Johnz's utterance, maybe "men's minds" can
"be fitted" to self-government, I point things out. Can't find a
solution until you recognize the problem.
Those that are uncomfortable with the status quo will attempt to
seek out answers. They'll "get it" all by themselves. I won't have
to do much more than "point it out". Those here to defend the status
quo won't get it REGARDLESS of whether I point it out or spend the
rest of my life trying to help them "get it". Those who don't care
don't read my stuff anyway.
So what seems more rational to you ... pointing out problems and
letting individuals craft their own solutions or spending my life
trying to "educate" the politically and philosophically illiterate and
force my solution down their throat?
>To do more than 'point it out'? To care whether or not someone 'gets it'?
Why should I care if someone gets it or not? If they're really
interested they'll engage me in conversation. If not, then you're
certainly not going to force it down their intellectual throat.
>(And if so, am I answering the whole 'so why do you and others run
>around screaming yourself hoarse on Usenet' question?)
I'm not screaming myself hoarse for heaven sake. I'm doing
something I enjoy. I do it as much for MY benefit as anyone elses.
I lost the "save the world" complex years ago. Not my job or desire.
>>>I suppose I can see the idealist wishing it would work for the world,
>>>but it seem to me there is a contradiction somewhere in here.
>>
>> What would work out "for the world?" Pointing out a problem with
>>conventional wisdom doesn't make one responsible for finding a
>>solution or even putting one forward.
>
>See above. I think I disagree. I see no reason for being so concerned
>with 'pointing something out' unless one is somehow desirous of
>affecting a solution.
You KNOW what my solution is. Must I state it every time I point
something out? I'm not on an enlistment drive here. Yes, I'd like
those that get it to do something with it and I would hope that
something would be a solution of which I'd approve, but that doesn't
obligate me to motivate THEM toward a solution. That's THEIR
responsibility.
>>>I too, would like for people to see things the way I do. I realize the
>>>chances of this occurring are more than relatively slim. The way I see
>>>it, I have a choice -- do what I can and recognize I can't do it all,
>>>or nourish within myself the belief I can do it all and live a very
>>>frustrated and unhappy life.
>>
>> How about a false dichotomy? There are other choices than those
>>two. Point out the problem and move on, for instance. Let people deal
>>with it as they see fit.
>
>And if they do not -- your world remains as it is... the things that
>'affect you individually' remain as well.
Yes. And if I help them "get it", it may be the same result. It
STILL places no responsibility on me to help them "get it". I may
CHOOSE to attempt that (if I see in their interest a viable
opportunity), but I have no OBLIGATION (as in responsibility) to do
it.
>That isn't the result you seek when you 'point it out', I know.
Really? I'd suggest that sometimes I expect NO result from
pointing something out because I recognize to whom I'm pointing it
out.
>And to the extent you obviously want a different outcome, how can you
>justify such a convenient compartmentalization between 'pointing it out'
>and how a cut-off at that point (moving on) almost always ensures you
>do not get the response you seek?
Because experience has taught me where that point is and it has also
taught me moving beyond that point in a conversation with certain
types of people is USELESS. So I've quit doing it.
>>>The ideal of exponential growth is flawed in this instance, I think.
>>>Even if you could convince those 4 or 5 others (and they tell two
>>>friends, and so on...and so on....) the manner in which people would
>>>try to correct the situation (if indeed they ever undertook direct
>>>effort to do so) would vary and all of THOSE differences would require
>>>resolution before anything else could occur. Bearing in mind the human
>>>tendency to work using force (old habits die hard -- no pun intended),
>>>I cannot see where there is an eventual final solution. I do not think
>>>that having people agree there is a problem necessarily ensures they
>>>will all agree on what solution should be pursued.
>>
>> You've made a few false assumptions here. I've mentioned nothing
>>about exponential growth. I simply said I'd be surprised if more than
>>4 or 5 recognized this as a problem and would be gratified if my words
>>helped a few more figure it out. Nothing exponential about that, nor
>>was it expected.
>
>You're telling me you've become a defeatist?
Oh please.
>A pessimist? I'm confused.
I agree.
>You say you want things to change, but you refuse any
>responsibility for said change outside of mouthing a few words and
>'moving on'.
That's correct. My choice, wouldn't you say?
>You explicitly lay all results at the feet of the world
>around you and state rather pointedly that you do not expect the
>result you desire.... and still maintain any conviction whatever that
>said result will ever be realized? I'm boggled.
Think "imposition". I have no solution I am willing to IMPOSE on
anyone but ME. I've realized that my role is more that of a "guide":
someone who attempts to point out the road signs in an attempt to keep
people between the ditches as they make their inquiry. Those that are
open usually do just fine after it's pointed out. I'm not going to
waste my time on those who will never get it.
>> As for a final solution, I have no idea what that might be. I'm not
>>talking about solutions at this point ... I'm pointing out a problem.
>
>This I know. There are many people here fighting tooth and claw to
>'point it out'. My question was what the hell happens if/when everyone
>agrees it *is* a problem? (Not that I ever expect that to happen
>myself, but so long as we're discussing hypotheticals....)
Who the hell KNOWS? I would HOPE that if they're prepared for
self-governance in the sense I would like to see it, they'd opt for
that. But it kind of depends at what stage this problem recognition
takes place in the evolution of mankind, doesn't it? I mean we can
all say freedom, and some of us even understand what it entails but
few of us believe that if all governments disappeared tomorrow
"freedom" would necessarily fill the vacuum. So you tell me. If we
all agree it's a problem, THEN WHAT?
Mike_ Schneder
> epito...@all.spammers.must.die.mindspring.com (Epitome) wrote:
>
> >If you aren't willing to field questions - your entire
> >'socratic method' is kind of roadkill, dude.
>
> Says *you*, Bonnie. I'm not going to get involved.
>
> That's because I abhor your whole game here, the very same way I
> have ever since you crashed the D! after Squarf invited you to leave,
The "D!"?
> and you've done it several times: come on to me with a different
> username as if you're some kind of stranger, but you're not. And, you
> just did it again, in this thread. I should have *known* it was you.
>
> I think you have a real problem with gathering other peoples'
> attention like this, and I will not get involved. Now you can use
> that as some kind of *general* attack on what I do here - in sort of
> the same way that Erb complains that I won't play with *him* - but
> that won't make what you say *true*.
>
> It doesn't matter. I don't care.
>
>
> Billy
>
> VRWC fronteer
> http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/promise.html
Replace stuff before @ with mike1. === Democracy: the expression of the
Billy Beck
epito...@all.spammers.must.die.mindspring.com (Epitome) wrote:
>If you aren't willing to field questions - your entire
>'socratic method' is kind of roadkill, dude.
Says *you*, Bonnie. I'm not going to get involved.
That's because I abhor your whole game here, the very same way I
have ever since you crashed the D! after Squarf invited you to leave,
and you've done it several times: come on to me with a different
username as if you're some kind of stranger, but you're not. And, you
just did it again, in this thread. I should have *known* it was you.
I think you have a real problem with gathering other peoples'
attention like this, and I will not get involved. Now you can use
that as some kind of *general* attack on what I do here - in sort of
the same way that Erb complains that I won't play with *him* - but
that won't make what you say *true*.
It doesn't matter. I don't care.
Billy Beck
bliz...@winDELETETHIISternet.com (Mike_ Schneder) wrote:
>In article <369429c2...@news.mindspring.com>, wj...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
>> epito...@all.spammers.must.die.mindspring.com (Epitome) wrote:
>>
>> >If you aren't willing to field questions - your entire
>> >'socratic method' is kind of roadkill, dude.
>>
>> Says *you*, Bonnie. I'm not going to get involved.
>>
>> That's because I abhor your whole game here, the very same way I
>> have ever since you crashed the D! after Squarf invited you to leave,
> The "D!"?
The DIALOG! BBS. (Caps & exclamation point required, by Imperial
Order.)
It's the digital backwater from which the three of us (Bonnie,
McQuain, and I) spring. Lorenzo P. Squarf is the grand Cyranoid
presence who ran the place, and who has since gone on to yank the
tails off various mountebanks of the medical establishment, between
shattering and terrifying assaults on the public peace & quiet with
his airplane.
