A Rational Choice For November 2nd

[Anonymouse]

You'll getting a little .....Clearly unjust laws, such as prohibition and Jim Crow laws, were repealed, and not by people like you that refused to take part in any legislative process.

As far as Jim Crow, this is an exact episode of Statist manipulation. By assuming the idiocy of 'public law' the State was able to turn forced segretation into forced integration. There shouldn't be a forced anything. It should be based on the private property principle of individuals and whom they want to associate with. From Jim Crow to no Jim Crow it is still unjust as it is using the arm of the State to coerce and force others into its decisions.

I don't think you understand the point I am making. My point is that laws are restrictive, and you cannot have free trade with regulations and non bona fide laws. The laws in question do not apply justly as they are pre emptive in nature and are there to restrict human action from what they might potentially do, not what they have done. That is the difference between a just law and an unjust law. With that said, that is what differentiates between the Republic and this charade we have now. The principle behind our Republic was to protect basic and fundamental rights from a tyranny of either a monarch or the majority. By articulating precise boundaries of power, and by specifically stating that the Federal government could do no more than these, the founding fathers hoped to ensure that a majority of citizens could never rise above basic principled rights. Once a country calls itself a "democracy"--and means it--there is nothing to stop them from taking away rights from individuals that would otherwise be protected with a more limited form of government.

Don't believe me? Income tax, mandated affirmative action policies & quotas in non-government institutions, welfare, social security ("security"), the Patriot Act, extensive gun control laws. All of these are flagrant violations of our basic human rights: to do as we please, as long as we aren't violating the rights of others. Frederic Bastiat came to the conclusion 156 years ago that law should have as its sole purpose the protection of individuals from physical attack, theft and damage to property, and breach of contract, and nothing else. Anything else is an encroachment on the human individual, and liberty. A well-known Scottish philosopher (whose name escapes me) noted a couple of hundred years ago that democracy could only work until the populace realized they could vote themselves all the benefits they desired out of the public coffers. I think it is safe to say we've reached that point.

Yes, I know the schtick - ethics is what you say it is, right? I'm every bit the moral absolutist that you are, I just happen to disagree with you on certain matters, what constitutes consent being one of them. Let's take you, for instance. You go to a state school, you drive on publicly-funded roads, if you receive any financial aid, that is money from the government. Presumably you have paid taxes in the past. If you're a citizen, you even applied for citizenship. If that isn't consent, what is?

I don't know what you are intending to prove here, but you are only stating the obvious. However, the reason that is so, is not because of my consent, it is because I have no choice. There are no competing agencies for both jurisprudence, or roads. I see you have fallen prey to the myth that only government can provide roads and private institutions cannot. If you call yourself a moral absolutist, then how can you not understand consent? When there is no choice and others have made choices for you, and the consequence is force if you do not comply. For man to be a free moral agent, he must have choice. By arguing in favor of the State to uphold laws, a immoral agency to uphold morality, that is a contradiction that few dare to question. The notion of "The State" is inconsistent with logical, moral, and economic considerations, whereas its absence is not.

Where I disagree, though, is that this problem is systemic and unalleviable through any means other than the abolition of the system. I just read through the constitution again to make sure, but as far as I can see, fear, coercion, and aggression are not codified into the American government. That tells me that there is a problem with some of the people in power and with certain statutes, both of which can be changed.

Another point to bring up here is human interaction in general. Every living organism on this planet, including humans outside of their own in-groups, interacts according to a pecking order of fear, coercion, and aggression. You might want to criticize the species here more than their government.

Of course violence is not going to be a part of the Constitution! Who would be stupid enough to codify a legal document on the premise of violence? We do not look to the violence of governments within legal statutes or constitutions, but we look at history and how they came to be. No government has ever come into existence by "peaceful means" or the mythical "social contract". All governments come into existence via violence, our own country being one of them. And therefore the problem is not the statute or people abusing it, it is the system itself as you noted in the beginning. Once it is understood that the State is not some mere apparatus of man, but rather consists in man and his actions, the very notion of statehood begins to crumble. Human action and human existance are not static things, but rather are things that happen in space and time. I think human beings long for stasis, since the trials of existence prove insurmountable on every front. But do not dispair and give into false notions on account of fear! And again, the notion of "The State" is inconsistent with logical, moral, and economic considerations, whereas its absence is not.

As far as human interaction, we are not animals, but we are subject to irrational behaviors. However, what gives us some hope is reason, and our ability to reason. Animals have no free will, and therefore no choice in the actions they pursue. Human action exists only in two forms: coercive, and voluntary. So far, the only institution consistent with the furthest development of man, is the free-market, liberty and private property. I recommend "In Defense of Anarchism" by Robert Wolff. He is a philosophy professor at Columbia University. He promised his class that by the end of the semester he would prove that democracy is the only morally justifiable political system. He failed in doing so, and discovered instead that only anarchy could be morally justified ( anarchy here means without a ruler, not chaos, as words are often defined improperly ). Wolff uses philosophical principles pioneered by Kant.

