New Constitutional Amendments
Deuteros
already ignore every day of the week. Since when have Senators cared about
what the Constitution says? Why bother changing it? At any rate, it's a
good time to ponder how the Constitution could be improved. If government
officials ever followed the Supreme Law of the Land, such improvements
would translate into triumphs for liberty in our time. Here are some
suggestions:
- Reword the Second Amendment:
The federal governmnent shall not make any law restricting or
forbidding the right to purchase, own, or carry any weapon.
- Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment.
- No government confiscation of property:
No individual, majority, society, or government may legitimately take
or control an individual's property without that individual's consent
(Government won't be able to take your property because the property
is "accused" of a crime)
- No government taxation of property:
No government shall tax any property, real or personal. (Property and
ad valorum taxes amount to renting your property from the government.
After all, if the government can confiscate your property for
non-payment of taxes do you really own the property?)
- Military reform:
No military forces shall be deployed outside American territory
without a Congressional Declaration of War.
Military forces will never engage in hostilities without a
Congressional Declaration of War, unless repelling an attack or
invasion by an outside force.
At times of official peace, the decision to aid, assist, or oppose any
foreign government or revolutionary movement will be reserved to the
people, as individuals.
- Congressional reform:
The individual states may impeach their respective Senators and
Representatives they send to Congress.
Compensation of Congressmen will be determined by his or her
respective state of origin.
Government agents, foreign or domestic, will not have immunity from
prosecution.
- Repeal the "general welfare", "interstate commerce", and the "necessary
and proper" clauses.
- Federal expenditures are limited to the specific items listed in Article
1 Section 8.
- Repeal the authority of the government to establish post offices and
control the militia.
- Federal disaster relief shall be limited to humanitarian assistance
only. (passing out food, water, etc)
These are just suggestions of course. The goal is to cut back the bloated
mess our government has become today to a simple government that respects
individual rights and perhaps even fears the people it governs.
The Lone Weasel
> - Reword the Second Amendment:
> The federal governmnent shall not make any law restricting or
> forbidding the right to purchase, own, or carry any weapon.
I think "reword" is another name for "repeal" when we're talking
about amendments to the US Constitution, son.
Don't you have a state constitution or a state statute that grants
a personal right to have weapons, Dotous?
_________________
The Texas Constitution
Article 1, Section 23
Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in
the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the
Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the
wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.
--
Yours truly,
The Lone Weasel
Deuteros
news:Xns9730DD788254F...@204.153.244.170:
> Deuteros <deut...@xrs.net> said:
>
>
>> - Reword the Second Amendment:
>> The federal governmnent shall not make any law restricting or
>> forbidding the right to purchase, own, or carry any weapon.
>
> I think "reword" is another name for "repeal" when we're talking
> about amendments to the US Constitution, son.
>
> Don't you have a state constitution or a state statute that grants
> a personal right to have weapons, Dotous?
Rights aren't granted. They are recognized.
mrck
On each federal election ballot, the voters shall be asked if they
would like their state to secede from the union. If a majority of
voters vote to secede, the the state shall immediately be declard a
soverign nation, and all US government troops and officials shall be
withdrawn within 90 days of the vote, and all federal taxation in
seceding state shall immedialy becom null and void.
Marion McCoskey
http://www.mcky.net
Bret Cahill
written after the robber barons took control of Hollywood and all other
media.
Bret Cahill
The Lone Weasel
Maybe you could cite any federal court or state supreme court
saying that rights are not granted. It seems to be something you
feel very sure about.
Well prove it, Number Two Loon.
Ray Fischer
>I always wondered why Senators bother amending a document that they
>already ignore every day of the week. Since when have Senators cared about
>what the Constitution says? Why bother changing it? At any rate, it's a
>good time to ponder how the Constitution could be improved. If government
>officials ever followed the Supreme Law of the Land, such improvements
>would translate into triumphs for liberty in our time. Here are some
>suggestions:
Remarkably stupid suggestions.
>- Reword the Second Amendment:
> The federal governmnent shall not make any law restricting or
> forbidding the right to purchase, own, or carry any weapon.
So convicted felons get to buy and own guns.
>- Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment.
Which would result in the collapse of the US government.
>- No government confiscation of property:
> No individual, majority, society, or government may legitimately take
> or control an individual's property without that individual's consent
> (Government won't be able to take your property because the property
> is "accused" of a crime)
No more highways.
>- No government taxation of property:
> No government shall tax any property, real or personal. (Property and
> ad valorum taxes amount to renting your property from the government.
> After all, if the government can confiscate your property for
> non-payment of taxes do you really own the property?)
So you want anarchy.
What a moron.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Mark Sebree
Better add to it that all government contracts will immediately be
moved out of the state, and the people working on the contract and
their families will be moved out as well at the state's expense, if
those people so choose. Many of the states get significant income from
those contracts, both directly and indirectly. With those taxpayers
and companies gone or out of work, there will be a significant drop in
the state's disposable income, which will likely cause a cascading
domino effect on poverty, especially when you also take into account
the loss of the troops and facilities in that state.
And speaking of those troops, what about the troops in the armed forced
from that state? What will their fate be? Immediate discharge?
Option to change to another state's citizenship? Having to stay in the
military until the end of their contracts?
Mark Sebree
Publius
> Maybe you could cite any federal court or state supreme court
> saying that rights are not granted. It seems to be something you
> feel very sure about.
>
> Well prove it, Number Two Loon.
Try the Declaration of Independence.
Frank Clarke
<1134970808.8...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
>With those taxpayers
>and companies gone or out of work, there will be a significant drop in
>the state's disposable income, which will likely cause a cascading
>domino effect on poverty, especially when you also take into account
>the loss of the troops and facilities in that state.
You think this might be at least partially (or even more-than-wholly) offset by
the taxes-no-longer-paid? You think it might not be a good deal? Do you know
who would be left? All those who feed on others.
(change Arabic number to Roman numeral to email)
Douglas Berry
posting the following on 19 Dec 2005 02:52:54 GMT iin alt.atheism?
>- Reword the Second Amendment:
> The federal governmnent shall not make any law restricting or
> forbidding the right to purchase, own, or carry any weapon.
You really want the Crips to have nerve gas?
>- Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment.
>
>- No government confiscation of property:
> No individual, majority, society, or government may legitimately take
> or control an individual's property without that individual's consent
> (Government won't be able to take your property because the property
> is "accused" of a crime)
>
>- No government taxation of property:
> No government shall tax any property, real or personal. (Property and
> ad valorum taxes amount to renting your property from the government.
> After all, if the government can confiscate your property for
> non-payment of taxes do you really own the property?)
And how exactly are you going to fund the government?
>- Military reform:
> No military forces shall be deployed outside American territory
> without a Congressional Declaration of War.
Which would restrict the US Navy to operating within 20 miles of the
coast. We'd also default on about twnety treaties I can think of. And
what about the USMC Embassy guards, our training missions to allies,
US soldiers attending foreign military schools, and all the other
reasons we travel outside the US?
> Military forces will never engage in hostilities without a
> Congressional Declaration of War, unless repelling an attack or
> invasion by an outside force.
Ha! So, If the USS Nimitz is attacked, it has to wait for Congress to
gather a quorom, write a Declaration of War, and have the President
sign it?
Here's a clue: On December 7th, 1941, we were attacked without a
formal state of war existing. At US bases across the Pacific,
Americans tried to fight back. under your proposal, they would be in
violation of the law.
> At times of official peace, the decision to aid, assist, or oppose any
> foreign government or revolutionary movement will be reserved to the
> people, as individuals.
You never served a day, did you. Servicemembers do not get to decide
on their assignments. If Congress has authorized aid to Outer
Slobovia, and the President has ordered the mission, you go if you get
the order. Failure to do so is a violation of the UCMJ.
>- Congressional reform:
> The individual states may impeach their respective Senators and
> Representatives they send to Congress.
It';s called an "election", and we have them every two years.
> Compensation of Congressmen will be determined by his or her
> respective state of origin.
Bad idea. What if a state decides to pay a drastically lower salary
than the average? Just asking for corruption there. This would favor
the larger, richer states at the expense of the poorer ones.
> Government agents, foreign or domestic, will not have immunity from
> prosecution.
What makes you think they do now?
>- Repeal the "general welfare", "interstate commerce", and the "necessary
>and proper" clauses.
Why?
>- Federal expenditures are limited to the specific items listed in Article
>1 Section 8.
So, you'd disband the FAA? Guess you don't like safe airtravel.
>- Repeal the authority of the government to establish post offices and
>control the militia.
Why?
>- Federal disaster relief shall be limited to humanitarian assistance
>only. (passing out food, water, etc)
Why? Don't you think that rebuilding roads and sewers is important?
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
Gaia
We are all guilty of it. It'll never stop.
Deuteros
> Deuteros <deut...@xrs.net> said:
>
>> The Lone Weasel <lonew...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> news:Xns9730DD788254F...@204.153.244.170:
>>
>>> Deuteros <deut...@xrs.net> said:
>>>
>>>
>>>> - Reword the Second Amendment:
>>>> The federal governmnent shall not make any law restricting
>>>> or forbidding the right to purchase, own, or carry any
>>>> weapon.
>>>
>>> I think "reword" is another name for "repeal" when we're
>>> talking about amendments to the US Constitution, son.
>>>
>>> Don't you have a state constitution or a state statute that
>>> grants a personal right to have weapons, Dotous?
>>
>> Rights aren't granted. They are recognized.
>
> Maybe you could cite any federal court or state supreme court
> saying that rights are not granted. It seems to be something you
> feel very sure about.
So you believe that your right to life, free speech, a fair trial, etc., only
exist at the whim of your government masters?
Deuteros
news:43a64627$0$58107$742e...@news.sonic.net:
> Deuteros <deut...@xrs.net> wrote:
>
>> I always wondered why Senators bother amending a document that they
>> already ignore every day of the week. Since when have Senators cared
>> about what the Constitution says? Why bother changing it? At any rate,
>> it's a good time to ponder how the Constitution could be improved. If
>> government officials ever followed the Supreme Law of the Land, such
>> improvements would translate into triumphs for liberty in our time.
>> Here are some suggestions:
>
> Remarkably stupid suggestions.
>
>> - Reword the Second Amendment:
>> The federal governmnent shall not make any law restricting or
>> forbidding the right to purchase, own, or carry any weapon.
>
> So convicted felons get to buy and own guns.
>
>> - Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment.
>
> Which would result in the collapse of the US government.
And yet, amazingly, the US government operated over 120 years without it.
>> - No government confiscation of property:
>> No individual, majority, society, or government may legitimately
>> take or control an individual's property without that individual's
>> consent (Government won't be able to take your property because the
>> property is "accused" of a crime)
>
> No more highways.