Very much my kind of guy.
McQ
>>McQ was all like...
>>Because its there. I mean do you climb a mountain because you have
>>a responsibility to do so or do you do it because you choose to do so?
>
>Actually, I do it because I must. But with that said, if I'm climbing
>and I find someone strangling on their safety rope halfway up the
>side, I choose not to pass them by and continue in my quest for the
>summit.
Note that you chose. I choose not too. Are you saying I must?
>Now perhaps you're right, perhaps I just don't 'get' why I shouldn't
>care.... or why you do nothing more than point it out and move on. But
>I think I do, McQ. I think the tenets of A/C fail *not* because they
>are impossible, but because they fail to take into account that while
>you may never be personally responsible for the actions of others, you
>damn sure have to deal with the consequences of those actions when
>they come knocking on the door of your life. That is not so rare as to
>be set aside, to my mind.
What homogeneous A/C mass are you making these generalizations
about?
Because *I* don't particularly care whether you get it or not A/C's
tenets fail? Logically link those together for me will ya?
>In my opinion, it is an act of rational self-interest to do those
>things that most effectively advance your desire -- and sometimes,
>that includes helping the poor fool strangling on his own safety line.
Sometimes it might indeed include that ... but not as a hard, fast
rule as you seem to wish to make it. You see *I* get to decide
what is in my rational self-interest, not you. That's why they call
it "self-interest".
>Actually, for me, it almost always includes doing so. Not because
>someone else tells me I must, but because by my own conviction doing
>so furthers the solution I desire for myself, my daughter, and her
>children.
Good for you. My experience hasn't been the same. So I've
concluded it ISN'T in my "rational self-interest" to attempt to
help every Tom, Dick and Harry "get it".
>I understand this is not an encumbant responsibility or obligation,
>but it may as well be -- since without it one is left alienated and
>ineffectual so far as I can see.
Really? I certainly am not alienated and ineffectual as far
as I can determine.
>>>It makes no sense other to salve the idealist conscience.
>>
>> How about I just don't like to see what I consider to be erroneous
>>info propagated. That certainly carries no responsibility to make
>>sure you get it or to come up with some clever solution to the
>>identified problem.
>
>It carries the responsibility to make sure you are providing correct
>information.
Of course it does. I did that.
>it also carries the responsibility to ensure you can
>demonstrate clearly just how and why you can be certain you are
>correct.
I did that. Now go research it.
>I wasn't asking you for some 'clever solution to the identified
>problem'. I was sincerely asking you what you would say were everyone
>to suddenly agree with you the problem exists. I don't have time to
>play at baiting you, McQ. I am asking you in all seriousness. Please
>don't brush me off.
I have no idea what *I'd* do or say at that point. Most likely
I'd put forth MY ideas as to a solution to the problem and my
suggestions as how it could be attained. However it would be one
of gazillions of alternatives.
>>>I'm really stumped at this one. If you really don't care
>>>if someone else 'gets it or not' -- why the heck do you try to 'point
>>>it out' to them?
>>
>>Who said I'm pointing it out to just them? I may be pointing it out
>>to myself as well.
>
>Oh come on, man. The fact you can iterate it demonstrates you get it.
>You wouldn't bother posting it here if you weren't trying to
>communicate it to others. Will you answer me?
I know you somehow think you know or understand me, but perhaps
you don't understand me as well as you think you do. I've told any
number of people that many times I use these types of forums as
sounding boards ... a way to float ideas in trial balloons ... and I
know there are enough sharp folks out here that'll shoot them down if
they're really full of nothing but hot gas.
All that to say, I did answer you.
>> Yeah. Then the person addressed gets to engage THEIR brain and
>>FIGURE it out.
>
>One way in which this (figuring it out) occurs is by asking questions
>and looking for some sense of context from which one can move forward
>with their own analysis and decision-making process. I'm not quite
>sure why requesting that information raises the hackles so much, all I
>know is the 'not my problem' stance tends to obliterate the notion
>that 'pointing it out' is intended to be more than some superiority
>posturing. I hear an almost smug 'I get it and you don't' going on
>here and I cannot imagine how you (or anyone else) can possibly
>conceive that 'pointing it out' in this fashion has any merit
>whatever.
Again I'd suggest that you read too much into it. What I wrote
is easy enough to research. This isn't brain surgery. I don't have
the time nor inclination to do research for other people, nor do I
have any desire to spoon feed them. In my experience, learning isn't
what is happening when you're handed information. What I prefer is to
leave them thinking. That's what pointing something out usually does,
at least for me. And THAT is the "purpose" of the exercise, if you
must have one. Until reason is engaged, nothing much can be done.
> But this is not what I'm talking about and I think
>you know it. The fact is, the arguments here are very pointedly geared
>to convincing others -- something you're trying to tell me you're not
>interested in doing.
Not in this case. Look, review the message. It was appended to
a message BECK wrote. It wasn't an "argument". It was a STATEMENT.
I certainly wasn't trying to convince Beck of anything nor argue with
anyone.
>I'm sitting here and directly asking for
>information and being told to 'figure it out' -- but I look around and
>see people (you included) take VERY GREAT PAINS to be exquisitely
>helpful in providing such information here. I find this an alarming
>contradiction and I'm asking you why it exists.
You're missing the point. The information has been provided. Look
at the context of the message. What further information do you need?
>It should be obvious by now that I'm stuck at the point where the leap
>from giving a damn about the rest of the world and not giving a damn
>at all lies. I'm asking for input because I do not know where to find
>it. I'm explicitly not asking someone to tell me how or what to think
>(you should know this by now as well).
>
>So point it out to me, McQ.
It's a PERSONAL choice, Bonnie. There's nothing more to point out.
It's a choice I've made. It isn't a choice A/C's made or required.
>>I'm not sure why your so intent on making some huge
>>generalization about A/C over this fairly minor matter.
>
>Is this what you think? Look, I'm still trying to get a grip on what
>the hell A/C *IS*. All I can gather to date is that its some
>convenient method by which you don't have to give a shit anymore.
See my statement? See your conclusion? Yes, this IS what I think.
The two (my attitude and A/C) have nothing in common in that regard.
>I don't understand how this is justified and every time I ask, someone
>is telling me that "I don't get it" and walking away.
>Oh yeah, that's really pointing it out. [frustrated frown]
We weren't TALKING about A/C. We were talking about history,
conventional wisdom and a different and heretical take on that
conventional wisdom which I think history SUPPORTS. Now, what do you
need pointed out or clarified?
>But what good does this do when the greater majority of
>people cannot (will not?) even admit there is a problem? Is this the
>point at which you reiterate, "Not my problem?" That doesn't make
>sense to me. It is no less *A* problem.
I never said it wasn't my problem, I said I've chosen not to
invest much time in it since the return is so poor for the time
invested. Instead I choose to invest my time in those who seem
worth it. Those who don't "get it" simply aren't worth much of
my time. I'd rather spend it with those who DO get it. That
is where any exponential growth is most likely to occur.
>>I don't know ... does it? Who'd have believed the wall would come
>>down? As I recall that was due to a collection of mostly INDIVIDUAL
>>actions.
>
>I think it does, McQ. And I think if you spend time really thinking
>about it you would find it does. The wall coming down was very much a
>*collection* of individuals.... a collection of people who agreed
>there was a problem and took action against it.
No, there was no collection of people agreeing. There were
individuals escaping through Hungary. The wall no longer worked
because they could no longer stop the leaks in other places. It died
because individuals made decisions to no longer be deterred by it.
But it wasn't a collective action nor a collective decision. It was
a bunch of INDIVIDUAL decisions. The difference between now and then
is there were ENOUGH individual decisions made within a short enough
time-frame to cause the result we saw.
>I do not think such a
>thing could have happened if the most anyone ever did was point
>something out and walk on by and hope everyone 'gets it'.
Well this has been blown all out of proportion. What don't you
"get" about the difference between the DoI and the Constitution?
What don't you "get" about the seeming apparent and deliberate
abandonment of the ideals espoused in the DoI? What don't you "get"
about the fact that what we are living with today isn't a mistake,
but the logical conclusion of the Constitution's provisions?