Economist James Buchanan showed in his groundbreaking work on public choice theory that the government will never cease stepping out of bounds unless there are strict limitations imposed upon it. The Constitution was one such attempt to impose those limitations. Well what happened? It was essentially nullified. The Constitution says no direct taxes shall be levied, yet we have an income tax and payroll taxes. The Constitution explicitly says that the currency of the United States government shall be gold and silver coin, yet we now have nothing but paper.The system of morality I refer to is Kant's. One of the main concepts when it comes to Kant is his "categorical imperative." This is where Kant formalized the Golden Rule, and showed that you cannot arbitrarily assign different moral codes to different groups of people. In other words in order for a principle in society to moral it must be applicable to everyone. Therefore, if coercion is unjust for one person, it is unjust for everybody.

Sure, buddy, because I said some decisions need to be made for people rather than by people, I've agreed to slavery and genocide. Because, you know, I apparently meant some people need to be enslaved and some people need to be killed. Sure thing.

While you did not advocate slavery and genocide, the ramifications of the position you espouse eventually lead to that. If some people are meant to be ruled and have decisions made for them by the State, then their lives, their very self, property and liberty become nothing more than at the disposal of the whims of Statists. That Hitler or Stalin decided that the State had power over the individuals, and could thereby persecute them, is the exact thinking in its extreme form. That because the American government did not recognize the integrity of the Indians, it felt that it did not have to respect their life and property.

Neither can a properly constructed government. There are things to consider here. US government has become progressively less representative for several reasons. One is the appointment process for judges, and the judges themselves, who are supposed to be non-partisan but rarely are. Another, rather major problem, is gerrymandering and closed-primaries, as well as statutes requiring more than a simple majority for legislative action to be passed. Because of all these things, the repercussions for bad government have been greatly reduced. But government, in and of itself, need not be free from repercussion. That is where I disagree with you. It's as simple as that, and if there's any point you want to argue, let this one be it. I think the lack of accountability lies with government as is, you think that it lies with government of any imaginable form.

The lack of accountability lies with the fact that people who are elected are not required to meet the promises they made. There is nothing legal that binds them to the promises they made. Everyone must labor for their income. Politics, government employees or any State employees do not have to since their income is extracted coercively, and no matter what they are guaranteed an income. It is the only institution that guarantees an income whether they work or not, or put effort or not, everyone else is subject to the market forces, if you don't work, you don't get paid. This creates a problem economically. No one buys government goods or services. It is a monopoly. Therefore there is no way to calculate costs, or cost benefit analysis to determine where the resources are going and if indeed the resources are needed there. The Soviet Union was an extreme monopoly and it shows what happens when there is no economic calculation. Its impossible to determine their value and find out whether or not this value justifies their costs. So since their incomes are guaranteed, whether they work or not, their incomes remain unchanged, and why the expansion of the public sector and government getting bigger since the time of the Republic, we have seen more corrupt that you alluded to. Because there is no incentive to work any more than what they do, since incomes are guaranteed, the public sector is rocked by laziness, corruption, lack of quality, carlessness, and incompetence. Everyone seems to think that Microsofts monopoly was unjustified, yet this idea of 'monopoly is bad' does not seem to apply to the State or jurisprudence.

And to your contention that only government can create chaos: What about Osama bin Laden? What about John Wilkes Booth? What about Bob Woodward? What about Gandhi, Jesus, Marx, and all the Popes of the medieval era?

As to Osama bin Laden, he is a State creature that was funded into existence by the United States, just like Saddam, and who has extensive ties with the Bush family and business. As far as Marx or Jesus, that is a clear example of how ideas have consequences and that we should follow correct ideas, not incorrect ideas. The philosophy of Jesus is correct, the philosophy Marx espoused is incorrect. As far as chaos, yes, only the State can create chaos. It is this "chaos" that you are referring to that is misinterpreted as anarchy. This form of chaos is only something the State can cause. Anarchy simply means 'without a ruler'. Only a government can create "lawlessness" since it is the only entity that can unilaterally change the rules on a whim. The generally accepted connection between the words "anarchy" and "chaos" is incorrect. Since words are abstractions and have to be constantly defined the distortion of words is therefore the illness of society, and unfortunately the true meaning of the word "anarchy" has been obfuscated by millenia of statism.