What Ray ignores or is unaware of is that most people, and business owners in
particular, would see the value of having roads. Ray seems unaware that an
essential of business is getting your product to the consumer. Consumers, for
some reason, desire to have the products of the market available to them. It
would make sense and be in their best interests to have roads leading to and
from the markets and the producers. If a property owner didn't wish to have a
road across his property, no one would force him to have one. However,
getting his groceries and other goods onto his property would be difficult
for him without having a road adjacent to his property.
Deuteros
>> - Reword the Second Amendment:
>> The federal governmnent shall not make any law restricting or
>> forbidding the right to purchase, own, or carry any weapon.
>
> So convicted felons get to buy and own guns.
When has any law prevented convicted felons from owning a gun?
You need to ask yourself, has a felon paid restitution to society by serving
out his jail time, and does he deserve to have his rights restored to him?
If so, then why deny him the right to purchase a weapon?
If not, then what is he doing out of jail?
Mark Sebree
No, I do not think that this will be offset by taxes no longer paid.
There are a number of states that have a poor tax base but significant
income from military bases, members, and corporate contracts with the
military. Take away all that money, and a large hole will be left in
the budget. I am also including the support structure that helps
people that would leave, like grocery stores, retail, utilities
(companies can be big users of these), and all the other incidentals.
What's more, most things that the state uses would now be subject to an
import tax, in all likelihood, which will raise their proces and
decrease their demands. The states will have to do more with less
money, which means increasing taxes on those that are left. Which
leads to poorer people and services. Which reduces the tax base since
people will spend less money, which reduces the amount that companies
pay in taxes and sends some into bankruptcy, and so on until either a
complete collapse of the economy or a new stabilization point is
reached.
Those that would be left are those that provide services to the others,
and they are likely to end up poorer or forced out of business.
Mark Sebree
Deuteros
news:fsadq1ha63t58294n...@4ax.com:
> What's so funny about peace, love and Deuteros <deut...@xrs.net>
> posting the following on 19 Dec 2005 02:52:54 GMT in alt.atheism?
>
>> - Reword the Second Amendment:
>> The federal governmnent shall not make any law restricting or
>> forbidding the right to purchase, own, or carry any weapon.
>
> You really want the Crips to have nerve gas?
I knew somebody would mention something like this. In a perfect world, no
government would possess weapons of mass destruction. Obviously
governments have killed more people with WMDs than any private citizen has
so why would you trust them with WMDs? But we don't live in a perfect
world. As for nerve gas, I can make an equivalent using household
chemicals and no law banning nerve gas or whatever could stop me.
I don't like the idea of my neighbor having a nuke in his basement, but
then again I don't like the idea of my government having one either.
>> - Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment.
>>
>> - No government confiscation of property:
>> No individual, majority, society, or government may legitimately
>> take or control an individual's property without that individual's
>> consent (Government won't be able to take your property because the
>> property is "accused" of a crime)
>>
>> - No government taxation of property:
>> No government shall tax any property, real or personal. (Property
>> and ad valorum taxes amount to renting your property from the
>> government. After all, if the government can confiscate your
>> property for non-payment of taxes do you really own the property?)
>
> And how exactly are you going to fund the government?
While government and taxation are necessary evils, there are methods of
funding the government other than income tax. A national sales tax for
instance.
>> - Military reform:
>> No military forces shall be deployed outside American territory
>> without a Congressional Declaration of War.
>
> Which would restrict the US Navy to operating within 20 miles of the
> coast. We'd also default on about twnety treaties I can think of. And
> what about the USMC Embassy guards,
Embassies are American territory.
> our training missions to allies,
> US soldiers attending foreign military schools, and all the other
> reasons we travel outside the US?
Perhaps such an amendment would make exceptions for training purposes, but
the general idea is to prevent the government from deploying our military
around the world or maintaining a permanent military presence in foreign
countries.
>> Military forces will never engage in hostilities without a
>> Congressional Declaration of War, unless repelling an attack or
>> invasion by an outside force.
>
> Ha! So, If the USS Nimitz is attacked, it has to wait for Congress to
> gather a quorom, write a Declaration of War, and have the President
> sign it?
>
> Here's a clue: On December 7th, 1941, we were attacked without a
> formal state of war existing. At US bases across the Pacific,
> Americans tried to fight back. under your proposal, they would be in
> violation of the law.
No, read again. I mentioned repelling an attack. But perhaps we could give
some sort of time limit, such as, "if attacked, Congress must declare war
within one month in order to continue hostilities," or something similar.
>> At times of official peace, the decision to aid, assist, or oppose
>> any foreign government or revolutionary movement will be reserved to
>> the people, as individuals.
>
> You never served a day, did you. Servicemembers do not get to decide
> on their assignments. If Congress has authorized aid to Outer
> Slobovia, and the President has ordered the mission, you go if you get
> the order. Failure to do so is a violation of the UCMJ.
Reserve to the people. As in private citizens, not military personnel.
>> - Congressional reform:
>> The individual states may impeach their respective Senators and
>> Representatives they send to Congress.
>
> It';s called an "election", and we have them every two years.
The idea is to have Congressmen more accountable to the state they are
supposed to be resresenting.
>> Compensation of Congressmen will be determined by his or her
>> respective state of origin.
>
> Bad idea. What if a state decides to pay a drastically lower salary
> than the average? Just asking for corruption there.
As if it isn't corrupt already? You have a government body that gets to
decide its own pay and benefits.
>> Government agents, foreign or domestic, will not have immunity from
>> prosecution.
>
> What makes you think they do now?
The constitution grants immunity to Congressmen and such when they are
performing their official duties. Foreign diplomats also are granted
diplomatic immunity.
>> - Repeal the "general welfare", "interstate commerce", and the
>> "necessary and proper" clauses.
>
> Why?
Those three clause have singlehandedly contributed to the bloated mess our
government is today.
>> - Federal expenditures are limited to the specific items listed in
>> Article 1 Section 8.
>
> So, you'd disband the FAA? Guess you don't like safe airtravel.
Airlines have more of an interest in safe air travel than the government
does.
>> - Repeal the authority of the government to establish post offices and
>> control the militia.
>
> Why?
The post office is a government imposed monopoly.
One of the purposes of the militia is to oppose government tyrrany. If the
government controls it that kind of defeats its prupose, don't you think?
On a side note: The National Guard is NOT the militia.
>> - Federal disaster relief shall be limited to humanitarian assistance
>> only. (passing out food, water, etc)
>
> Why? Don't you think that rebuilding roads and sewers is important?
Yes, but that is a state responsibility.
Ray Fischer
>>> I always wondered why Senators bother amending a document that they
>>> already ignore every day of the week. Since when have Senators cared
>>> about what the Constitution says? Why bother changing it? At any rate,
>>> it's a good time to ponder how the Constitution could be improved. If
>>> government officials ever followed the Supreme Law of the Land, such
>>> improvements would translate into triumphs for liberty in our time.
>>> Here are some suggestions:
>>
>> Remarkably stupid suggestions.
>>
>>> - Reword the Second Amendment:
>>> The federal governmnent shall not make any law restricting or
>>> forbidding the right to purchase, own, or carry any weapon.
>>
>> So convicted felons get to buy and own guns.
>>
>>> - Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment.
>>
>> Which would result in the collapse of the US government.
>
>And yet, amazingly, the US government operated over 120 years without it.
And yet, amazingly, this is the 21st century and not the 19th.
>>> - No government confiscation of property:
>>> No individual, majority, society, or government may legitimately
>>> take or control an individual's property without that individual's
>>> consent (Government won't be able to take your property because the
>>> property is "accused" of a crime)
>>
>> No more highways.
>
>What Ray ignores or is unaware of is that most people, and business owners in
>particular, would see the value of having roads.
What the neocon fails to grasp is that ONE person, holding out for a
really high price or just from stubborness, could prevent an entire
highway from being built.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
>news:43a64627$0$58107$742e...@news.sonic.net:
>
>>> - Reword the Second Amendment:
>>> The federal governmnent shall not make any law restricting or
>>> forbidding the right to purchase, own, or carry any weapon.
>>
>> So convicted felons get to buy and own guns.
>
>When has any law prevented convicted felons from owning a gun?
Try not to be an idiot.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
james...@yahoo.com
forbidding the right to purchase, own, or carry any weapon. "
But that changes the whole meaning. The original just says that the
Federal government shall not infringe on the right of the people to
form a state militia.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed. "
------------------------------------------------
If they didn't hate America, they wouldn't be Republicans.
defendUSA.blogspot.com
www.cafepress.com/bush_doggers
Bret Cahill
individualist ownership of fully automatic .50 cal. machine guns and
other weapons as I am against the lazy pseudo citizen inactivist who
sits around doing nothing, using his gun as a pacifier, fantasizing
about shooting the taxman.
The extent of his political participation is to sit around oiling his
gun wimpering, "if I git pushed too far . . ."
Someone THAT out of touch with reality shouldn't be allowed to have a
soup spoon as a weapon.
The Feds can and will and should blow those morons to smithereens.
Line 'em up and take care of the morons all at once.
Give 'em the Darwin Award posthumously.
Bret Cahill
Liberdope:
"And when liberdopia breaks out everything is done by consent because
there are no nonconsenters in liberdopia."
Normal Person:
"What about those without any dough? Do they get to influence the
direction of society?"
Liberdope:
"Liberdopes believe one dollar = one vote. If you don't have any
money, then you don't have any say about anything once liberdopia
breaks out."
Normal Person:
"Why haven't liberdopes been successful in influencing society toward
liberdopia?"
Liberdope:
"We don't have any money."
Normal Person (laughing):
"That's the best one I've heard all morning! Your problem isn't
getting TO liberdopia. Your problem is getting OUT of liberdopia."
Bret Cahill
Infinity
*Thus spake Infinity*
ALL access to the federal freeways and Byways will
have to be paid by each vehicle that uses them.
All trade tariffs will be set by the federal government.
Of course everyone will be migrant workers and must
not try to vote or cross borders.
The federal government has a duty to require a regime change
because you have something it wants.. Invasion time again!!
Infinity
:-)
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wise men study unknown and mysterious things, to enhance their wisdom.
While stupid men shout, kneel down, close their eyes and mumble...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
IMMORTALITY... WHY NOT ?
http://www.transhumanism.org/
The Lone Weasel
I just asked you to prove that use of the word "grant" is
disallowed when discussing constitutional rights.
So prove it, Number Two. You should also explain how US Supreme
Court justices have no trouble using the word to indicate rights
provided by the US Constitution.