If you DON'T get those things then it is up to YOU to do the
research necessary to either "get" them or disprove them. And
IF you do that research and come flying back with a "yer fulla shit,
pal" or "I think you've got a point" then I might be interested in
hearing from you about "it".
What I'm saying is I'm tired of spoon feeding the ignorant. One of
the absolute requirements for any A/C society is thinking individuals.
I can't do that for them.
>>>And if indeed you *need* a solution, are you not somehow obligated (you
>>>to yourself) *by* that need to work with others to achieve it?
>>
>>Obligated? No. Willing to do so if necessary? Sure. But a need
>>for a solution does not OBLIGATE me to anyone or anything.
>
>I think this is sheer semantics, McQ. Just as an aversions to income
>taxation as wrong obligates the consistent man to refuse to pay taxes,
>admitting there is a need for a solution obligates the consistent man
>to work toward one. The fact this may mean one is tossed into a group
>of people working toward the same end is irrelevant.
This is nonsense. Nothing about consistency obligates a man to
throw away his life if the return is not worth the risk. It's a risk
assessment thing. Do you do more good tossing away your life in a
cell or by helping other thinking people decide perhaps taxation is
just wrong? Like E. Germany, if you get enough, the wall comes down.
What would be inconsistent with that result? Again you present a
false dichotomy.
>>Those that are uncomfortable with the status quo will attempt to
>>seek out answers. They'll "get it" all by themselves. I won't have
>>to do much more than "point it out". Those here to defend the status
>>quo won't get it REGARDLESS of whether I point it out or spend the
>>rest of my life trying to help them "get it". Those who don't care
>>don't read my stuff anyway.
>
>I don't 'get it' all by myself. You're pointing out things doesn't
>help me understand the underlying principles from which you're
>pointing. Requests for direction to find the information and analyze
>for myself results in watching people walk by me just like that poor
>fool strangling on the side of the mountain.
So now you're trying to convince me that a person as proficient in
information gathering as you is now a helpless wretch when it comes to
this particular subject?
I'll again ask, what don't you "get" concerning that which I've
written?
>I think I'm a perfect example of an exception to this rather pat rule.
I think you've attempted to make yourself an exception. I'm not
sure I'm buying though.
>I think the rational effort is not only to point out problems, but to
>point out WHY THEY ARE PROBLEMS.
That was done.
>I think to some extent, taking upon
>oneself to say something is a problem brings a responsibility to
>defend that statement with information a person may review for
>themselves.
That too was done.
>Without this, such statements are nothing more than a
>request for belief... and I do not think that is what you intend.
Not only wasn't it intended, it wasn't what was done.
>>>To do more than 'point it out'? To care whether or not someone 'gets it'?
>>
>> Why should I care if someone gets it or not? If they're really
>>interested they'll engage me in conversation. If not, then you're
>>certainly not going to force it down their intellectual throat.
>
>So here I am, engaging you in conversation. Now what?
Are there any questions I haven't answered?
>>I lost the "save the world" complex years ago. Not my job or desire.
>
>Sorry, I was speaking of several people -- not just you. I'm not sure
>I can say I'm not trying to 'save the world'. I'm part of the world
>like it or no, and I have not yet lost all interest in that label,
>even as I detest many of the things that label includes.
Well, quit trying to put it on me.
>>You KNOW what my solution is. Must I state it every time I point
>>something out?
>
>I'm not so sure I know what your solution is, McQ.
Then research it Bonnie. It's in Deja News. Been there for
years.
>I thought I knew what Billy's was -- but he has changed so dramatically
>I am now certain I do not know at all.
He hasn't changed at all. Remember Gordon Shippey. Remember it
being like pulling teeth. Nothing has changed.
>I used to think I knew what your solution was, but you seem to have
>changed as well.... so I do not rely upon what I remember, I ask. I'm
>sorry that seems to frustrate you.
Changed in what regard ... that I'm no longer willing to spend
inordinate amounts of time attempting to explain to the intellectually
lazy the what and why of what I believe? That I'm more inclined now
to spend my time with those who have obviously engaged their brain?
Why should that put you off?
>>I'm not on an enlistment drive here. Yes, I'd like
>>those that get it to do something with it and I would hope that
>>something would be a solution of which I'd approve, but that doesn't
>>obligate me to motivate THEM toward a solution. That's THEIR
>>responsibility.
>
>It is this I disagree with the most. This strikes me like saying, "Oh
>yeah, I'd really like to marry her and I'll tell her that I love
>her... but anything beyond that is strictly up to her." (Bad analogy,
>but the only one that occurs at the moment)
It's not even close. I can't MAKE other people THINK. Only they
can do so, just as I can't make someone LOVE me ... that's a feeling
only they can generate. THEY have the responsibility of engaging
their power to reason, and what I've FINALLY concluded is I'm not
going to waste my time with those who obviously haven't done so or
refuse to do so.
You, OTOH, are somehow convinced it is MY JOB to spend my time on
every Tom, Dick and Harry that can hook up a modem and grunt onto a
screen. Been there, done that. Not interested.
>It just doesn't work that way. Never has that I can find. Even the
>Iroquois didn't work this way. There has to be some effort to gain the
>end or pointing it out just seems...well....pointless.
What I did was point out the myth surrounding the DoI and
Constitution was just that, a myth. SOME will see that as pointless.
Some will see it as useless. Some will simply reject it out of hand.
But some will see the difference and the problem. THEY are who I'm
interested in ... and I'm just not willing to spend the time on those
who aren't sufficiently engaged to understand the point ISN'T
"pointless" or "useless".
>>>And if they do not -- your world remains as it is... the things that
>>>'affect you individually' remain as well.
>>
>>Yes. And if I help them "get it", it may be the same result.
>
>Yes, it may. But then again it may not. There is at least a chance for
>something other than more of the same if you work with them, isn't
>there? Isn't there?
In general? No. Some specifically? Yes. What I'm attempting to
point out is I am only interested in those specific ones ... and THEY
usually make themselves known in an easily identifiable way.
>>It STILL places no responsibility on me to help them "get it". I may
>>CHOOSE to attempt that (if I see in their interest a viable
>>opportunity), but I have no OBLIGATION (as in responsibility) to do
>>it.
>
>I think rational self-interest dictates a strong encumbrance. I'm not
>sure why the crux to you seems to be whether or not you can walk away
>without blame.
To hell with blame. Blame me all you wish. It is THEIR job to "get
it". Not mine. I've DONE that.
>I hope you understand, but this almost seems like a
>fear of commitment to a real resolution. A cop-out of sorts.... so
>long as you aren't responsible in *ANY WAY*, you can always say it
>wasn't your fault it didn't work.
Nonsense. It hasn't anything to do with that. My responsibility
lies in being true to myself and my values. It also lies in educating
myself as fully as possible. I do not place those responsibilities on
anyone else but myself. Why should anyone else?
>But I tend to think lack of action has its own consequences and those
>lay at your feet in refusal to act just the same as in full engagement.
There are many forms of action ... just because my action isn't on
your approved list doesn't mean it isn't a valid form.
>>>That isn't the result you seek when you 'point it out', I know.
>>
>> Really? I'd suggest that sometimes I expect NO result from
>>pointing something out because I recognize to whom I'm pointing it
>>out.
>
>I'm sorry, McQ but I tend to have a better opinion of humanity than
>this. Everyone has the potential to learn.
Potential and willingness are quite different aren't they? I've
learned to identify those who are willing and I just don't waste my
time on those who aren't.
>>Because experience has taught me where that point is and it has also
>>taught me moving beyond that point in a conversation with certain
>>types of people is USELESS. So I've quit doing it.
>
>I would agree that once the name-calling starts, it is futile. But to
>that point, anything is possible. Experience is always subject to
>revision as new situations occur. But it is rather difficult to have
>an exception if you never go any further than the line drawn by the
>rule, isn't it?
There's a very definitive line drawn in my life (and everyone's).
Time. That dictates a lot of parameters pertaining to activities.
How much time is spent here or there doing this and that. I don't
have the TIME to waste on the unwilling so I don't do so. I prefer to
use it more productively on those that ARE willing. So while there
may be an occasional "exception" hiding in the time-intensive bushes,
I've never been in a position where I've been "underwhelmed" by the
willing ... so why shake the bushes?