Since you didn't answer my questions, I'll ask them again. Do you think the election of Lincoln, and the subsequent civil war, made a difference to the hundred of thousands of dead southerners, and the families who lost them along with virtually the entire economy of the south? Do you think his election made a difference to the slaves who were subsequently freed by him? Do you think the election of Jefferson made a difference to the native inhabitants of the Louisiana territory, who eventually lost every last piece of land they once held in that territory? Do you think the election of Jackson made a difference to the Cherokee nation when Jackson ignored the supreme court and carried forth the order to remove them from Georgia, after which half of the nation died and the rest were left in the dust bowl of Oklahoma? Do you think the election of Roosevelt made a difference to the thousands of farmers that he subsidized?

I did answer your question and I said it would not have made a difference. By the way, a note on Lincoln. He was racist in the modern form of the word. He had no intentions to free the slaves. Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation was little more than a political gimmick, and he admitted so in a letter to Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase: "The original proclamation has no...legal justification, except as a military measure." Secretary of State William Seward said, "We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free." Seward was acknowledging the fact that the Emancipation Proclamation applied only to slaves in states in rebellion against the United States and not to slaves in states not in rebellion. Simply put, he wanted manpower. And no, the Civil War was not fought for slavery.

[nunechka]

anony you are really funny...

everyone lets not take anony seriously... he is a comedian...

HA HA HA!

[Anonymouse]

anony you are really funny...

everyone lets not take anony seriously... he is a comedian...

HA HA HA!

And you are really boring...

Everyone let's not take Nune seriously...she is a bore..

HA HA HA!

[Harut82]

I'm niether boring nor funny, will you take me seriously?

[nunechka]

I am not serious at all, apparently you haven't seen me on these forums long enough. As far as me convincing you, you aren't that special, get over yourself. I have had this discussion about politics before you reared your voter self-esteem self on these forums.

lol i love this guy... he is so funny...

harut jan, we will all talk to you and take you seriously, until you also tell us not to take you seriously... because that is what anonymouse did...

[XxgoeyxX]

So did you guys vote today?






O sorry had to make another thread for that!

[nunechka]

YES!!! of course

[XxgoeyxX]

Your to obvious missy!


I didnt really want you to answer the question...I was just kidding

[patlajan]

You people had a simple assignment of making a prediction and you blew it.

[nunechka]

It is now apparent by a vast majority that the 9/11 families and friends DID NOT want this clown to be “re-elected.” We know this because of the overwhelming votes against him, and by default to John Kerry (60% for kerry, and 40% for bush )in the state of NEW YORK… and they endoresed John Kerry before the election.

So the question is, why isn’t the rest of the country on the side of the 9/11 families? The only “un-evil” thing I can conclude is that they weren’t attacked by the terrorists so they don’t know what it feels like to have an airplane hit the tallest building in their city, then see people jumping out of the top floors, and then to have the building crumble while people run away from the smoke, which ended up looking like a horror movie, except it was reality, then to have the dummy (bush ) come stand on top of the rubble and look like he did something heroic, then have this dummy be against the 9/11 committee from investigating the massacre, then having certain pages about the saudi’s be covered so that we wont really know the truth. Or maybe the rest of the country is retarded.

I know this is “ya ya, whatever Nune, I know this” for most of you… but for those people who voted for this man, may the medication that you will not be able to afford or be eligible to get after the job that you lose gets subsidized for being sent to Taiwan helps you out, as they say in Armenian “God has turned its back on you.” I just don’t understand why the news buddies (cnn, abc, nbc, cbs, fox, etc…) are surprised that mr. bush has won? After all just by looking at their own “news” coverage they could’ve guessed it. I could’ve guessed it; they are not critical of or truthful about this empire builder. we now have a society that is very uneducated and the government has been successful in instilling fear in them. but one other thing is funny, these people who voted for him believe saddam somehow or in some way aided the terrorists, when we know that there was no link what so ever, and as a matter of fact the link was saudi arabia... (the BEST FRIEND of the bush family)

So what is next? Hopefully my niece will have a father, since he is in Iraq and who knows when he is coming back; I hope that WW3 is not on its way, and I hope civil war is also not on its way. I hope that Armenia (the only non-muslim nation) in that hole, is not attacked by iran who actually does have wmds.

Why are human beings so stupid?

and how is it possible to have 25 million negative votes in ohio???

http://www.vindy.com/basic/news/281829446390855.php

and what about the owner of the electronic machines? wasnt he the one that said he "will deliver the ohio votes to bush" ohh no we cant talk about that... but then again, why would people stand in line for 4 hours to give a negative vote, is that even possible, but when you vote you have to vote for one person, there is no negative vote... how is that possible? 25 million negative votes???

HMMMM???

and thats my 2 cents