_____________________
What the Court does is to make it possible for any one of
the many legislative powers to be used to wipe out or modify
specific rights granted by the Constitution, provided the
action taken is moderate and does not do violence to the
sensibilities of a majority of this Court. The examples
where this concept of Due Process has been [356 U.S. 44, 83]
used to sustain state action 4 as well as federal action, 5
which modifies or dilutes specific constitutional
guarantees, are numerous. It is used today drastically to
revise the express command of the first Clause of 1 of the
Fourteenth Amendment. A right granted by the Constitution -
whether it be the right to counsel or the right to
citizenship - may be waived by the citizen. 6 But the waiver
must be first a voluntary act and second an act consistent
with a surrender of the right granted. When Perez voted he
acted voluntarily. But, as shown, 401 (e) does not require
that his act have a sufficient relationship to the
relinquishment of citizenship - nor a sufficient quality of
adhering to a foreign power. Nor did his voting abroad have
that quality.
_____
[ Footnote 4 ] See Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455 ; In re
Summers, 325 U.S. 561 ; Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46 ;
Bute v. Illinois, 333 U.S. 640 ; Feiner v. New York, 340
U.S. 315 ; Breard v. Alexandria, 341 U.S. 622 ; Adler v.
Board of Education, 342 U.S. 485 ; Beauharnais v. Illinois,
343 U.S. 250 ; In re Groban, 352 U.S. 330 ; Breithaupt v.
Abram, 352 U.S. 432 .
[ Footnote 5 ] United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S.
75 ; American Communications Assn. v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382 ;
Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 .
[ Footnote 6 ] E. g., Adams v. McCann, 317 U.S. 269, 275 .
PEREZ v. BROWNELL, 356 U.S. 44 (1958), Mr. Justice Douglas
dissenting
Publius
> So prove it, Number Two. You should also explain how US Supreme
> Court justices have no trouble using the word to indicate rights
> provided by the US Constitution.
You are confusing legal rights with natural rights. Legal rights are rights
enforceable in courts, and can be granted by statute, or a constitution. In
the absence of a statute to the contrary, the court will enforce natural
rights, as derived from common law.
The Bill of Rights in the US Constitution, unlike rights set forth in other
national constitutions, was intended (for the most part) to codify certain
natural rights. By being so codified, they become legal rights. Thus they
are *granted* (as legal rights) by the Constitution. But they have a moral
basis which temporally precedes and morally supercedes that document.
As for the basis of "natural" rights, see "What the Heck are Rights," here:
http://www.newliberalreview.com
Frank Clarke
<1135003216.8...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
>No, I do not think that this will be offset by taxes no longer paid.
>There are a number of states that have a poor tax base but significant
>income from military bases, members, and corporate contracts with the
>military. Take away all that money, and a large hole will be left in
>the budget.
Those aren't the states you have to worry about...
Frank Clarke
<1135003216.8...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
>I am also including the support structure that helps
>people that would leave, like grocery stores, retail, utilities
>(companies can be big users of these), and all the other incidentals.
>What's more, most things that the state uses would now be subject to an
>import tax, in all likelihood, which will raise their proces and
>decrease their demands. The states will have to do more with less
>money, which means increasing taxes on those that are left. Which
>leads to poorer people and services. Which reduces the tax base since
>people will spend less money, which reduces the amount that companies
>pay in taxes and sends some into bankruptcy, and so on until either a
>complete collapse of the economy or a new stabilization point is
>reached.
>
>Those that would be left are those that provide services to the others,
>and they are likely to end up poorer or forced out of business.
You have a catastrophically poor understanding of the workings of supply and
demand, coupled with an apparent presumption that all good things come from the
federal government (or are provided with its permission).
Deuteros
news:1135015117.8...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> Deuteros wrote:
>
>> I always wondered why Senators bother amending a document that they
>> already ignore every day of the week. Since when have Senators cared
>> about what the Constitution says?
>
> If your saying that ALL Senators are Senators that ignore ALL of the
> Constitution ALL of the time THEN you have set your argument up for the
> big downfall SINCE all we need is one instance of attention to any part
> of the Constitution at one particular time, like a quote of some
> Senator quoting the Constitution in any way form or manner. Try again,
> you lose.
Unfortunately for you, I didn't say that ALL Senators ignore ALL of the
Constitution ALL of the time.
Deuteros
> Deuteros <deut...@xrs.net> wrote:
>
>> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>> Deuteros <deut...@xrs.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I always wondered why Senators bother amending a document that they
>>>> already ignore every day of the week. Since when have Senators cared
>>>> about what the Constitution says? Why bother changing it? At any
>>>> rate, it's a good time to ponder how the Constitution could be
>>>> improved. If government officials ever followed the Supreme Law of
>>>> the Land, such improvements would translate into triumphs for liberty
>>>> in our time. Here are some suggestions:
>>>
>>> Remarkably stupid suggestions.
>>>
>>>> - Reword the Second Amendment:
>>>> The federal governmnent shall not make any law restricting or
>>>> forbidding the right to purchase, own, or carry any weapon.
>>>
>>> So convicted felons get to buy and own guns.
>>>
>>>> - Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment.
>>>
>>> Which would result in the collapse of the US government.
>>
>> And yet, amazingly, the US government operated over 120 years without
>> it.
>
> And yet, amazingly, this is the 21st century and not the 19th.
Your point?
>>>> - No government confiscation of property:
>>>> No individual, majority, society, or government may legitimately
>>>> take or control an individual's property without that
>>>> individual's consent (Government won't be able to take your
>>>> property because the property is "accused" of a crime)
>>>
>>> No more highways.
>>
>> What Ray ignores or is unaware of is that most people, and business
>> owners in particular, would see the value of having roads.
>
> What the neocon fails to grasp is that ONE person, holding out for a
> really high price or just from stubborness, could prevent an entire
> highway from being built.
Or one could just buy his neighbor's property. Property owners will be
less likely to hold out if they know that their neighbors are more willing
to sell.
Ray Fischer
>rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
>news:43a6f4de$0$58076$742e...@news.sonic.net:
>
>> Deuteros <deut...@xrs.net> wrote:
>>
>>> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Deuteros <deut...@xrs.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I always wondered why Senators bother amending a document that they
>>>>> already ignore every day of the week. Since when have Senators cared
>>>>> about what the Constitution says? Why bother changing it? At any
>>>>> rate, it's a good time to ponder how the Constitution could be
>>>>> improved. If government officials ever followed the Supreme Law of
>>>>> the Land, such improvements would translate into triumphs for liberty
>>>>> in our time. Here are some suggestions:
>>>>
>>>> Remarkably stupid suggestions.
>>>>
>>>>> - Reword the Second Amendment:
>>>>> The federal governmnent shall not make any law restricting or
>>>>> forbidding the right to purchase, own, or carry any weapon.
>>>>
>>>> So convicted felons get to buy and own guns.
>>>>
>>>>> - Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment.
>>>>
>>>> Which would result in the collapse of the US government.
>>>
>>> And yet, amazingly, the US government operated over 120 years without
>>> it.
>>
>> And yet, amazingly, this is the 21st century and not the 19th.
>
>Your point?
Way over your head.
>>>>> - No government confiscation of property:
>>>>> No individual, majority, society, or government may legitimately
>>>>> take or control an individual's property without that
>>>>> individual's consent (Government won't be able to take your
>>>>> property because the property is "accused" of a crime)
>>>>
>>>> No more highways.
>>>
>>> What Ray ignores or is unaware of is that most people, and business
>>> owners in particular, would see the value of having roads.
>>
>> What the neocon fails to grasp is that ONE person, holding out for a
>> really high price or just from stubborness, could prevent an entire
>> highway from being built.
>
>Or one could just buy his neighbor's property.
You are an idiot.
> Property owners will be
>less likely to hold out if they know that their neighbors are more willing
>to sell.
LOL! Quite the contrary, idiot. If you know everybody else has
already sold and that you're the last one left you know that you have
lots of leverage to demand a high price.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Miller
"Deuteros" <deut...@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:43a62086$0$97164$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
> I always wondered why Senators bother amending a document that they
> already ignore every day of the week. Since when have Senators cared about
> what the Constitution says? Why bother changing it? At any rate, it's a
> good time to ponder how the Constitution could be improved. If government
> officials ever followed the Supreme Law of the Land, such improvements
> would translate into triumphs for liberty in our time. Here are some
> suggestions:
>
> The federal governmnent shall not make any law restricting or
> forbidding the right to purchase, own, or carry any weapon.
>
>
> No individual, majority, society, or government may legitimately take
> or control an individual's property without that individual's consent
> (Government won't be able to take your property because the property
> is "accused" of a crime)
>
> No government shall tax any property, real or personal. (Property and
> ad valorum taxes amount to renting your property from the government.
> After all, if the government can confiscate your property for
> non-payment of taxes do you really own the property?)
>
> No military forces shall be deployed outside American territory
> without a Congressional Declaration of War.
>
> Congressional Declaration of War, unless repelling an attack or
> invasion by an outside force.
>
> foreign government or revolutionary movement will be reserved to the
> people, as individuals.
>
> The individual states may impeach their respective Senators and
> Representatives they send to Congress.
>
> respective state of origin.
>
> prosecution.
>
> and proper" clauses.
>
> 1 Section 8.
>
> control the militia.
>
> only. (passing out food, water, etc)
>
>
> mess our government has become today to a simple government that respects
> individual rights and perhaps even fears the people it governs.
Why bother with all that? Just cancel the whole darn thing. Then there
would be no government at all!
Scott
Deuteros
I guess you don't have a point then.
>>>>>> - No government confiscation of property:
>>>>>> No individual, majority, society, or government may
>>>>>> legitimately take or control an individual's property without
>>>>>> that individual's consent (Government won't be able to take
>>>>>> your property because the property is "accused" of a crime)
>>>>>
>>>>> No more highways.
>>>>
>>>> What Ray ignores or is unaware of is that most people, and business
>>>> owners in particular, would see the value of having roads.
>>>
>>> What the neocon fails to grasp is that ONE person, holding out for a
>>> really high price or just from stubborness, could prevent an entire
>>> highway from being built.
>>
>>Or one could just buy his neighbor's property.
>
> You are an idiot.
>
>> Property owners will be less likely to hold out if they know that their
>> neighbors are more willing to sell.
>
> LOL! Quite the contrary, idiot. If you know everybody else has
> already sold and that you're the last one left you know that you have
> lots of leverage to demand a high price.
Which makes your property worth more to a developer so why shouldn't you
get a higher price? Besides, the strategic holdout, after all, wants to
sell his land--and he won't hold out for an astronomical price if he knows
that you will respond by building around him.
Deals like this can be negotiated several ways -- an obvious one is by
contracting to buy all the needed lots, only if all are sold. This prevents
any single owner from trying to charge more.
Fluidly Unsure
> "The federal governmnent shall not make any law restricting or
> forbidding the right to purchase, own, or carry any weapon. "
>
> But that changes the whole meaning.
Wasn't that the intention of the OP?