>Ok, so are you interested in helping me or are you content to be
>snide? [wry look]
Help you with WHAT?!
Are you telling me (and I hope NOT) that you don't "get" what I
wrote about in these messages?
>>>You say you want things to change, but you refuse any
>>>responsibility for said change outside of mouthing a few words and
>>>'moving on'.
>>
>> That's correct. My choice, wouldn't you say?
>
>Yes, but it certainty seems a contradiction to the end you claim you
>want.
What end have I claimed I want?
>As I've said repeatedly, I do not understand how you can
>reconcile the conflict... unless you really do not see it as a
>conflict. Do you not?
No I do not.
>And if not - point out to me how you come to that conclusion. Please.
The solution I want will NOT be affected by the unwilling. It will
be affected, if ever, by the WILLING. Why, then, should I attempt to
make the UNwilling "willing" when there are plenty of the "willing"
already available?
Seem like a smart way to use your limited time?
>I'm not asking you
>to hit people with shovels to keep them in the ditch, I'm asking you
>to be a little less the flipping sphinx when someone asks you a
>question. [grin]
WHO has asked me a question that I haven't answered?
>>I mean we can
>>all say freedom, and some of us even understand what it entails but
>>few of us believe that if all governments disappeared tomorrow
>>"freedom" would necessarily fill the vacuum. So you tell me. If we
>>all agree it's a problem, THEN WHAT?
>
>Frankly, I think that is when the fertilizer would really hit the
>ventilator. As you say, if all government vanished tomorrow the last
>thing that would rise in the immediate thereafter would be liberty.
>
>I think if we were all agree it is a problem, then we should all have
>a similar laundry list that defines what constitutes 'the problem'. If
>we could manage to reach such a point (and let's face it -- we're
>already in deeply hypothetical territory), I have no fucking idea what
>should be done from there.
Well welcome to the club.
>I'd like to think we could slowly move forward as equals, in a world
>where mutually beneficial interaction is the norm and every person is
>given the chance to live as they see fit so long as that does not
>infringe upon others.
Think that would happen if the customs, traditions and
infrastructure to support it were missing?
>I'm not sure how to resolve the issue of people who simply will not
>desist from trying to force themselves, their ideals, or solutions
>upon others. I'm not sure how to address a lot of things. I don't
>think the idea of defense agencies is any less prone to corruption and
>abuse than the current situation. I think the expectation that all
>people will live and act rationally and ethically is too idealistic
>given the history of humankind.
Until you study the Iroquois. Then you realize that anything can
happen IF the infrastructure is there to support it. The problem THEN
becomes how do we get there from here? How do we get to the point
where that infrastructure exists?
Got me.
>I'm honest enough to admit I don't have any answers. I think in the
>end, I'd do what I thought was right and try to influence as many
>others as possible to do the same.
Works for me.
>I think I would still see myself as responsible for trying to bring
>about an optimum world and life and I would still choose to help untangle
>people I think are strangling on their own safety lines. I honestly think
>anything less is counterproductive to the solution I embrace as rational,
>ethical, and right.
You're entitled to that belief and free to act upon it as you wish.
I just don't share it. Am I entitled to MY belief?
Billy Beck
mcq...@ix.netcom.com (McQ) wrote:
>>I thought I knew what Billy's was -- but he has changed so dramatically
>>I am now certain I do not know at all.
>
> He hasn't changed at all. Remember Gordon Shippey. Remember it
>being like pulling teeth. Nothing has changed.
Gordy was big enough to sort it out. He had major heart. He
never gave anything up without overwhelming force of argument (and I
mean, of course, overwhelming), he was interested enough to work at
it, and honest enough to grasp it when he saw it.
Robertson reminds me of him.
Mike_ Schneder
Reminds me of The Real American.
I'd give anything to know what happened to Francis X. Ojida.
Mike_ Schneder
epito...@all.spammers.must.die.mindspring.com wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Jan 1999 15:18:39 GMT, mcq...@ix.netcom.com (McQ) was all
> like...
>
> > So while we're a powerful and rich nation, our individual freedom is
> >only relatively better than elsewhere and becoming less and less so.
> >
> > The important point here is to understand that we aren't where we
> >are because the past leaders and legislatures have failed to live up
> >to the ideals of the Constitution, but that those who framed the
> >Constitution failed to live up to the ideals of the Declaration of
> >Independence.
> >
> > The American Revolution in fact *died* with the ratification of the
> >US Constitution.
>
> Ok. So now what? If this is indeed a given, what next?
Start by minding your own business.
Don't vote. Don't take or look for handouts. Keep what's yours.
When you can trust yourself, you'll be ready to respect others.
> Does
> understanding why it happened or where the blame falls help in the
> process of correcting it (or can it be corrected at this point in
> time)?
>
> It seems the most vociferous arguing occurs on everything that would
> naturally lead to the above statement. Not unusual considering what is
> invested in the present by those who profit mightily and well from
> such a usurpation.
>
> Still, what to be done other than recognize?
>
> (p.s.: Fate indeed. <g>)
>
> Epitome grinned wryly and drawled, "There are certain people for whom a
kick in the head is actually good."
> Her friend arched a brow and rebutted, "Only if they notice it."
> Epitome chuckled, "Too true."
>
> (remove the sentiment, but keep the dotmw to email me)
McQ
>
>>mcq...@ix.netcom.com (McQ) wrote:
>> He hasn't changed at all. Remember Gordon Shippey. Remember it
>>being like pulling teeth. Nothing has changed.
>
> Gordy was big enough to sort it out. He had major heart.
However,my point is that YOU haven't changed a bit. Gordy's the one
that got you engaged (because he had major heart), and not the other
way around.
bob...@erols.com
>In article <3698ea5b....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, mcq...@ix.netcom.com
>(McQ) wrote:
>
>> >Epitome contributed the following:
>> >>McQ was all like...
>>
>> >> The American Revolution in fact *died* with the ratification of the
>> >>US Constitution.
>> >
>> >Ok. So now what? If this is indeed a given, what next? Does
>> >understanding why it happened or where the blame falls help in the
>> >process of correcting it (or can it be corrected at this point in
>> >time)?
>>
>> Rather hard to fix a problem if you haven't identified it as such,
>> wouldn't you say? And the point expressed above definitely isn't
>> "conventional wisdom" and certainly not what is taught in our
>> fine schools.
>>
>> "Demystifying" the seemingly semi-sacred "Constitution" and denying
>> it a place beside the Declaration of Independence seems almost an act
>> of heresy to most.
>
>Unfortunately, we are caught in a dreadful impasse here. The Constitution is
>imperfect, in fact, it's the seed from which the present unbearable governmental
>monster has grown and derived justification. Very well, let's concede this
>point.
>
>The problem is that, regardless of the strict facts of the case, which Mr.
>Beck and others have demonstrated very well, the Constitution also
>codifies certain
>defenses, weakened, often ignored, incomplete as they are, against an even more
>overbearing and obnoxious state. These defenses may be *logically* undercut by
>the very existence of the Constitution and the state it gave birth to, but
>they still exist in some vaguely understood, almost superstitious fashion
>in the
>minds of a great many Americans. The Constitution and the flag, all the
>emotional symbols of "the republic" do stand as a kind of barrier, however
>imperfect, to the total surrender to the total state. (Of course, I know
>that the total state will use these symbols as well) The Bill of Rights
>reminds men of the rights that they should understand without the Bill of
>Rights. If the "superstition of the Constitution" is eliminated, what
>other superstitions, far worse, will take it's place? The superstition of
>the dictatorship of the proletariat? The superstition of "racial
>brotherhood"? The superstition of Hillary's village? Of course it hasn't
>in your mind, Billy or in yours, McQ, but
>you are not very typical.
>
>I would argue that we are in a house built right on the edge of a
>precipice. The supports are giving way and the house is about to fall in.
>The house should never have been built on the edge of the precipice, and
>perhaps should never have been built at all (although later architects
>have made many unsound additions to the structure, far beyond what the
>original builders intended). But
>the house in question is all there is. There is no time left to build a
>new house, or even to get out of the old one before it crashes into the
>abyss. And chopping away at the supports won't send the house floating
>away into the sky - quite the opposite.
