We got snow last night, and I don't shoot when I can't pick up brass (can't afford to now!).... so here we go.
None of us are truly really free, but I am satisfied with the freedom I do have.
- I can insult the President if I wanted to.
- I pay relatively low taxes compared to citizens of other modernized countries.
- I have more buying power than most people in other countries
I do hate that the gov't makes me wear a seat belt, or wear a helmet, or that I can't own machine guns, or how others feel like they need to make laws to make me safer.. but like I said I am very satisfied with the freedom that I do have.
Things I'd point out on your tick-marks:
1. No, you can't. If you do, you're arrested without charges, held for a few days, then released. And it doesn't even have to be the president - one fellow I know got to explain the finer points of humor to the feds for a few days after heckling teddy kennedy (PTUI!). Are you free to do so? Sure. But it's a hollow freedom.
2. You pay several thousand percent higher taxes than ever envisioned by the Founding Fathers. What's more, before emperor lincoln, it was completely illegal for the federal government to tax individuals - the only reason the 16th Amendment could be executed was because of the 14th Amendment - the one that turned all individuals into federal citizens. In my analogy, that would be the writing on the piece of paper that said the government of Germany could dictate terms and conditions to the citizens of Britain.
3. You have more buying power right now
. Look at what Argentina went through in 2001. That's what we're headed for, full blast. This whole 'economic stimulus package'? You got it, trying to stave away exactly that. When both the republicrats and the demopublicans (both halves of the liberal party) are extremely
concerned about this, it ain't a joke. For an excellent
treatise on why our monetary system is going tango-uniform, look into what Benjamin Franklin wrote up on the matter after his last trip to London.
4. All those pesky laws you noted are symptoms. Symptoms of a government that doesn't understand where it is bounded. All you have to read is the Constitution. It's not on legalese, it's right out there (this was done on purpose) so that any farmer with a 3rd grade education can understand it (according to Alexis deToqueville - sent to 'check out' America and report back to King Louis - Americans at the time in general were the most informed, literate, and educated citizens the world had to offer) - just read Amendment 9 and Amendment 10. Then read Article I section 8. We had an agreement - the citizenry and the government. The citizenry has lived up to much more than its responsibility, but the government has defaulted in spades time and time again. The big dog is off the leash - the pesky laws you mentioned are just the beginning
bits of evidence. Beginning being roughly 100 years ago or so.
I don't think a strong centralized Gov't is a bad thing as long as it takes care of the people, help us to prosper and they don't abuse their power, or have checks and balances in place so it will not have the ability to abuse it's power.
That's the crux - there are checks and balances in place, but they have run far, far over those after having found that they have the ability to abuse the power vested. Technically, the government has no power, so "it's power" has no meaning - again, this is clearly spelled out in the Constitution - all power is resident in the people, the government operates only with authorities allowed by the people that can be recalled at any moment for any reason ("borrowed" power if you will). Otherwise, if you're for a large, powerful, centralized government, we're essentially rehashing the same old debates that went on long ago when the Constitution was being written. If you want to read up on those, in detail, two books will pretty much do it all: the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers. But the government has 'defaulted' on the contract it made - which is EXACTLY what the letter from Montana references. There were agreements made, and those are being 'conveniently overlooked' - just like the checks and balances. In the case of Montana, the agreement was a legally binding annexation agreement. What happens when one party defaults on a contract?
Rome was not that great as a Republic, it became the greatest when it was an Empire under one centralized Gov't ran by Augustus. It's citizens prospered and lived better lives. When Rome started to factionalize and it's empire began to slowly break up, is when it went into obscurity.
Kind of. Rome did what other great Republics have done - it fell into a democracy. As the great historians have shown, a democracy has a lifetime of approximately 200 years before it implodes. Here, in America, we have done the same thing Rome did - take a Republic, and allow it to degenerate into a democracy. Our 200 year clock started ticking when Emporer lincoln started his War of Northern Aggression. Why else do you think that senators are no longer appointed by the governor? Simple - we've become a democracy.
America is what it is today because of a strong centralized Gov't after the civil war. We lead the world in technology, wealth, and even our movies and singers are the best. We set trends and others follow. If we were separate I doubt we would have the prosperty we have today.
I take the opposite view - America is today what it is, in spite of
a strong centralized government. There was a reason that the Federalists lost during the forming of the Constitution. So much so that a couple of "red flags" should have been spotted by all (and were by anyone paying attention): out of the original 13 colonies (which became the Nation of Massachusetts, the Nation of Pennsylvania, the Nation of New Jersey, etc) only 12 would sign the Constitution! The one that wouldn't was the Nation of Rhode Island - their statement on such was that the Constitution didn't go far enough in protecting the citizenry from the government. It wasn't until later, when products from Rhode Island were taxed at a huge rate (tariffs on the products coming and going from the Nation of Rhode Island to the united States) that they were 'economically pressured' into signing. Ditto for one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence - he refused to have anything to do with the ratification of the Constitution because he believed the exact same as the Nation of Rhode Island. Also note, that by your line of reasoning, it would have been perfectly acceptable for the other 12 colonies - now the united States - to invade, subjugate, and dictate rules to Rhode Island during that time....... but they couldn't! Not that they militarily couldn't, they legally couldn't, under the Constitution!