> The original just says that the
> Federal government shall not infringe on the right of the people to
> form a state militia.
>
> "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
> state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
> infringed. "
Which is being interpredited in ways that go against what I beleive was the
original intent.
A good overview is at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Commas_in_the_Second_Amendment
(Wikipedia is not the best or the final source of information, but it is a
starting point)
It makes sense to clear the questions and specify what those terms mean and how
they should be carried out. Maybe we've been debating this issue too long.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------
> If they didn't hate America, they wouldn't be Republicans.
> defendUSA.blogspot.com
> www.cafepress.com/bush_doggers
>
--
Liquid
Douglas Berry
alt.atheism?
>> You really want the Crips to have nerve gas?
>
>I knew somebody would mention something like this. In a perfect world, no
>government would possess weapons of mass destruction. Obviously
>governments have killed more people with WMDs than any private citizen has
>so why would you trust them with WMDs? But we don't live in a perfect
>world. As for nerve gas, I can make an equivalent using household
>chemicals and no law banning nerve gas or whatever could stop me.
Yes, but if we catch you with it, you go to prison for a very long
time.
I trust my particular government since it has managed to not use a
massive arsenal of WMD since 1945. As a veteran, I know the training
and checks required before you can even work around "special weapons",
let alone be in a position to arm or fire them
>I don't like the idea of my neighbor having a nuke in his basement, but
>then again I don't like the idea of my government having one either.
I don't like them either, but I know my government has shown
remarkable restraint and has established procedures to prevent the
nation's nuclear weapons from being used by mistake or in haste. Can
your neighbor offer me the same assurances?
>> And how exactly are you going to fund the government?
>
>While government and taxation are necessary evils, there are methods of
>funding the government other than income tax. A national sales tax for
>instance.
Which woukld hurt the poor, since prices would effectively skyrocket.
Even the advocates of such a scheme acknowledge that the minimum
needed tax would be in the 20% range.
Take a KIA Rio, a nice little economy car. Currently, the MSRP is
$11,110 for a basic, no frills model. Here in my county of
California, we'll add the local 8.25 sales tax.
$12,026.58
Now, we'll add the National sales tax *plus* the state and local sales
taxes.
$14,248.58
That two grand difference will be multiplied many times over the
average life of a new car loan, of course.
>>> - Military reform:
>>> No military forces shall be deployed outside American territory
>>> without a Congressional Declaration of War.
>>
>> Which would restrict the US Navy to operating within 20 miles of the
>> coast. We'd also default on about twnety treaties I can think of. And
>> what about the USMC Embassy guards,
>
>Embassies are American territory.
And how many embassies have their own airports? Are the military and
naval attache's to be restricted to the grounds? And Marine guards
will occassionally want to go out!
You also failed to address the fact that you've just restricted the
United States Navy to littoral waters. They can't even protect our
fishing fleets!
>> our training missions to allies,
>> US soldiers attending foreign military schools, and all the other
>> reasons we travel outside the US?
>
>Perhaps such an amendment would make exceptions for training purposes, but
>the general idea is to prevent the government from deploying our military
>around the world or maintaining a permanent military presence in foreign
>countries.
Our permanent presense in foreign nations are part of negotiated
treaties, ratified by the US Senate in accordance with Article II,
Section 2.
>>> Military forces will never engage in hostilities without a
>>> Congressional Declaration of War, unless repelling an attack or
>>> invasion by an outside force.
>>
>> Ha! So, If the USS Nimitz is attacked, it has to wait for Congress to
>> gather a quorom, write a Declaration of War, and have the President
>> sign it?
>>
>> Here's a clue: On December 7th, 1941, we were attacked without a
>> formal state of war existing. At US bases across the Pacific,
>> Americans tried to fight back. under your proposal, they would be in
>> violation of the law.
>
>No, read again. I mentioned repelling an attack. But perhaps we could give
>some sort of time limit, such as, "if attacked, Congress must declare war
>within one month in order to continue hostilities," or something similar.
Go read the War Powers Act. It does exactly what you propose.
>>> At times of official peace, the decision to aid, assist, or oppose
>>> any foreign government or revolutionary movement will be reserved to
>>> the people, as individuals.
>>
>> You never served a day, did you. Servicemembers do not get to decide
>> on their assignments. If Congress has authorized aid to Outer
>> Slobovia, and the President has ordered the mission, you go if you get
>> the order. Failure to do so is a violation of the UCMJ.
>
>Reserve to the people. As in private citizens, not military personnel.
That's not what you wrote, and you seem to be laboring under the
delusion that we are some sort of Athenian Democracy. We're not.
We're a Federal Republic, with elected leaders in whom we vest the
power to make such decisions.
Seriously, if I told you half the places I went in the mlitary I doubt
you could find them on the map; let alone explain the situation
requiring troops to be sent.
>> It';s called an "election", and we have them every two years.
>
>The idea is to have Congressmen more accountable to the state they are
>supposed to be resresenting.
Recall elections are perfectly legal. We had one here in California a
couple of years ago.
>> Bad idea. What if a state decides to pay a drastically lower salary
>> than the average? Just asking for corruption there.
>
>As if it isn't corrupt already? You have a government body that gets to
>decide its own pay and benefits.
Yup. Part of the joys of the job.
>> What makes you think they do now?
>
>The constitution grants immunity to Congressmen and such when they are
>performing their official duties. Foreign diplomats also are granted
>diplomatic immunity.
Wrong. The Constitution says no such thing. The only thing that
comes close is Article III, Section 2 which reads:
"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and
Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court
shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before
mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both
as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations
as the Congress shall make."
Care to show me a citation that reads otherwise?
>>> - Repeal the "general welfare", "interstate commerce", and the
>>> "necessary and proper" clauses.
>>
>> Why?
>
>Those three clause have singlehandedly contributed to the bloated mess our
>government is today.
You'll have to do better than that.
>>> - Federal expenditures are limited to the specific items listed in
>>> Article 1 Section 8.
>>
>> So, you'd disband the FAA? Guess you don't like safe airtravel.
>
>Airlines have more of an interest in safe air travel than the government
>does.
ROTFLMAO!!!!! Right, because corporate America, left on its own,
would *never* cut corners to make an extra buck.. go ahead, tell me
another one!
I'm suddenly reminded of the Alaska Airline crash off the coast here
where the NTSB investigation found systimatic failures to procure
repair parts as a part of a budget cutback.
>>> - Repeal the authority of the government to establish post offices and
>>> control the militia.
>>
>> Why?
>
>The post office is a government imposed monopoly.
Yes, and? It's not like you don't have other options to send
information (like, oh, email or phone calls) and I can think of a
dozen companies that will ship your packages for you.
The fact is that one of the most essential services a government
provides is the safe transit of mail. The Romans understood that.
>One of the purposes of the militia is to oppose government tyrrany. If the
>government controls it that kind of defeats its prupose, don't you think?
Depends. The concept of the militia in the early US was a body of men
who could quickly be drawn upon to defend the nation. Not the modern
"idiots in camo who think they can fight M1A2s with deer rifles"
idiots who have co-opted the title Militia.
>On a side note: The National Guard is NOT the militia.
No shit.
>>> - Federal disaster relief shall be limited to humanitarian assistance
>>> only. (passing out food, water, etc)
>>
>> Why? Don't you think that rebuilding roads and sewers is important?
>
>Yes, but that is a state responsibility.
What about the interstate highway system? Water projects that were
built by the feds and cross state lines?
Douglas Berry
>> What the neocon fails to grasp is that ONE person, holding out for a
>> really high price or just from stubborness, could prevent an entire
>> highway from being built.
>
>Or one could just buy his neighbor's property. Property owners will be
>less likely to hold out if they know that their neighbors are more willing
>to sell.
I take it you don't live near mountains.
Many times, there is only one possible route for a highway, through a
pass or such, and any other option would riase the cost of the road to
astronomical levels.
Douglas Berry
alt.atheism?
>rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
>news:43a64627$0$58107$742e...@news.sonic.net:
>
>>> - Reword the Second Amendment:
>>> The federal governmnent shall not make any law restricting or
>>> forbidding the right to purchase, own, or carry any weapon.
>>
>> So convicted felons get to buy and own guns.
>
>When has any law prevented convicted felons from owning a gun?
Background checks at my favorite gun shop catch at least one guy a
week on the no sell list trying to buy a gun.
>You need to ask yourself, has a felon paid restitution to society by serving
>out his jail time, and does he deserve to have his rights restored to him?
For a violent crime, fuck no.
>If so, then why deny him the right to purchase a weapon?
I know, I know!! Because he committed a fucking felony, was tried,
convicted, and part of the punishment is the cessation of certain
rights, such as bearing arms.
If you don't like, I suggest you not commit felonies.
>If not, then what is he doing out of jail?
Getting a second chance. But with restrictions. Parolees are forced
to report their location, cannot freely travel, and live under search
rules that even the most conservative judge would throw out in a
normal case.
This is because they are criminals, and watched carefully after they
are relaesed.
Ray Fischer
"Developer"?!? Sorry dude. That's taxpayers. You.
> Besides, the strategic holdout, after all, wants to
>sell his land--and he won't hold out for an astronomical price if he knows
>that you will respond by building around him.
Can't build around. Freeways aren't amenable to little jogs around
small parcels of land.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Deuteros
Do roads never curve where you live?
Deuteros
> What's so funny about peace, love and Deuteros <deut...@xrs.net>
> posting the following on 19 Dec 2005 23:34:17 GMT iin alt.atheism?
>
>>> What the neocon fails to grasp is that ONE person, holding out for a
>>> really high price or just from stubborness, could prevent an entire
>>> highway from being built.
>>
>> Or one could just buy his neighbor's property. Property owners will be
>> less likely to hold out if they know that their neighbors are more
>> willing to sell.
>
> I take it you don't live near mountains.
>
> Many times, there is only one possible route for a highway, through a
> pass or such, and any other option would riase the cost of the road to
> astronomical levels.
So you're saying that the government should have the power of eminent domain
so it doesn't have to pay fair market value? Private companies have to pay a
premium for prime real estate. Why should the government be an exception?
Deals like this can be negotiated several ways -- an obvious one is by
contracting to buy all the needed lots, only if all are sold. This prevents
any single owner from trying to charge more.
Do you really think a landowner should be forced to sell because the
government thinks it might be nice to build a road on his property?
Deuteros
> What's so funny about peace, love and Deuteros <deut...@xrs.net>
> posting the following on Mon, 19 Dec 2005 14:27:39 GMT iin
> alt.atheism?
>
>> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
>> news:43a64627$0$58107$742e...@news.sonic.net:
>>
>>>> - Reword the Second Amendment:
>>>> The federal governmnent shall not make any law restricting or
>>>> forbidding the right to purchase, own, or carry any weapon.