I wonder if this could have been said by torries
at the time of the Continental Congress?
bob hunt
>
>Somehow this seems like I am endorsing a "useful lie", to hypnotise the
>masses who will not accept the idea of individual rights without a heavy
>coating
>of patriotic emotion and superstitious reverence for words on old
>parchment. I suppose so. And it is a miserable thing to demand that Beck
>and others keep up the pretense of believing in this lie. So I don't
>demand any such thing. I don't demand that you help shore up the supports
>(the LP position) . I don't believe (and have not believed since at least
>1996) that the supports can be repaired.
>The structure has failed, is failing, and I have every regard for those who want
>to bail out. (Although I see no exit) And I would think it wrong in any
>case to force those who decline to do so to pay for or vote to support the
>structure, even if it were as solid as a rock.
>
>I might hesitantly suggest that given time and space and the advance of
>technological progress, "men's minds might be fitted" to the great change
>that would produce a truely anarcho-capitalist world. To those who say
>that it would - never- be possible, I would point out that any Roman in 50
>BC who claimed that someday civilisation would exist without chattel
>slavery would be considered as impractical or as crazy as any
johnz
>(snip my comments)
>
> I wonder if this could have been said by torries
> at the time of the Continental Congress?
Maybe. But that doesn't mean I'm making the same argument as they did. In
fact, I'm not arguing with anybody, and I'm -not- demanding that anyone
pay taxes or vote or follow laws that have nothing to do with force or
fraud.
I simply lack the cheerful optimism you have, I guess. I really fail to
see how my post is somehow discourging the countless millions of liberty
seeking, self-reliant, rational Americans that you seem to be assuming are
out there.
JS
Rob Robertson
It was said by many true patriots, bob. They were clear-minded,
freedom loving men of courage and valor, and I suggest you read
the writings of Cato, Brutus, the Federal Farmer, and other
antiConstitutionalist writers to see that the sentiments expressed
here are closer to the spirit of America than all the Federalist
Papers combined.
_
Rob Robertson
bob...@erols.com
>In article <36ec4890....@news.erols.com>, bob...@erols.com wrote:
>
>>(snip my comments)
>>
>> I wonder if this could have been said by torries
>> at the time of the Continental Congress?
>
>Maybe. But that doesn't mean I'm making the same argument as they did.
did not necessarily mean to say you were making the same argument.
>In fact, I'm not arguing with anybody, and I'm -not- demanding that anyone
>pay taxes or vote or follow laws that have nothing to do with force or
>fraud.
>
>I simply lack the cheerful optimism you have, I guess.
Actually I am a pessimist.
We have today a lot of torries
and little else.
> I really fail to
>see how my post is somehow discouraging the countless millions of liberty
>seeking, self-reliant, rational Americans that you seem to be assuming are
>out there.
>
>JS
I am lamenting that we don't.
We get the government that we deserve.
And that is a pity.
bob hunt
McQ
>Either way, this is NOT some passive 'feed me, feed me' call.
>If I wanted to be spoonfed, I would bloody well ASK to be spoonfed.
>
>Excuse me for making the mistake of thinking the people I once had
>comprehensive and challenging conversations with were POSSIBLY logical
>resources to turn to for such things. I cannot imagine what came over
>me. Apparently Usenet has some strange side-effects. Pity, that.
So what's the QUESTION?! There isn't a single one I haven't
answered (see freakin' 700+ line reply).
Christ, you've ranted for three messages know and I still don't know
what you're ASKING.
Methinks this is really all about Beck.
McQ
>>McQ was all like...
>
>>answered (see freakin' 700+ line reply).
>
Newsgroups galore. Here, alt.politics.misc,
alt.politics.libertarian, a.p.o, h.p.o, etc. Most libertarian writing
gets you going in the right direction. Web Search ... it's all over
the place. Rand, Novak, Machan, Freidman (Machinery of Freedom), Etc.
Economics. Study von Mises, Hayek, Friedman (Milton), Walter
Williams, etc.
Rights ... LeFevre, Locke, Machan, etc.
But you have to put it together yourself. It doesn't come
prepackaged.
>> Methinks this is really all about Beck.
>
>You are wrong. It is more about wondering what the hell A/C contains
>that has turned everyone I knew and respected into such snippety,
>sarcastic-laden people.
Good lord woman, we were talking about the Constitution. That has
little to do with A/C. I'm still lost. You act as though we've had
some sort of huge conversation about A/C and everyone ignored your
questions.
>It is also about trying to determine whether or not A/C is something
>I'm interested in. It is also about trying to figure out if there can
>be any reconciliation whatever between the absolutism that A/C seems
>to require and the fact that humanity is not (in my opinion) built to
>live completely alone (be it on some vaunted intellectual plane or
>no).
Who in the world would want a system which required them to live
alone? Certainly not A/C. It's all about *voluntary* (as in
*uncoerced*) relationships.
>Finally, it is about finding some way to come to a final conclusion on
>this so I can get on with the process of living and feeling as if I am
>being consistent with the things I find imperative on this level.
I have no idea where you are on this so it's rather difficult to
know if there's anything you can conclude. Hell I've been checking it
out for years and I'm still not finished. But what I see of it makes
sense and it DOES make me rest easier ideologically. It fits.
>The whole Beck thing was but a small tangent on a much longer vector.
Whatever. It just appeared to me that THAT was what it was all
about ... this just bubbled up in a discussion about the Constitution
and it's flaws and it didn't belong there.
McQ
>>McQ was all like...
>> This is nonsense. Nothing about consistency obligates a man to
>>throw away his life if the return is not worth the risk. It's a risk
>>assessment thing. Do you do more good tossing away your life in a
>>cell or by helping other thinking people decide perhaps taxation is
>>just wrong? Like E. Germany, if you get enough, the wall comes down.
>>What would be inconsistent with that result? Again you present a
>>false dichotomy.
>
>Let me make sure I'm understanding you here, because this is an almost
>direct about-face from you. You are stating a man is not required to
>act in accord with his convictions if that action costs him his life?
>If the risk outweighs the perceived reward, there is a loophole
>wherein conviction and what one knows to be right and true no longer
>matter?
Is there any gray in your world? Not everything is a black and
white choice. Read again what I said. It has to do with choices.
DIFFERENT choices, not just two.
I have NEVER, EVER said I believed it was incumbent on a person
who found taxation immoral to go to jail over it. It's just not
worth that in my estimation. What it is worth is protest. And I and
others do that constantly. The hope is this will finally begin to
sink in and spread. When 40 million taxpayers finally say no, the
whole rotten thing collapses. That IS consistent with the "value" I
accord the subject of taxation and HARDLY an about face.
Each of us has to make that assessment, and I'll be damned if I'll
let someone else make it FOR me based on THEIR belief's on what
someone should do to "remain consistent".
>>>I don't 'get it' all by myself. You're pointing out things doesn't
>>>help me understand the underlying principles from which you're
>>>pointing. Requests for direction to find the information and analyze
>>>for myself results in watching people walk by me just like that poor
>>>fool strangling on the side of the mountain.
>>
>> So now you're trying to convince me that a person as proficient in
>>information gathering as you is now a helpless wretch when it comes to
>>this particular subject?
>
>No, I'm trying to tell you I do not know where to begin looking. If
>you would be so kind as to simply *point*, I would appreciate it.
See last message.
>>>>You KNOW what my solution is. Must I state it every time I point
>>>>something out?
>>>
>>>I'm not so sure I know what your solution is, McQ.
>>
>>Then research it Bonnie. It's in Deja News. Been there for
>>years.
>
>Keywords being? Or am I left to shift through your legendary mountains
>of verbosity? [grin]
Hmmm. Good point. Mostly done on h.p.o and a.p.o with a smattering
here. I'll see if I have any and get subjects and dates if possible.
>> Changed in what regard ... that I'm no longer willing to spend
>>inordinate amounts of time attempting to explain to the intellectually
>>lazy the what and why of what I believe? That I'm more inclined now
>>to spend my time with those who have obviously engaged their brain?
>>
>> Why should that put you off?
>
>Because you apparently are attempting to include me in that number
>with no more reason than (blank look).... I'll be damned if I even
>know why.