That's because you've been indoctrinated by federalists. Read up on the founding of the country - heck, even my illustration before. England and the EU vs. Montana and the United States are a perfect mate. Either there's soverignty or there isn't - just because something has 'always been' doesn't mean it 'always must be'.
I don't see England and the EU the same as Montana and the United States.
Funny you mention fraternities and clubs - that was the exact same (let me emphasize exact) parallel that both Jefferson Davis and Thomas Jefferson used. TJ used it in relating the united States, JD used it when dissolving that union (I doubt I'll get the quote 100%, but he essentially said that if any man may disregard the club he has joined, he has the right to leave it). In other words, the Constitution of the united States has no entry as far as disabling a constituent Nation from disbanding once banded from the union.
The way I see it.... what if London wanted to seceed from England? Would England go to all cost to stop that from happening? you bet! Would they have the right to go to war to keep London in their control? you bet! I see the EU almost the same way I see NATO, the UN, or even the the fraternities at my local university.
Uh, you kind of messed up the definition and functionality of annexation. It's understandable though, since your take on the 'ownership' of property is that of a federalist. OK, here's the real way it rolls..... Let's go right after the Revolutionary War. The President of the Nation of New York (remember, under Brit lingo, the governor was the appointed "president" of an area, beholding / answerable to nobody but the king - since we came from Brits, we used some of their lingo - the lingo President hadn't been invented yet - but obviously the first governors weren't beholding to the king) had the highest authority over his area. Now under the Articles of Confederation (the history of which is one of the biggest blows to the Federalist theory) the 'mens club' had no significant authority. That's why it eventually crumbled - there was no significantly binding agreement between the President of New York and the President of New Jersey. Now let me ask...... what is going to entice the President of New York to 'hand over' all the area he's responsible for and has authority over? Basically nothing. To put a fine point on it, after Texas won its war of Independence (the Republic of Texas WAS -without question- its own nation for years before even considering annexation into the united States) it was a MAJOR concern that the united States would take it over militarily. Get that - why be concerned about being taken over if you're going to 'give up' the land? The easy answer is that when you join a fraternity, your body doesn't become the property of the fraternity. You are free to go once you join - which is EXACTLY what Texas did.
They are all just a bunch of separate organization that share a common interest and have common goals so they start a club, but if someone wanted to leave this club, then they are free to do so. I see secession almost the same way as I see as annexation (when a another country claims part of your land now belong to them). If another country tried to take our land then we have every right to go to war for it.
Then who is it that invaded a soverign country illegally? Who were the defenders in this War for Independence?
I don't see the civil war as "the war of northern aggression" at all.
Your comment is incorrect if you read the writings of the Founding Fathers and the writers of the Constitution.
This country has always had debate on how it wanted to be operated. If you disagree, you and your group have no right to leave and form your own country.
Also somewhat (not completely) wrong. Hamiliton was the first secretary of the treasury, and operated it well. A centralized government was NOT in the cards. Yes, he was a federalist, but for all the right reasons the federalists were essentially disregarded in the writing of the Constitution. Look at the entire Constitution - it speaks to LIMITATIONS of the government - to prevent EXACTLY what we've got right now. Unfortunately, those limitations aren't heeded. If you want a good history of Hamilton, read what the Washingtons wrote about him - Martha loved Hamilton so much she named her cat Hamilton - the why of the situation is hilarious.
In the beginning Washington, Hamilton, and Adams wanted a strong centralized Govt because they wanted a stong centralized bank.
Well, yes, that part is true.
Jefferson was on the other end of the spectrum as he wanted more state rights and a weak centralized Gov't. Hamilton wanted to centralize the bank to pay off all the states debt that incurred during the Revolutionary war and make it one single national debt.
And this is 'not so true' and one of the reasons it failed - if Bobby can pay towards his 0 balance on his credit card, and Billy can pay towards his 0 balance on his credit card, then together they pay towards their 0 balance on the combined debt. It gets paid off not one whit faster, without redistribution of wealth (a plank in the communist manifesto). Robbing the 'rich' states to pay the debt in the 'poor' states wasn't any more popular then than it is now. Intrestingly, the federalists only desire to have things federalized when it's to their benefit. If you look at the 14th Amendment, you'll see that the former CSA states were held liable for the 'reparations' to the former USA states. So much for the 'pay it all off together' theory, eh?