>>>
>>> So convicted felons get to buy and own guns.
>>
>> When has any law prevented convicted felons from owning a gun?
>
> Background checks at my favorite gun shop catch at least one guy a
> week on the no sell list trying to buy a gun.
You don't think that gun shops are the only places to buy guns do you?
>> You need to ask yourself, has a felon paid restitution to society by
>> serving out his jail time, and does he deserve to have his rights
>> restored to him?
>
> For a violent crime, fuck no.
>
>> If so, then why deny him the right to purchase a weapon?
>
> I know, I know!! Because he committed a fucking felony, was tried,
> convicted, and part of the punishment is the cessation of certain
> rights, such as bearing arms.
>
> If you don't like, I suggest you not commit felonies.
I don't necessarily have a problem with laws against felons obtaining
firearms. I just don't delude myself into believing they actually prevent
felons from obtaining firearms.
>> If not, then what is he doing out of jail?
>
> Getting a second chance. But with restrictions. Parolees are forced
> to report their location, cannot freely travel, and live under search
> rules that even the most conservative judge would throw out in a
> normal case.
>
> This is because they are criminals, and watched carefully after they
> are relaesed.
If there is a need for such monitoring for these people then they
shouldn't be out of jail. Make them serve their full sentence.
Ray Fischer
You are an idiot. You apparently are too stupid to know the
difference between a "road" and an 8-lane freeway.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>Douglas Berry <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
>>>> What the neocon fails to grasp is that ONE person, holding out for a
>>>> really high price or just from stubborness, could prevent an entire
>>>> highway from being built.
>>>
>>> Or one could just buy his neighbor's property. Property owners will be
>>> less likely to hold out if they know that their neighbors are more
>>> willing to sell.
>>
>> I take it you don't live near mountains.
>>
>> Many times, there is only one possible route for a highway, through a
>> pass or such, and any other option would riase the cost of the road to
>> astronomical levels.
>
>So you're saying that the government should have the power of eminent domain
>so it doesn't have to pay fair market value?
You are an idiot. You're too stupid to notice that the Constitution
requires the payment of fair market value for any property seized.
You're also trying to change the subject.
>Deals like this can be negotiated several ways -- an obvious one is by
>contracting to buy all the needed lots, only if all are sold. This prevents
>any single owner from trying to charge more.
You are an idiot. Such deals are next to impossible when there are
hundreds of property owners involved.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Deuteros
Such a program would have a disproportionate affect on the poor, but
certain adjustments could be made to make the system as fair as possible.
For example, any necessities, such as food, clothing, utilities, etc.,
would be exempt from any sales tax.
> Even the advocates of such a scheme acknowledge that the minimum
> needed tax would be in the 20% range.
Not if there are massive cuts to unconstitutional government spending.
>>>> - Military reform:
>>>> No military forces shall be deployed outside American territory
>>>> without a Congressional Declaration of War.
>>>
>>> Which would restrict the US Navy to operating within 20 miles of the
>>> coast. We'd also default on about twnety treaties I can think of. And
>>> what about the USMC Embassy guards,
>>
>> Embassies are American territory.
>
> And how many embassies have their own airports? Are the military and
> naval attache's to be restricted to the grounds? And Marine guards
> will occassionally want to go out!
They are stationed at the embassy, not the airport. And who says that the
embassy guards even have to be military personnel?
> You also failed to address the fact that you've just restricted the
> United States Navy to littoral waters. They can't even protect our
> fishing fleets!
So now our militrary is obligated to protect Americans who wander outside
American territory?
I don't necessarily have a problem with the Navy operating outside American
waters and stopping in foreign ports for resupply. Remember, the idea is to
have our military scattered throughout the world and burdened with
obligations.
>>> our training missions to allies,
>>> US soldiers attending foreign military schools, and all the other
>>> reasons we travel outside the US?
>>
>>Perhaps such an amendment would make exceptions for training purposes,
>>but the general idea is to prevent the government from deploying our
>>military around the world or maintaining a permanent military presence
>>in foreign countries.
>
> Our permanent presense in foreign nations are part of negotiated
> treaties, ratified by the US Senate in accordance with Article II,
> Section 2.
If these amendments were put into place then congress would be unable to
make such treaties.
>>>> Military forces will never engage in hostilities without a
>>>> Congressional Declaration of War, unless repelling an attack or
>>>> invasion by an outside force.
>>>
>>> Ha! So, If the USS Nimitz is attacked, it has to wait for Congress to
>>> gather a quorom, write a Declaration of War, and have the President
>>> sign it?
>>>
>>> Here's a clue: On December 7th, 1941, we were attacked without a
>>> formal state of war existing. At US bases across the Pacific,
>>> Americans tried to fight back. under your proposal, they would be in
>>> violation of the law.
>>
>>No, read again. I mentioned repelling an attack. But perhaps we could
>>give some sort of time limit, such as, "if attacked, Congress must
>>declare war within one month in order to continue hostilities," or
>>something similar.
>
> Go read the War Powers Act. It does exactly what you propose.
If it does then why have are our troops been fighting an undeclared war in
Iraq for the past two and a half years?
>>>> At times of official peace, the decision to aid, assist, or oppose
>>>> any foreign government or revolutionary movement will be reserved
>>>> to the people, as individuals.
>>>
>>> You never served a day, did you. Servicemembers do not get to decide
>>> on their assignments. If Congress has authorized aid to Outer
>>> Slobovia, and the President has ordered the mission, you go if you get
>>> the order. Failure to do so is a violation of the UCMJ.
>>
>>Reserve to the people. As in private citizens, not military personnel.
>
> That's not what you wrote,
Yes it was. I never mentioned military personnel in that paragraph.
> and you seem to be laboring under the
> delusion that we are some sort of Athenian Democracy. We're not.
> We're a Federal Republic, with elected leaders in whom we vest the
> power to make such decisions.
Really? Can you point out in the Constitution where Congress is authorized
to give aid to foreign nations?
> Seriously, if I told you half the places I went in the mlitary I doubt
> you could find them on the map; let alone explain the situation
> requiring troops to be sent.
Your point being?
>>> Bad idea. What if a state decides to pay a drastically lower salary
>>> than the average? Just asking for corruption there.
>>
>>As if it isn't corrupt already? You have a government body that gets to
>>decide its own pay and benefits.
>
> Yup. Part of the joys of the job.
A joy that should be removed.
>>> What makes you think they do now?
>>
>>The constitution grants immunity to Congressmen and such when they are
>>performing their official duties. Foreign diplomats also are granted
>>diplomatic immunity.
>
> Wrong. The Constitution says no such thing. The only thing that
> comes close is Article III, Section 2 which reads:
>
> "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and
> Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court
> shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before
> mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both
> as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations
> as the Congress shall make."
>
> Care to show me a citation that reads otherwise?
Article I Section 6:
"They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace,
be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their
respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any
Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other
Place."
Foreign diplomatic immunity is not provided for in the Constitution, but
has been negotiated by treaties.
>>>> - Repeal the "general welfare", "interstate commerce", and the
>>>> "necessary and proper" clauses.
>>>
>>> Why?
>>
>>Those three clause have singlehandedly contributed to the bloated mess
>>our government is today.
>
> You'll have to do better than that.
>
>>>> - Federal expenditures are limited to the specific items listed in
>>>> Article 1 Section 8.
>>>
>>> So, you'd disband the FAA? Guess you don't like safe airtravel.
>>
>>Airlines have more of an interest in safe air travel than the government
>>does.
>
> ROTFLMAO!!!!! Right, because corporate America, left on its own,
> would *never* cut corners to make an extra buck.. go ahead, tell me
> another one!
>
> I'm suddenly reminded of the Alaska Airline crash off the coast here
> where the NTSB investigation found systimatic failures to procure
> repair parts as a part of a budget cutback.
>
>>>> - Repeal the authority of the government to establish post offices
>>>> and control the militia.
>>>
>>> Why?
>>
>>The post office is a government imposed monopoly.
>
> Yes, and? It's not like you don't have other options to send
> information (like, oh, email or phone calls) and I can think of a
> dozen companies that will ship your packages for you.
Only the post office can legally deliver first and third class mail.
> The fact is that one of the most essential services a government
> provides is the safe transit of mail. The Romans understood that.
And when a private company proves it can do it better the government shuts
them down.
>>One of the purposes of the militia is to oppose government tyrrany. If
>>the government controls it that kind of defeats its prupose, don't you
>>think?
>
> Depends. The concept of the militia in the early US was a body of men
> who could quickly be drawn upon to defend the nation.
That was one of its purposes, but it doesn't mean it has to be controlled
by the state.
> Not the modern
> "idiots in camo who think they can fight M1A2s with deer rifles"
> idiots who have co-opted the title Militia.
If the federal government actually observed the second amendment then those
"idiots in camo" would be wielding anti-tank missiles.
>>>> - Federal disaster relief shall be limited to humanitarian assistance
>>>> only. (passing out food, water, etc)
>>>
>>> Why? Don't you think that rebuilding roads and sewers is important?
>>
>>Yes, but that is a state responsibility.
>
> What about the interstate highway system?
No different than other roads. Just bigger.
> Water projects that were built by the feds and cross state lines?
You don't think two states can fund a joint project?
Deuteros
Do 8 lane freeways not curve where you live?
Deuteros
> Deuteros <deut...@xrs.net> wrote:
>
>> Douglas Berry <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
>>
>>>>> What the neocon fails to grasp is that ONE person, holding out for a
>>>>> really high price or just from stubborness, could prevent an entire
>>>>> highway from being built.
>>>>
>>>> Or one could just buy his neighbor's property. Property owners will
>>>> be less likely to hold out if they know that their neighbors are more
>>>> willing to sell.
>>>
>>> I take it you don't live near mountains.
>>>
>>> Many times, there is only one possible route for a highway, through a
>>> pass or such, and any other option would riase the cost of the road to
>>> astronomical levels.
>>
>> So you're saying that the government should have the power of eminent
>> domain so it doesn't have to pay fair market value?
>
> You are an idiot. You're too stupid to notice that the Constitution
> requires the payment of fair market value for any property seized.
So if a landowner is going to receive the same amount of money as he would if
he sold it to a private entity then why do you even need eminent domain?
>> Deals like this can be negotiated several ways -- an obvious one is by
>> contracting to buy all the needed lots, only if all are sold. This
>> prevents any single owner from trying to charge more.
>
> You are an idiot. Such deals are next to impossible when there are
> hundreds of property owners involved.
Private developers do it all the time.