Because you blow in here with all sorts of accusations and I haven't
yet figured out where this is all coming from or WHY. This was a
simple discussion of the Constitution and all of a sudden I'm knee
deep in defending myself and what I said with these dramatic
accusations and hurt sounding appeals on a subject that hadn't even
come up (i.e. A/C).
>> You, OTOH, are somehow convinced it is MY JOB to spend my time on
>>every Tom, Dick and Harry that can hook up a modem and grunt onto a
>>screen. Been there, done that. Not interested.
>
>You misunderstand what I am trying to say. In fact, you seem to be
>misunderstanding it in precisely the same way someone else has of
>late. I'm not saying you are responsible for someone understanding a
>damn thing. I'm saying to the extent you embrace enough responsibility
>to wish to put forth that something IS indeed a problem, it seems you
>would naturally also embrace the responsibility to consistently
>provide a resource listing for those who DO wish to go research on
>their own. You know, cites as in the days of old. You used to be
>really good at that.
How difficult, in the discussion we were having, is it to find
information on the Constitution, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, etc?
What I was "really good at" was citing what I quoted. I don't
remember quoting anything in my message.
>> What I did was point out the myth surrounding the DoI and
>>Constitution was just that, a myth. SOME will see that as pointless.
>>Some will see it as useless. Some will simply reject it out of hand.
>>But some will see the difference and the problem. THEY are who I'm
>>interested in ... and I'm just not willing to spend the time on those
>>who aren't sufficiently engaged to understand the point ISN'T
>>"pointless" or "useless".
>
>See above. I think you're not relying upon what you know of me
>historically. I wish you would.
What, "historically", don't you understand concerning my points
about the constitution?
>>>Yes, it may. But then again it may not. There is at least a chance for
>>>something other than more of the same if you work with them, isn't
>>>there? Isn't there?
>>
>> In general? No. Some specifically? Yes. What I'm attempting to
>>point out is I am only interested in those specific ones ... and THEY
>>usually make themselves known in an easily identifiable way.
>
>Understood.
>
>> There are many forms of action ... just because my action isn't on
>>your approved list doesn't mean it isn't a valid form.
>
>Would you stop defending yourself? I'm not attacking you.
How the hell is someone supposed to know that?
>>>Ok, so are you interested in helping me or are you content to be
>>>snide? [wry look]
>>
>> Help you with WHAT?!
>>
>> Are you telling me (and I hope NOT) that you don't "get" what I
>>wrote about in these messages?
>
>No. In re-reading the previous, I think I've been writing at
>cross-purposes. I thought I had made it clear I was asking for info on
>resources about A/C:
Yeah ... and no one in that thread but you knew that.
>>>I'd like to think we could slowly move forward as equals, in a world
>>>where mutually beneficial interaction is the norm and every person is
>>>given the chance to live as they see fit so long as that does not
>>>infringe upon others.
>>
>> Think that would happen if the customs, traditions and
>>infrastructure to support it were missing?
>
>No, I think that would merely result in a massive upswing on the part
>of the thugs, 'lambs for the taking' and such. I think it would be a
>very darwinian moment, and unfortunately the predators have much on
>their side.
That's right ... so one criteria, at least as I see it, is A/C must
be an evolutionary not revolutionary occurance. That means customs
and traditions must be developed that will support infrastructure
necessary for A/C to evolve, survive and thrive.
>>>I'm not sure how to resolve the issue of people who simply will not
>>>desist from trying to force themselves, their ideals, or solutions
>>>upon others. I'm not sure how to address a lot of things. I don't
>>>think the idea of defense agencies is any less prone to corruption and
>>>abuse than the current situation. I think the expectation that all
>>>people will live and act rationally and ethically is too idealistic
>>>given the history of humankind.
>>
>> Until you study the Iroquois. Then you realize that anything can
>>happen IF the infrastructure is there to support it. The problem THEN
>>becomes how do we get there from here? How do we get to the point
>>where that infrastructure exists?
>>
>> Got me.
>
>I don't know. I'd say start over, but starting over doesn't guarantee
>a damn thing. I just don't know.
Yeah ... I'm winging it too. But regardless, I know information is
one of the keys and that's something I can provide. Info on my idea
of what A/C is and info on what is and isn't in the present.
>I guess I am wondering at this point how the heck anything would ever
>get done without some level of consensus.
It can't get done without consensus. That's a must. But, not
everyone has to be a part of it. That's a big difference.
>That part doesn't quite make sense to me and the only thing I see that
>would make that happen is the very thing I hate the most about what we have now.
To use a cliche, "think outside the box". Otherwise you can't get
there from here.
Mike_ Schneder
epito...@all.spammers.must.die.mindspring.com wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Jan 1999 01:16:48 GMT, mcq...@ix.netcom.com (McQ) was all
> like...
>
> > So what's the QUESTION?! There isn't a single one I haven't
> >answered (see freakin' 700+ line reply).
>
> What resource exists to read and learn more about A/C?
>
> > Methinks this is really all about Beck.
>
> You are wrong. It is more about wondering what the hell A/C contains
> that has turned everyone I knew and respected into such snippety,
> sarcastic-laden people.
.....as opposed to democrats??? ;-)
> It is also about trying to determine whether or not A/C is something
> I'm interested in. It is also about trying to figure out if there can
> be any reconciliation whatever between the absolutism that A/C seems
> to require and the fact that humanity is not (in my opinion) built to
> live completely alone (be it on some vaunted intellectual plane or
> no).
>
> Finally, it is about finding some way to come to a final conclusion on
> this so I can get on with the process of living and feeling as if I am
> being consistent with the things I find imperative on this level.
>
> The whole Beck thing was but a small tangent on a much longer vector.
>
Billy Beck
mcq...@ix.netcom.com (McQ) wrote:
>>Epitome contributed the following:
>>>McQ was all like...
>>
>>> So what's the QUESTION?! There isn't a single one I haven't
>>>answered (see freakin' 700+ line reply).
>>
>>What resource exists to read and learn more about A/C?
>
> Newsgroups galore. Here, alt.politics.misc,
>alt.politics.libertarian, a.p.o, h.p.o, etc. Most libertarian writing
>gets you going in the right direction. Web Search ... it's all over
>the place. Rand, Novak, Machan, Freidman (Machinery of Freedom), Etc.
Fuckin' *Freidman* is online all the time at HPO, and she bloody
knows it. She hung out there long enough to know where a substantial
part of the action is.
This is just bullshit.
Billy Beck
epito...@all.spammers.must.die.mindspring.com (Epitome) wrote:
>Finally, you don't care.... remember? Sheesh.
It matters to me that you're a creep, Bonnie.
That's a bit of a difference from what I was talking about when I
said that.
Bear Bottoms
Billy Beck wrote in message <3697d008...@news.mindspring.com>...
>
>epito...@all.spammers.must.die.mindspring.com (Epitome) wrote:
>
>>Finally, you don't care.... remember? Sheesh.
>
> It matters to me that you're a creep, Bonnie.
>
> That's a bit of a difference from what I was talking about when I
>said that.
>
>
>Billy
>
streets and utilize the taxpayers social structure while
looking down your nose at them. The kids who go to
public schools and all the great things that tax money
does is not a part of you. And you call Bonnie a creep.
Oh yeah, your the tough guy who never leaves home
without his "big" gun. Some areas of what is done with
tax money you disagree with so screw all of it. What if
everyone in this country copped out like that. Hope you
never cross my path with your gun so you won't have to
eat it. I very rarely found the need for a gun. In most instances,
those who one came up against who were armed and
knew you weren't felt a false sense of advantage. That
gave me the edge I needed to take their gun away from
them and then I was the only one with a gun. Imagine that.
Mike_ Schneder
epito...@all.spammers.must.die.mindspring.com wrote:
> The newsgroups are out on this one for me.
Correct: They're unspeakably lame. You'd have to killfile 98% to winnow
out the chaff.
> I'm looking for some kind of A/C history,
It's earliest expression would probably be in Greek Epicurean philosophy.
http://www.creative.net/~epicurus/
Mike_ Schneder
epito...@all.spammers.must.die.mindspring.com wrote:
> > That's right ... so one criteria, at least as I see it, is A/C must
> >be an evolutionary not revolutionary occurance. That means customs
> >and traditions must be developed that will support infrastructure
> >necessary for A/C to evolve, survive and thrive.