This way all the states would work together and pay off the debt.
I won't even get into the fact that the 14th Amendment could not have possibly been ratified legally.......
Read The Making of America by Cleon Scousen. He's one of the most noted Constitutional Scholars still alive. It's a college textbook on exactly that. Your idea of annexation isn't correct. I bought a second copy, which is out on loan now. If you don't mind waiting until it comes back, I don't mind sending it to you.
The South in my book had no right to leave the union, and Lincoln had every right to go to war over it. Like I said above, seceeding to me is much like another country claiming your land is now their land, and then used their Army to take it by force. This is what the Southern states did when they proceeded with seccession, then built Army.
Actually, lincoln viewed the slavery issue as a minor problem - the bigger problem was cotton and natural resources. The South had the natural resources, but no way to turn them into goods. The North had significantly less resources, but all the industry to turn them into finished goods. The problem was that lincoln was a proponent of taxation of resource materials - to the point that he ran for presidency on a platform of increasing the taxes on cotton by doubling it. The reason was that the southern states were obtaining industrial machinery from mostly France with some from England. With both the natural resources and the means of turning them into finished products (see just how important cotton was at the time - why England occupied India for example) the North was concerned that the economy of the South would soon move them from the 'ruling party'. Thus incredible taxation, to economically oppress the southern states - leading to the division, which of course lead to the war. Without an idiot at the helm (Emperor lincoln) the division wouldn't have happened, which would have negated the reason for war, eh? An un-necessary war.
Funny how you called Lincoln an emperor, I guess technically you are right because he did rule an Empire
I don't think he used "anti-slavery stance" for his own personal agenda, but if he did I would not be surprised.
Correct. His idea was to 'level the playing field'. Slavery had been essentially outlawed by treatie for about 25 years before the War of Northern Aggression started. The only way a 'slave' could be created (since none could be imported) was if a baby were born to slave parents. As such - and with all things - the laws of economic theory were in full effect. Decrease the supply, the price (demand) increases - to the point that slaves were becoming too pricey (when compared with the automation being brought in from France and England) when compared to the other viable options. Remember, a French cotton gin didn't require food, shelter, clothing, medical, an overseer, etc. Given the economic realities, slavery would have been gone in another 20 to 30 years. That's not what Emperor lincoln wanted. He started the Blackstar Shipping lines - something that didn't turn out due to his early demise. His plan was for the government to sieze all slaves, 'repatriate' the owners at a given non-negotiable rate, then send all the slaves back to Africa. On that shipping line. Racist? I'd say. The real 'tell' though was that there were two states in the North (the United States during the War of Northern Aggression) that were 'slave states'. NOTHING was done about them until AFTER the war. Was slavery a big issue? Not anything compared to economics!
I don't think Lincoln was a racist, but if he was this would also not surprise me.
And let me hit on "honest abe". Do you know where that term was coined? It was coined by an Irish journalist. Back then, people 'stumped' for office via 'whistlestop'. A politician would make a speech from the train - or close to it - and then reboard the train until the next stop. Then he'd do the same. Getting out 'his message'. An Irish journalist was given the job of following lincoln around on his tour, listening to what he had to say - then publishing that as an article. The journalist noted that when lincoln would stop in certain areas, he would talk about the 'problem' of Irish imigrants and what he would do to 'solve that problem'. Extremely anti-Irish, which -looking at the times- wasn't odd. But when lincoln would get to an Irish community, he'd stump about how he was going to pass laws to protect the new imigrants. "Honest Abe" was a satire - a poke in the eye. Except now we're so removed from the situation by the years, we don't 'get the joke'. That didn't make lincoln very happy with the newspapers, but that's fine. During the war, if a paper wrote something he didn't like, he had the editor jailed without rights, and the paper shut down. So much for the First Amendment, eh? Happened several times.
I never said angels. Just Patiots. Patriots that wanted freedom. In this case, economic freedom.
However, you make out the South to be a bunch of angels when they are frar from it.
Wrong. I've already addressed this, as have many historians. The economics of slavery were such that it couldn't have been viable for more than 1 generation longer. Sorry, that's just the way it was. And just so you don't think that I'm one of those 'racist crackers', let me assure you, the slaves in this country were treated MUCH better than my ancestors. Like I said, take a college course or two on the matter - at a good conservative college, from a professor that actually is into things. I took the courses long after I'd gotten my degrees, just for my edification - the prof had his own radio show that would be targeted toward the Patriot Movement if I had to label it.
They went to war over slavery, they wanted to keep slaves, be able to subject humans to the fields with whips, and they wanted to keep the ability to break up families by selling slave babies to highest bidder. I have heard many southerners tell me secession was not about slavery when clearly it was.