Ray Fischer
Ray Fischer
>rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
>news:43a774e0$0$58068$742e...@news.sonic.net:
>
>> Deuteros <deut...@xrs.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Douglas Berry <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
>>>
>>>>>> What the neocon fails to grasp is that ONE person, holding out for a
>>>>>> really high price or just from stubborness, could prevent an entire
>>>>>> highway from being built.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or one could just buy his neighbor's property. Property owners will
>>>>> be less likely to hold out if they know that their neighbors are more
>>>>> willing to sell.
>>>>
>>>> I take it you don't live near mountains.
>>>>
>>>> Many times, there is only one possible route for a highway, through a
>>>> pass or such, and any other option would riase the cost of the road to
>>>> astronomical levels.
>>>
>>> So you're saying that the government should have the power of eminent
>>> domain so it doesn't have to pay fair market value?
>>
>> You are an idiot. You're too stupid to notice that the Constitution
>> requires the payment of fair market value for any property seized.
>
>So if a landowner is going to receive the same amount of money as he would if
>he sold it to a private entity then why do you even need eminent domain?
You really are an idiot.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Mark Sebree
Frank Clarke wrote:
> On 19 Dec 2005 06:40:16 -0800, "Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote:
> <1135003216.8...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
>
> >I am also including the support structure that helps
> >people that would leave, like grocery stores, retail, utilities
> >(companies can be big users of these), and all the other incidentals.
> >What's more, most things that the state uses would now be subject to an
> >import tax, in all likelihood, which will raise their proces and
> >decrease their demands. The states will have to do more with less
> >money, which means increasing taxes on those that are left. Which
> >leads to poorer people and services. Which reduces the tax base since
> >people will spend less money, which reduces the amount that companies
> >pay in taxes and sends some into bankruptcy, and so on until either a
> >complete collapse of the economy or a new stabilization point is
> >reached.
> >
> >Those that would be left are those that provide services to the others,
> >and they are likely to end up poorer or forced out of business.
>
> You have a catastrophically poor understanding of the workings of supply and
> demand,
Or I have a better understanding than you do. You have removed the
supply of goods, and reduced the available income. Both of which tend
to drive up the real cost of goods.
> coupled with an apparent presumption that all good things come from the
> federal government (or are provided with its permission).
Again, wrong. I do know, however, that the government pays out a lot
of money to lease land from the state, as well as in the form of
contracts for everything from condiments to C-130's, including for
highway maintenance, Medicare/Medicaid, education, and an extremely
long list of other things. Those things at up. Suddenly, the state is
not getting the income it is used to get to provide the services that
it needs to provide. What's more, most stated are land-locked, so the
only imports MUST go through the USA or other states. That means that
it would be easy to put pressure on the state by simply not allowing
any imports or exports, including electricity.
I know that all good things do not come from the government, but a lot
of money and jobs do. That is what I am talking about. Try looking at
your state's budget, and look how much of it comes from the fed's in
one form or another. And then also add in how much is coming in
indirectly through the income and sales taxes of people that are
directly or indirectly employed by the US government. That ain't chump
change you are looking at. That is likely to be a significant
percentage of the state's budget. And all that money would disappear
if the state cut themselves off from the nation, money that provides
for the basic services that most people today take for granted.
However, like most people, I seriously doubt that you have thought the
ramifications of your proposal through.
Mark Sebree
Mark Sebree
That means that you don't have to worry about any states. All of them
get significant amounts of money from the government. And it is
actually the poor, conservative states that are most likely to try to
withdraw from the USA, to their extreme detriment.
Mark Sebree
Morton Davis
"Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1135050760.1...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
area of Florida. It is the driving force behind our real estate market and
our under 3% unrmployment rate.
Mimi Cohen
He is. :)
Mimi Cohen
He really is.
Mark Sebree
Thank you for supporting my main point. Those are the types of things
that I am talking about.
Mark Sebree
Martin Holterman
I'm glad you've finally solved the collective bargaining and NIMBY
problems. Why didn't we think of that before?
Martin Holterman
Martin Holterman
On the contrary: it allows all of them to charge more, because that way
they're all the critical last one. (Just to make it easier, each can
hold out at most for the marginal revenue to the buyer from the sell.
For each of them, the marginal revenue is equal to the revenue from the
entire, say, highway, since they're all the "bottleneck".)
Martin Holterman
Deuteros
news:43a7bf1b$0$10083$ba62...@text.nova.planet.nl:
Really? So why isn't this a problem for private developers?
Douglas Berry
alt.atheism?
>Douglas Berry <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
>news:71leq11jk5otcsa4q...@4ax.com:
>
>> What's so funny about peace, love and Deuteros <deut...@xrs.net>
>> posting the following on Mon, 19 Dec 2005 14:45:57 GMT iin
>> alt.atheism?
>> Which woukld hurt the poor, since prices would effectively skyrocket.
>
>Such a program would have a disproportionate affect on the poor, but
>certain adjustments could be made to make the system as fair as possible.
>For example, any necessities, such as food, clothing, utilities, etc.,
>would be exempt from any sales tax.
Food and utilities are already untaxed. And if you start making
exceptions, you need to jack up the tax on other items to compensate.
Are you ready for a 40% or 50% tax on anything the government declares
"non-essential"
>
>> Even the advocates of such a scheme acknowledge that the minimum
>> needed tax would be in the 20% range.
>
>Not if there are massive cuts to unconstitutional government spending.
No, those estimates include massive cutbacks.
>> And how many embassies have their own airports? Are the military and
>> naval attache's to be restricted to the grounds? And Marine guards
>> will occassionally want to go out!
>
>They are stationed at the embassy, not the airport. And who says that the
>embassy guards even have to be military personnel?
They have to get to the embassy. And the Marines guard the embassies
because they are very, very good at it, and provide a visible example
of American strength.
>> You also failed to address the fact that you've just restricted the
>> United States Navy to littoral waters. They can't even protect our
>> fishing fleets!
>
>So now our militrary is obligated to protect Americans who wander outside
>American territory?
o_0
OK, so it's OK with you if Americans who foolishly go where the fish
are die just so long as the US Navy stays within our territorial
waters?
>I don't necessarily have a problem with the Navy operating outside American
>waters and stopping in foreign ports for resupply. Remember, the idea is to
>have our military scattered throughout the world and burdened with
>obligations.
Which has been the case since the end of WWII, and we're a better
military for it. In addition, serving overseas makes for better
voters, since the troops/sailors/airmen/Marines have seen more of the
world, and understand things a little more deeply.
>> Our permanent presense in foreign nations are part of negotiated
>> treaties, ratified by the US Senate in accordance with Article II,
>> Section 2.
>
>If these amendments were put into place then congress would be unable to
>make such treaties.
Which would be stupid in the extreme. Your vision would have
prevented NATO from being as effective as it was, and would have left
the entire Korean peninsula under Kim Il Sung in 1950.
>>>No, read again. I mentioned repelling an attack. But perhaps we could
>>>give some sort of time limit, such as, "if attacked, Congress must
>>>declare war within one month in order to continue hostilities," or
>>>something similar.
>>
>> Go read the War Powers Act. It does exactly what you propose.
>
>If it does then why have are our troops been fighting an undeclared war in
>Iraq for the past two and a half years?
Because Congress voted and authorized the mission! Do try to keep up.
In both Afghanistan and Iraq Bush went to the Congress to ask for
support in launching the attacks.
>> and you seem to be laboring under the
>> delusion that we are some sort of Athenian Democracy. We're not.
>> We're a Federal Republic, with elected leaders in whom we vest the
>> power to make such decisions.
>
>Really? Can you point out in the Constitution where Congress is authorized
>to give aid to foreign nations?
Article I, Section 8:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common
Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties,
Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"
Foreign aid provides both for the defense of the nation (by
stabilizing trouble spots) and increases the general welfare by
creating markets for US goods. Indeed much of the aid to foreign
nations is made up of goods purchased by the government from US
companies and farms.
>> Seriously, if I told you half the places I went in the mlitary I doubt
>> you could find them on the map; let alone explain the situation
>> requiring troops to be sent.
>
>Your point being?
You wouldn't understand why we needed to send a group of peacekeepers
to the Sinai, or why the annual Bright Star exercises were vital to
advancing peace in the Mideast, or the importance of showing the flag
in Columbia.
>> Wrong. The Constitution says no such thing. The only thing that
>> comes close is Article III, Section 2 which reads:
>>
>> "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and
>> Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court
>> shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before
>> mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both
>> as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations
>> as the Congress shall make."
>>
>> Care to show me a citation that reads otherwise?
>
>Article I Section 6:
>
>"They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace,
>be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their
>respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any
>Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other
>Place."
Notice they can be arrested in their home states. They are only
protected while Congress is in session.
>Foreign diplomatic immunity is not provided for in the Constitution, but
>has been negotiated by treaties.
Diplomatic immunity is a very old concept, and vital to the art of
diplomacy. We can (and do) throw out diplomats who abuse the
privilege, and have in the past gotten immunity revoked by the
diplomat's home nation in order to try more serious offenses.
>> Yes, and? It's not like you don't have other options to send
>> information (like, oh, email or phone calls) and I can think of a
>> dozen companies that will ship your packages for you.
>
>Only the post office can legally deliver first and third class mail.
Yup. And as I said, there are many ways around that.
>> The fact is that one of the most essential services a government
>> provides is the safe transit of mail. The Romans understood that.
>
>And when a private company proves it can do it better the government shuts
>them down.
So, when did FedEx get put down?
>> Depends. The concept of the militia in the early US was a body of men
>> who could quickly be drawn upon to defend the nation.
>
>That was one of its purposes, but it doesn't mean it has to be controlled
>by the state.
Actually, it does.
>> Not the modern
>> "idiots in camo who think they can fight M1A2s with deer rifles"
>> who have co-opted the title Militia.
>
>If the federal government actually observed the second amendment then those
>"idiots in camo" would be wielding anti-tank missiles.
Which is a really dumb idea,. since if you aren't properly trained,
you can do more damage to your own side with one of those than to the
enemy.
>>>Yes, but that is a state responsibility.
>>
>> What about the interstate highway system?
>
>No different than other roads. Just bigger.
And built by, and maintained by, the federal givernment.
>> Water projects that were built by the feds and cross state lines?
>
>You don't think two states can fund a joint project?
How about we have the feds pay for what they built?
Deuteros
Your lack of an argument and your admission of defeat is noted and accepted.
Deuteros
That's how it works in the real world (aka private sector). Why do you want
the government to have a special pass?
Douglas Berry
>Douglas Berry <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
>news:5mmeq11l81pj82nc9...@4ax.com:
>
>> I take it you don't live near mountains.
>>
>> Many times, there is only one possible route for a highway, through a
>> pass or such, and any other option would riase the cost of the road to
>> astronomical levels.
>
>So you're saying that the government should have the power of eminent domain
>so it doesn't have to pay fair market value? Private companies have to pay a
>premium for prime real estate. Why should the government be an exception?