>
> I'm not so sure there are enough people interested in liberty to make
> such an evolution possible.
But we're not talking about "people" (The Mass is an Ass.)
A/C is stricting a you-and-me thing: *Individuals*.
> I'm not sure it would ever be possible
> given the tendency of most to resort to force the first time something
> impedes them. Add to this the tendency for people to actually believe
> they can have 'something for nothing'. Damned marketeers. Everyone
> thinks its the attorneys, but I'm here to tell ya it is the
> advertisers. Sorry, bad attempt at a joke there... but geez, I
> remember getting a mailer when I lived in eastside from a
> representative (congresscritter) that said (and I quote):
>
> "X will get you every government dollar you have coming."
He's a coat-tail rider: First the government advertized its snake oil,
and the citizens bought it.
> I was really almost physically ill, I was that angry. I called their
> office and complained and you would have thought I was a heretic. I
> suppose in a way, I am.
>
> Working within the system? I think the system is too damned corrupt to
> make that successful. I'm not sure if working outside the system is
> necessarily better, but surely it would simplify things. Barter
> organizations and the like are already in existence, for one.
>
> >>I guess I am wondering at this point how the heck anything would ever
> >>get done without some level of consensus.
> >
> > It can't get done without consensus. That's a must. But, not
> >everyone has to be a part of it. That's a big difference.
>
> Opt-in or opt-out, eh? This I can dig. Of course it would make any
> statist quiver in their little gucci shoes.
>
> >>That part doesn't quite make sense to me and the only thing I see that
> >>would make that happen is the very thing I hate the most about what we
have now.
> >
> > To use a cliche, "think outside the box". Otherwise you can't get
> >there from here.
>
> So it would seem.
>
> Epitome grinned wryly and drawled, "There are certain people for whom a
kick in the head is actually good."
> Her friend arched a brow and rebutted, "Only if they notice it."
> Epitome chuckled, "Too true."
>
> (remove the sentiment, but keep the dotmw to email me)
Replace stuff before @ with mike1. === Democracy: the expression of the
Gary Cruse
<bbot...@eatel.net> fashioned this arrow of prose:
You and other critics of Beck are so used to
hearing about the federal tit that you forget where
a heavy chunk of your taxes go. Taxes that
Billy pays from necessity.
>>
>...and what are you Beck. A freeloader. You drive down
>streets
Paid for mostly by local property taxes and city
sales tax. These are unavoidable whether
you rent or own.
> and utilize the taxpayers social structure
What social structure is paid for by
federal taxation? Big Brother is not
God, Bear. Before we can reduce
government in our lives, we have
to realize we don't need it.
>while
>looking down your nose at them.
This is what irks you, isn't it? If the
shoe fits....
>
>The kids who go to
>public schools
Property tax. And the schools have gotten worse
since federal funds came into them. Do you really
like forced busing?
>and all the great things that tax money
>does is not a part of you.
It does better when left in the
creator's pocket. The economy
is booming now in part because
of the free-market derived
downsizing and layoffs ten
years ago. The economy
is booming in spite of, not
because of government, with
the lone exception the astute
interest rate timing by the Fed.
>And you call Bonnie a creep.
You are welfare statist.
>Oh yeah, your the tough guy who never leaves home
>without his "big" gun. Some areas of what is done with
>tax money you disagree with so screw all of it. What if
>everyone in this country copped out like that.
Then Beck would *really* be crazy to pay taxes.
> Hope you
>never cross my path with your gun so you won't have to
>eat it. I very rarely found the need for a gun.
Crime drops in cities with conceal-carry
permission. So much for the government
being able to provide security.
--
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/6305/index.html
A Rush Limbaugh Featured Site
Sense is not cognition but sensation. (Douglas Robinson)
McQ
>>Billy Beck was all like...
>>> McQ wrote:
>>>>Epitome contributed the following:
>>>>>McQ was all like...
>
>>>
>>> Newsgroups galore. Here, alt.politics.misc,
>>>alt.politics.libertarian, a.p.o, h.p.o, etc. Most libertarian writing
>>>gets you going in the right direction. Web Search ... it's all over
>>>the place. Rand, Novak, Machan, Freidman (Machinery of Freedom), Etc.
Yikes ... that should have been Nozick.
>> Fuckin' *Freidman* is online all the time at HPO, and she bloody
>>knows it. She hung out there long enough to know where a substantial
>>part of the action is.
>>
>> This is just bullshit.
>
>I'm afraid I haven't been keeping track of every person I ever saw on
>Usenet, Billy. I tend only to actively read the ones I either know or
>stumble across and find to make sense to me. I wasn't in hpo long
>enough to know anyone beyond Swann and geez... I don't even remember
>the other guy's name. Ast? Arst? Mike something. Anyway, I haven't
>been at this long enough to know the names of all the players and
>frankly, do not know who the hell this Friedman guy is (or how he
>figures into things) beyond being able to assume at this point that
>you consider him some key player.
>
>All of which is beside the point, since (as I told Bruce) I'm trying
>to discover if there is some genesis point for A/C. Who is the 'Rand'
>of A/C? If it is this Friedman guy you mention, say so. I'm not
>interested in your personal opinion of my search. What I am interested
>in is discovering the initiation point of this thing and picking it up
>from that point and rolling it forward.
From a conversation presently going on in hpo:
[...]
Which leaves me wondering whether Brad has read _The Machinery of
Freedom_ or "Anarchy and Efficient Government" or "A Positive Account
of Property Rights" (the latter two are on my web page, among other
places). The last, in particular, deals with the problem of where
rights can come from.
[...]
David Friedman
dd...@best.com
www.best.com/~ddfr/
McQ
> ... I very rarely found the need for a gun.
With a smell like that I can see why ... nobody could get close
enough to use one.
Billy Beck
epito...@all.spammers.must.die.mindspring.com (Epitome) wrote:
>On Sat, 09 Jan 1999 21:54:55 GMT, wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck) was
>all like...
>
>>epito...@all.spammers.must.die.mindspring.com (Epitome) wrote:
>>
>>>Finally, you don't care.... remember? Sheesh.
>>
>> It matters to me that you're a creep, Bonnie.
>>
>> That's a bit of a difference from what I was talking about when I
>>said that.
>
>Whatever.
And, uh, BTW: *that* is a big part of why you can't figure it
out.
Billy Beck
"Bear Bottoms" <bbot...@eatel.net> wrote:
>
>Billy Beck wrote in message <3697d008...@news.mindspring.com>...
>>
>>epito...@all.spammers.must.die.mindspring.com (Epitome) wrote:
>>
>>>Finally, you don't care.... remember? Sheesh.
>>
>> It matters to me that you're a creep, Bonnie.
>>
>> That's a bit of a difference from what I was talking about when I
>>said that.
>...and what are you Beck. A freeloader.
Sez you. Suffer, bitch.
>You drive down
>streets and utilize the taxpayers social structure while
>looking down your nose at them. The kids who go to
>public schools and all the great things that tax money
>does is not a part of you.
Did you know that you're functionally illiterate, Bottoms?
>Hope you never cross my path with your gun so you won't have to
>eat it. I very rarely found the need for a gun. In most instances,
>those who one came up against who were armed and
>knew you weren't felt a false sense of advantage. That
>gave me the edge I needed to take their gun away from
>them and then I was the only one with a gun. Imagine that.
I do, Huey, now that you mention it.
Think about this: if I ever "crossed [your] path", there would
never be any question of firearms or anything else because I'd laugh
you out of the room before you could waddle one foot in front of the
other.
Mike_ Schneder
epito...@all.spammers.must.die.mindspring.com wrote:
> Is it Epicurius generally considered the 'father' of A/C?
"Generally considered"....? I dunno.
The site was made by Vincent Cook, who also hangs out at HPO. I haven't
seen Billy or Friedman disagree with him.
> It seems to
> me this philosophy is much too simplistic. I can see pieces of the
> individualist perspective here, but it seems to me the perspective of
> Epicurius was a bit more literal (pleasure meaning literal
> physiological reaction/response) than the interpretation Cicero
> provides (from what small bit of it I see here).
Confusing Epicureanism for Hedonism is a common mistake.