Wow, nice attempt to completely dodge the point! Care to address what
happens when the only route possible is through a mountain pass, or
over the only place on a river where a bridge can be built?
The Constitution requires fair market value. what that is often ends
up in the courts.
>Deals like this can be negotiated several ways -- an obvious one is by
>contracting to buy all the needed lots, only if all are sold. This prevents
>any single owner from trying to charge more.
Or the landowners all band together to jack up the price.
>Do you really think a landowner should be forced to sell because the
>government thinks it might be nice to build a road on his property?
No, I think a landowner can be compelled to sell if the government can
show a compelling need for the parcel.
Ray Fischer
>>>>>Property owners will be less likely to hold out if they know that
>>>>>their neighbors are more willing to sell.
>>>>
>>>>LOL! Quite the contrary, idiot. If you know everybody else has
>>>>already sold and that you're the last one left you know that you have
>>>>lots of leverage to demand a high price.
>>>
>>>
>>> Which makes your property worth more to a developer so why shouldn't
>>> you get a higher price? Besides, the strategic holdout, after all,
>>> wants to sell his land--and he won't hold out for an astronomical price
>>> if he knows that you will respond by building around him.
>>>
>>> Deals like this can be negotiated several ways -- an obvious one is by
>>> contracting to buy all the needed lots, only if all are sold. This
>>> prevents any single owner from trying to charge more.
>>
>> On the contrary: it allows all of them to charge more, because that way
>> they're all the critical last one. (Just to make it easier, each can
>> hold out at most for the marginal revenue to the buyer from the sell.
>> For each of them, the marginal revenue is equal to the revenue from the
>> entire, say, highway, since they're all the "bottleneck".)
>
>Really? So why isn't this a problem for private developers?
It is, and private developers don't build one the scale of freeways.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
Pearls before swine.
>an argument and your admission of defeat is noted and accepted.
So you need to start lying in order to declare victory. What a
surprise.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>>> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
>>>>What the neocon fails to grasp is that ONE person, holding out for a
>>>>really high price or just from stubborness, could prevent an entire
>>>>highway from being built.
>>>
>>> Or one could just buy his neighbor's property. Property owners will be
>>> less likely to hold out if they know that their neighbors are more
>>> willing to sell.
>>
>> I'm glad you've finally solved the collective bargaining and NIMBY
>> problems. Why didn't we think of that before?
>
>That's how it works in the real world (aka private sector).
Smirk. I suspect that your knowledge of the "real world" is extremely
limited. There's hardly any other explanation for your fanciful
notions about how people will become generous and accomodating when
asked to sell their homes.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Martin Holterman
Because they only develop things where they don't depend on any one
piece of land. Say they want to build houses. If the current owner won't
sell at a "reasonable" price, they'll just build the houses somewhere else.
Martin Holterman
Martin Holterman
Because the government's job is to provide public goods, and solve a
legion of other market failures.
Martin Holterman
Deuteros
news:noone-6CB8FA....@free.teranews.com:
> In article <43a62086$0$97164$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>,
> Deuteros <deut...@xrs.net> wrote:
>
> Reword the Second Amendment:
>
> The right of the people to keep and bear arms is absolute. No law will
> be passed in the United States restricting or forbidding the right to
> purchase, own, or carry any arm. Neither will any law be passed in the
> United States restricting the type or number of arms a person may own.
Sounds good to me.
Deuteros
$742e...@news.sonic.net:
> Deuteros <deut...@xrs.net> wrote:
>
>> Martin Holterman <martin.h...@wxs.nl> wrote:
>>
>>> Deuteros wrote:
>>>
>>>> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Deuteros <deut...@xrs.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Property owners will be less likely to hold out if they know that
>>>>>>their neighbors are more willing to sell.
>>>>>
>>>>>LOL! Quite the contrary, idiot. If you know everybody else has
>>>>>already sold and that you're the last one left you know that you have
>>>>>lots of leverage to demand a high price.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which makes your property worth more to a developer so why shouldn't
>>>> you get a higher price? Besides, the strategic holdout, after all,
>>>> wants to sell his land--and he won't hold out for an astronomical price
>>>> if he knows that you will respond by building around him.
>>>>
>>>> Deals like this can be negotiated several ways -- an obvious one is by
>>>> contracting to buy all the needed lots, only if all are sold. This
>>>> prevents any single owner from trying to charge more.
>>>
>>> On the contrary: it allows all of them to charge more, because that way
>>> they're all the critical last one. (Just to make it easier, each can
>>> hold out at most for the marginal revenue to the buyer from the sell.
>>> For each of them, the marginal revenue is equal to the revenue from the
>>> entire, say, highway, since they're all the "bottleneck".)
>>
>> Really? So why isn't this a problem for private developers?
>
> It is, and private developers don't build one the scale of freeways.
Freeways aren't built all at once.
Deuteros
> What's so funny about peace, love and Deuteros <deut...@xrs.net>
> posting the following on 20 Dec 2005 02:46:27 GMT iin alt.atheism?
>
>> Douglas Berry <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
>> news:5mmeq11l81pj82nc9...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> I take it you don't live near mountains.
>>>
>>> Many times, there is only one possible route for a highway, through a
>>> pass or such, and any other option would riase the cost of the road to
>>> astronomical levels.
>>
>> So you're saying that the government should have the power of eminent
>> domain so it doesn't have to pay fair market value? Private companies
>> have to pay a premium for prime real estate. Why should the government
>> be an exception?
>
> Wow, nice attempt to completely dodge the point! Care to address what
> happens when the only route possible is through a mountain pass, or
> over the only place on a river where a bridge can be built?
Then the government better be prepared to pay a premium like everybody
else would have to. Or maybe the government should decide whether or not
the road is worth the price they would have to pay for the land.
>> Deals like this can be negotiated several ways -- an obvious one is by
>> contracting to buy all the needed lots, only if all are sold. This
>> prevents any single owner from trying to charge more.
>
> Or the landowners all band together to jack up the price.
>
>> Do you really think a landowner should be forced to sell because the
>> government thinks it might be nice to build a road on his property?
>
> No, I think a landowner can be compelled to sell if the government can
> show a compelling need for the parcel.
That sounds good but the final decision to sell should be made by the
landowner.
Deuteros
You didn't answer the question. Why do you think the government should get
a special pass while private organizations still have tro negotiate a
selling price with a landowner?
Deuteros
The government can provide public goods without usurping property rights.
Besides, most of the public goods the government provides are already
supplied, or could be supplied by the private sector.
Ray Fischer
>> posting the following on 20 Dec 2005 02:46:27 GMT iin alt.atheism?
>>
>>> Douglas Berry <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in
>>> news:5mmeq11l81pj82nc9...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> I take it you don't live near mountains.
>>>>
>>>> Many times, there is only one possible route for a highway, through a
>>>> pass or such, and any other option would riase the cost of the road to
>>>> astronomical levels.
>>>
>>> So you're saying that the government should have the power of eminent
>>> domain so it doesn't have to pay fair market value? Private companies
>>> have to pay a premium for prime real estate. Why should the government
>>> be an exception?
>>
>> Wow, nice attempt to completely dodge the point! Care to address what
>> happens when the only route possible is through a mountain pass, or
>> over the only place on a river where a bridge can be built?
>
>Then the government better be prepared to pay a premium like everybody
>else would have to. Or maybe the government should decide whether or not
>the road is worth the price they would have to pay for the land.
And how much more in taxes are you willing to pay?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
>news:43a85c2c$0$58099$742e...@news.sonic.net:
>
>> Deuteros <deut...@xrs.net> wrote:
>>>Martin Holterman <martin.h...@wxs.nl> wrote in
>>>> Deuteros wrote:
>>>>> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
>>
>>>>>>What the neocon fails to grasp is that ONE person, holding out for a
>>>>>>really high price or just from stubborness, could prevent an entire
>>>>>>highway from being built.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or one could just buy his neighbor's property. Property owners will
>>>>> be less likely to hold out if they know that their neighbors are more
>>>>> willing to sell.
>>>>
>>>> I'm glad you've finally solved the collective bargaining and NIMBY
>>>> problems. Why didn't we think of that before?
>>>
>>>That's how it works in the real world (aka private sector).
>>
>> Smirk. I suspect that your knowledge of the "real world" is extremely
>> limited. There's hardly any other explanation for your fanciful
>> notions about how people will become generous and accomodating when
>> asked to sell their homes.
>
>You didn't answer the question.
You didn't ask a question.
> Why do you think the government should get
>a special pass while private organizations still have tro negotiate a
>selling price with a landowner?
Common good vs. private gain.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>In article <fsadq1ha63t58294n...@4ax.com>,
> Douglas Berry <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
>
>> So, you'd disband the FAA? Guess you don't like safe airtravel.
>
>You statist arrogant fucktard.
Impressive rebuttal.
>Your paternalistic presumption that people cannot act for their own
>benefit is what leads you to tyranny.
After all, everybody should know whether a passenger jet is being
properly maintained. It's not like they're complicated or anything.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>no...@nowhere.com wrote in
>> Deuteros <deut...@xrs.net> wrote:
>> Reword the Second Amendment:
>>
>> The right of the people to keep and bear arms is absolute. No law will
>> be passed in the United States restricting or forbidding the right to
>> purchase, own, or carry any arm. Neither will any law be passed in the
>> United States restricting the type or number of arms a person may own.
>
>Sounds good to me.
Sounds stupid. You'd allow any crackpot to own a surface-to-air
missile.
You would rather see thousands of people die than allow any
infringement on your ability to kill.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Frank Clarke
<1135051303.1...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
>
>Frank Clarke wrote:
>> On 19 Dec 2005 06:40:16 -0800, "Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote:
>> <1135003216.8...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
>>
>> >No, I do not think that this will be offset by taxes no longer paid.
>> >There are a number of states that have a poor tax base but significant
>> >income from military bases, members, and corporate contracts with the
>> >military. Take away all that money, and a large hole will be left in
>> >the budget.
>>
>> Those aren't the states you have to worry about...
>
>That means that you don't have to worry about any states. All of them
>get significant amounts of money from the government.
And where, pray tell, does the government get that money in the first place?
Wealth comes only from those who produce. Nothing in government produces; all
government does is consume (in the process of redistributing the wealth
collected from producers). 'Printing money' does not qualify as 'producing
wealth'.
Ipso facto, some states give more than they get; others get more than they give.
If you lose the ability to tax those who give more than they get, the great game
is OVER.
(change Arabic number to Roman numeral to email)
Frank Clarke
<1135050760.1...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
>Frank Clarke wrote:
>> coupled with an apparent presumption that all good things come from the
>> federal government (or are provided with its permission).
>
>Again, wrong. I do know, however, that the government pays out a lot
>of money to lease land from the state, as well as in the form of
>contracts for everything from condiments to C-130's, including for
>highway maintenance, Medicare/Medicaid, education, and an extremely
>long list of other things.
Where do you think that money comes from? Do you think Senators harvest it from
money trees planted behind the Smithsonian?
Mimi Cohen
In today's world one couldn't get away with Charles Crocker's "spite
fence" :)
Mimi Cohen
Isn't it amazing how many absolute lunatics are walking freely these days?
Ray Fischer
> "Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote:
>>Frank Clarke wrote:
>>> >No, I do not think that this will be offset by taxes no longer paid.
>>> >There are a number of states that have a poor tax base but significant
>>> >income from military bases, members, and corporate contracts with the
>>> >military. Take away all that money, and a large hole will be left in
>>> >the budget.
>>>
>>> Those aren't the states you have to worry about...
>>
>>That means that you don't have to worry about any states. All of them
>>get significant amounts of money from the government.
>
>And where, pray tell, does the government get that money in the first place?
>Wealth comes only from those who produce. Nothing in government produces; all
>government does is consume (in the process of redistributing the wealth
>collected from producers).
Neocon idiocy.
Take a software corporation. Who produces? The software engineeers.
Would they sell anything just producing the product? Nope. Marketing
and sales are needed to sell the product. Administrators are need to
manage the office. Accountants take care of handling the money.
Execs are there to skim off profits (cough).
Many people in government produce. They produce laws and regulations.
They produce infrastructure. They produce security. Discounting the
contribution of government workers is nothing but right-wing idiocy.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Mimi Cohen
> In article <71leq11jk5otcsa4q...@4ax.com>,
> Douglas Berry <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I trust my particular government since it has managed to not use a
>>massive arsenal of WMD since 1945. As a veteran, I know the training
>>and checks required before you can even work around "special weapons",
>>let alone be in a position to arm or fire them
>
>
> The salient point of the "training" being willing to take orders from
> the government and obey them like a dog.
Then don't let the door hit you in the ass on the ways out, loon. I'm
sure there's some small place somewhere left in Tibet or somewhere that
you can form your own little "paradise", *WE* however don't want to
chuck the dream just because one moron squatting in the White House is
fucking up. 2008 is soon enough to fix things. We survived Reagan-Bush,
we can survive W.
Mimi Cohen
> On 19 Dec 2005 20:01:43 -0800, "Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote:
> <1135051303.1...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
>
>>Frank Clarke wrote:
>>
>>>On 19 Dec 2005 06:40:16 -0800, "Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote:
>>><1135003216.8...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
>>>
>>>>No, I do not think that this will be offset by taxes no longer paid.
>>>>There are a number of states that have a poor tax base but significant
>>>>income from military bases, members, and corporate contracts with the
>>>>military. Take away all that money, and a large hole will be left in
>>>>the budget.
>>>
>>>Those aren't the states you have to worry about...
>>
>>That means that you don't have to worry about any states. All of them
>>get significant amounts of money from the government.
>
>
> And where, pray tell, does the government get that money in the first place?
> Wealth comes only from those who produce. Nothing in government produces; all
> government does is consume (in the process of redistributing the wealth
> collected from producers). 'Printing money' does not qualify as 'producing
> wealth'.
>
> Ipso facto, some states give more than they get; others get more than they give.
> If you lose the ability to tax those who give more than they get, the great game
> is OVER.
I hear "Jones town" is still vacant, maybe you and the other libertarian
loon "noone" could set up your libertarian "paradise" there and leave us
sane people alone.
Deuteros
> Deuteros <deut...@xrs.net> wrote:
>
>> no...@nowhere.com wrote:
>>
>>> Deuteros <deut...@xrs.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Reword the Second Amendment:
>>>
>>> The right of the people to keep and bear arms is absolute. No law will
>>> be passed in the United States restricting or forbidding the right to
>>> purchase, own, or carry any arm. Neither will any law be passed in the
>>> United States restricting the type or number of arms a person may own.
>>
>> Sounds good to me.
>
> Sounds stupid. You'd allow any crackpot to own a surface-to-air
> missile.
Since when is it illegal to own one?
Deuteros
Because airlines don't care if their multi-million dollar planes crash,
right?
Deuteros
> Deuteros <deut...@xrs.net> wrote:
A lot less overall after the unconstitutional portion of our government is
disbanded.
Deuteros
> Deuteros <deut...@xrs.net> wrote:
>
>> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
>> news:43a85c2c$0$58099$742e...@news.sonic.net:
>>
>>> Deuteros <deut...@xrs.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Martin Holterman <martin.h...@wxs.nl> wrote
>>>>
>>>>> Deuteros wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What the neocon fails to grasp is that ONE person, holding out for
>>>>>>> a really high price or just from stubborness, could prevent an
>>>>>>> entire highway from being built.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or one could just buy his neighbor's property. Property owners will
>>>>>> be less likely to hold out if they know that their neighbors are
>>>>>> more willing to sell.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm glad you've finally solved the collective bargaining and NIMBY
>>>>> problems. Why didn't we think of that before?
>>>>
>>>> That's how it works in the real world (aka private sector).
>>>
>>> Smirk. I suspect that your knowledge of the "real world" is extremely
>>> limited. There's hardly any other explanation for your fanciful
>>> notions about how people will become generous and accomodating when
>>> asked to sell their homes.
>>
>> You didn't answer the question.
>
> You didn't ask a question.
>
>> Why do you think the government should get
>> a special pass while private organizations still have tro negotiate a
>> selling price with a landowner?
>
> Common good vs. private gain.
And who gets to decide what is the common good? The government? Individual
rights are more important than the common good.
The government forcing you to sell your house to make room for a Walmart
would benefit the common good but do you think such procedures should be
allowed?
NCVT
"Deuteros" <deut...@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:43a8c91b$0$29245$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
Why don't you try to obtain one, complete with ordinance. We'll see you in 25
years. if ever.
You don't even know the bloody law, yet you think you can comment on it.
Typical libertarian turd.
NCVT
"Deuteros" <deut...@xrs.net> wrote
> > And how much more in taxes are you willing to pay?
>
> A lot less overall after the unconstitutional portion of our government is
> disbanded.
Says the libertarian freeloader whose knowledge of the law and the Constitution
is less than that of a 10 year-old. You fucking kooks are hilarious.
Deuteros
news:1135135733.2ca884f40a...@roc.usenetexchange.com:
Yet another brainwashed idiot who actually thinks his government operates
within the limits of the constitution.
Deuteros
news:1135135591.711d364662...@roc.usenetexchange.com:
Cite the law then.
Mark Sebree
Frank Clarke wrote:
> On 19 Dec 2005 20:01:43 -0800, "Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote:
> <1135051303.1...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
>
> >
> >Frank Clarke wrote:
> >> On 19 Dec 2005 06:40:16 -0800, "Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote:
> >> <1135003216.8...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
> >>
> >> >No, I do not think that this will be offset by taxes no longer paid.
> >> >There are a number of states that have a poor tax base but significant
> >> >income from military bases, members, and corporate contracts with the
> >> >military. Take away all that money, and a large hole will be left in
> >> >the budget.
> >>
> >> Those aren't the states you have to worry about...
> >
> >That means that you don't have to worry about any states. All of them
> >get significant amounts of money from the government.
>
> And where, pray tell, does the government get that money in the first place?
They make it. They are the only ones allowed to.
> Wealth comes only from those who produce.
That also includes those that provide services.
> Nothing in government produces;
However, there are plenty of services that are provided by the
government. Defense is a big one.
> all
> government does is consume (in the process of redistributing the wealth
> collected from producers). 'Printing money' does not qualify as 'producing
> wealth'.
However, providing services does. And there are a lot of services that
the government does provide.
>
> Ipso facto, some states give more than they get; others get more than they give.
> If you lose the ability to tax those who give more than they get, the great game
> is OVER.
And from what I have seen, those that take more than they get are the
ones that tend to be the least satisfied with the government, and thus
more likely to desire to leave. The result is that those that pay more
in taxes will get more back, and those that take more will get nothing.
Mark Sebree
Douglas Berry
following on Tue, 20 Dec 2005 20:26:49 +0000 iin alt.atheism?
>In article <fsadq1ha63t58294n...@4ax.com>,
> Douglas Berry <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
>
>> So, you'd disband the FAA? Guess you don't like safe airtravel.
>
>You statist arrogant fucktard.
Jane, you ignorant slut.
>Your paternalistic presumption that people cannot act for their own
>benefit is what leads you to tyranny.
Actually, I don't trust corporations to act in my best interest. I
used to drive a Ford Pinto, y'see...
>I take it you just slam into people on the sidewalks since there's no
>FWA.
Actually today I accidently walked into a coworker. Being as we were
(a) travelling at walking speed and (b) on the ground, all that
happened is mild shock and several dropped sheets of paper.
Yesterday, a wing fell off a plane in Miami. Twenty people died.
So, which activity do you feel should be closley monitored for safety?
Walking down the street, or travelling at a few hundred miles an hour
several miles in the air?
>I'll let you muddle about until you happen upon the meaning of the
>acronym.
Well, I muddled for less than a second. Spent years in the Army -
acronyms are old hat to me, considering I once had SNCO-DISCOMPERS
painted on my door.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
Douglas Berry
>In article <71leq11jk5otcsa4q...@4ax.com>,
> Douglas Berry <pengu...@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
>
>> I trust my particular government since it has managed to not use a
>> massive arsenal of WMD since 1945. As a veteran, I know the training
>> and checks required before you can even work around "special weapons",
>> let alone be in a position to arm or fire them
>
>The salient point of the "training" being willing to take orders from
>the government and obey them like a dog.
>
Well, you've just shown you comple, utter, and final ignorance of
nuclear relase procedures.
Quick hint bunkie. One person cannot order a nuclear strike. And the
people actually on the keys will *not* turn them unless everything is
authenticated and confirmed.
>> >I don't like the idea of my neighbor having a nuke in his basement, but
>> >then again I don't like the idea of my government having one either.
>>
>> I don't like them either, but I know my government has shown
>> remarkable restraint and has established procedures to prevent the
>> nation's nuclear weapons from being used by mistake or in haste.
>
>May your chains set lightly on you.
No chains on me!
Mark Sebree
>From taxes that are paid to fund the government and to provide services
to the nation as a whole. And if you check your history, every
government has employed taxes to fund itself. A nation as a whole can
handle some things more efficiently or better than individual cities
or states can. That includes things like defense, which costs more
than any state can handle on its own. And without it, we would be
overrun very, very quickly. Especially given how little other
countries care for the current administration.
Mark Sebree
nJb
That's not a very good answer. Cite the law that prohibits ownership of
a STA missile. I can't find it but I bet there is one.
--
Jack
bobo1148atxmissiondotcom