> As for me, I'm off to locate definitive texts on both Epicurius as
Good luck. Not much by Epicurus remains.
> well as Cicero and Diogenes Laertius.
Cicero was a Roman senator. AFAIA, he was not a philosopher, although
scattered aphorisms of a conservative political perspective have
percolated down through the ages. He certainly never questioned the moral
authority of some men to rule others; he, like Machiavelli, merely
preached restraint by government out of pragmatic reasoning.
Mike_ Schneder
epito...@all.spammers.must.die.mindspring.com wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Jan 1999 02:49:26 -0500, bliz...@winDELETETHIISternet.com
> (Mike_ Schneder) was all like...
>
> >In article <3697f3ad....@news.mindspring.com>,
> >epito...@all.spammers.must.die.mindspring.com wrote:
> >
> >> > That's right ... so one criteria, at least as I see it, is A/C must
> >> >be an evolutionary not revolutionary occurance. That means customs
> >> >and traditions must be developed that will support infrastructure
> >> >necessary for A/C to evolve, survive and thrive.
> >>
> >> I'm not so sure there are enough people interested in liberty to make
> >> such an evolution possible.
> >
> > But we're not talking about "people" (The Mass is an Ass.)
> > A/C is stricting a you-and-me thing: *Individuals*.
>
> The difference between a group and a group being that one is populated
> by people who would beat you with a shovel to get you to do something
> and the other is populated with individuals who would simply move
> along without you?
There will *always* be preditory assholes. But so long as there are
*two* who are civilized, A/C (between them) exists. To forecast that you
can't have (or obtain) A/C 100% of the time is the same as forecasting
lousy weather to occur some of the time -- irrelevent. What is important
is: What do you *want*?
> I'm still trying to break the habit of thinking there must be some
> level of inter-group commitment to ensure once the car starts, it gets
> to the destination everyone agreed upon when they climbed into it.
>
> Can there ever be such a guarantee when you're dealing with a group of
> individuals?
A meteorite could land on you tomorrow. *Squish*.
There are no guarantees in anything. You do the best you can.
> It seems as if the answer would be 'yes' so long as no
> one ever changes their mind.... but I'd hate to lay my life on such a
> mutable thing. (Not that this is the way things are, but the way they
> might someday be...if that makes sense.) I suppose you might say I'm
> distrustful given the state of the world. Not an entirely unreasonable
> thing (or so it seems). Once upon a time, I believed people when they
> said something. I no longer do, but I will admit to wanting to be able
> to be that certain of someone.
I certainly wouldn't trust them to vote in a nice dictator.
(I hope you've progressed beyond doing that sort of thing.)
> >> I'm not sure it would ever be possible
> >> given the tendency of most to resort to force the first time something
> >> impedes them. Add to this the tendency for people to actually believe
> >> they can have 'something for nothing'. Damned marketeers. Everyone
> >> thinks its the attorneys, but I'm here to tell ya it is the
> >> advertisers. Sorry, bad attempt at a joke there... but geez, I
> >> remember getting a mailer when I lived in eastside from a
> >> representative (congresscritter) that said (and I quote):
> >>
> >> "X will get you every government dollar you have coming."
> >
> > He's a coat-tail rider: First the government advertized its snake oil,
> >and the citizens bought it.
>
> You got that right. I get creeped and angry all at once when I hear a
> group of folks talking about how they're going to 'get theirs' from
> the government. I can almost FEEL their hand in my pocket.
Like that Lesko "InfoPower" guy?
Jeez....
> Epitome grinned wryly and drawled, "There are certain people for whom a
kick in the head is actually good."
> Her friend arched a brow and rebutted, "Only if they notice it."
> Epitome chuckled, "Too true."
>
> (remove the sentiment, but keep the dotmw to email me)
Replace stuff before @ with mike1. === Democracy: the expression of the
Bear Bottoms
Billy Beck wrote in message <3698840a...@news.mindspring.com>...
with your gun stuck up your butt.
Billy Beck
"Bear Bottoms" <bbot...@eatel.net> wrote:
>However, you could still laugh with your gun stuck up your butt.
Wouldn't that just get you so hot that you could *scream*, Huey
Baby?
Tell me: would you wipe the blood & fingerprints, and then laugh
about the quality of investigation?
It should have been *you* in Ft. Marcy Park, you despicable
coon-ass slug.
Bear Bottoms
Billy Beck wrote in message <3699351e...@news.mindspring.com>...
>
>"Bear Bottoms" <bbot...@eatel.net> wrote:
>
>>However, you could still laugh with your gun stuck up your butt.
>
> Wouldn't that just get you so hot that you could *scream*, Huey
>Baby?
>
go find someone who likes men. I just happened to have
a gut feeling that this drift would be the right button to push
to send you over and really demonstrate to all how little
control over yourself you really have. Anyone who boasts
that he doesn't pay taxes and always carries a gun everywhere
he goes...not too hard to figure out. (_;_)
Kurtz
Beck) writes:
>
>"Bear Bottoms" <bbot...@eatel.net> wrote:
(*Uh-oh, the intellectuals are having at it again. Let's listen in and
see if we cannot discern some sort of meaning from their lofty
dialogue!*)
>>However, you could still laugh with your gun stuck up your butt.
>
> Wouldn't that just get you so hot that you could *scream*, Huey
>Baby?
>
Mike_ Schneder
epito...@all.spammers.must.die.mindspring.com wrote:
> >> Ok. So now what? If this is indeed a given, what next?
> >
> > Start by minding your own business.
> > Don't vote. Don't take or look for handouts. Keep what's yours.
> > When you can trust yourself, you'll be ready to respect others.
>
> I've always trusted myself. I've rarely trusted others. Long story,
> but suffice it to say all experiments in trusting others have been
> roaring failures. Believe me when I tell you those linger and provide
> reminder better than anything else I could concoct.
>
snip
>
> So anyway, I'm finally on the trail. At the moment, I'm figuring
> out/finding places where the indoctrination is strongest and
> discovering that ripping this stuff out by the roots isn't as easy as
> I thought it would be.... I'm hoping the reading will help.
>
> Thanks for the note.
I'd like to change my last line above to:
When you can trust yourself, you'll know who else is worthy of respect.
Replace stuff before @ with mike1. === Democracy: the expression of the
innate need of most humans to have an Alpha leader tell them what to do.
Mike_ Schneder
epito...@all.spammers.must.die.mindspring.com wrote:
> > I certainly wouldn't trust them to vote in a nice dictator.
> > (I hope you've progressed beyond doing that sort of thing.)
>
> Yes, this much I have managed. I spent two terrible years fighting
> within the system only to discover the only victory one ever gets is
> the one they give you.
"Democracy: In which you say what you like and do what you're told."
-- Gerald Berry.
snip
> >> You got that right. I get creeped and angry all at once when I hear a
> >> group of folks talking about how they're going to 'get theirs' from
> >> the government. I can almost FEEL their hand in my pocket.
> >
> > Like that Lesko "InfoPower" guy?
>
> I haven't seen/heard of this one. Then again, I've cut myself off from
> television and newspapers altogether lately. The only news I get I go
Matthew Lesko wrote "InfoPower", and is in the infomercial of the same
name. Basically, he sells expertise in getting government moolah. He's
personally a likeable guy, but operates under the pragmatic line of
reasoning that since the government rips you off, you might as well dive
in the get your share back.
To me, it just looks like encouraging predation.
> find. I couldn't tell you the "big story" from today's paper if my
> life depended on it (well, ok -- I could *guess* it *might* have
> something to do with Clinton. >:) ).
>
> >Replace stuff before @ with mike1. === Democracy: the expression of the
> > inate need of most humans to have an Alpha leader tell them what to do.
> > They like the idea of creating one via an "election". It's a vicarious,
> > Frankenstein-esque dependancy enablement syndrome. -- Bill Kasper =====
>
> This is the first time I've actually READ your sig file. Good grief,
That's Bill Kasper's. Like most wise hermits, he only sticks his head
up occasionally. (He's off to some slimey mudhole in the Degoba system.)
> I'm stab through. I don't want someone to tell me what to do, but I'm
> very aware this is what I am *supposed* to want... be a good little
> sheep and such. [shudder]