PDA

View Full Version : Collapse Is Inevitable



silversurfer1
21st October 2009, 06:59
More Reality

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/americas-soul-is-lost-and-collapse-is-inevitable-2009-10-20?pagenumber=1

TheLoneRanger
21st October 2009, 08:05
Capitalism, like democracy, is the worst form of economy save all the others .. applogies to Winnie..

I don't see any suggestions for a replacement form of economy that hasn't already failed.

Basic nature of man is capitalism. If humans have worth, then human labor has worth and if humans have a soul then art and skill is a part of the worth of that labor... for any economic system to have validity for humans that must be recognized.

What is bringing down the system is the fact that the people who have no soul, the non producers, have found that they can vote the public purse to their own selfish ends and vote confiscatory taxes on the producers... it is not that capitalism has failed.. it is more that capitalism cannot supply enough excess wealth to support a socialist cradle to grave give away agenda for the non producing members of society.

Funny how all these Phd super smart economic types can only foresee what appears obvious to the most casual observer and have no recomendation for an alternative system to replace the one we have.

It is not lack of regulation, but over regulation that is hampering economic growth.. it is not a lack of soul or charity on the part of capitalism, but instead the confiscatory greed of socialism that currently does not leave sufficent profit for capitalism to fully support the arts and charity.

It was feudal tyrants that brought on the dark ages and Italian Capitalism that brought on the Renaissance.. it is capitalism that is bringing China out of poverty, Eastern Europe out of poverty, and the middle east out of the 11th century, and it is capitalism that brought Europe out of the horrors of war and destruction.

It is an imbalance of wealth that has provided the free time to explore and invent and creat and construct every great wonder and accomllishment of human kind and the funds to sponsor every great accomplishment in the arts and science.

At capitalism's wake, should it ever come, all the celibrators of that death will have to eat and drink is foul water and burnt ashes.. for no other system can supply the wealth to buy the wine and meat for the party.

Rather than the death of capitalism, I suspect that Capitalism will be further refined ... How blind must you be to not see that failure is a necessity to have success, what other yardstick can you have to measure either one but the other. Investment rewards and punishes relative to the risk incurred. Capitalism cannot garantee success in and of itself, all it offers is oportunity and the possibility of reward for success , but to offer that it must also offer the opportunity to fail. We are having one of the "failure moments" but it is a failure of individuals, just as every success is a success of individuals, not of the system that provided the opportunity. All the alternatives have already proven themselves as failures to provide suffcient opportunity of individual success to satisfy the soul of man.

What we have had, for some time now is a hobbled, restrained, and skewed form of capitalism forced to carry unnecessary burdens by a failure of democracy to stay within the bounds of the Constitution that provided for a limited goverment. Capitalism , like Christianity, has never failed for the simple reason it has never actually been tried in it's pure form.

What is so funny about this debate about what is the best form of economy for human society is that the answer is in the very demands for regulation. For Capitalism the demand is for regulation to curb full and unfettered participation in full and unfettered capitalism.. For all other forms, communism, facism, feudalism, whathaveyou, the regulation is needed to enforce human participation in the other froms of economy ... ever notice that?

skijake
21st October 2009, 11:19
Capitalism, like democracy, is the worst form of economy save all the others .. applogies to Winnie..

I don't see any suggestions for a replacement form of economy that hasn't already failed.

Basic nature of man is capitalism. If humans have worth, then human labor has worth and if humans have a soul then art and skill is a part of the worth of that labor... for any economic system to have validity for humans that must be recognized.

What is bringing down the system is the fact that the people who have no soul, the non producers, have found that they can vote the public purse to their own selfish ends and vote confiscatory taxes on the producers... it is not that capitalism has failed.. it is more that capitalism cannot supply enough excess wealth to support a socialist cradle to grave give away agenda for the non producing members of society.

Funny how all these Phd super smart economic types can only foresee what appears obvious to the most casual observer and have no recomendation for an alternative system to replace the one we have.

It is not lack of regulation, but over regulation that is hampering economic growth.. it is not a lack of soul or charity on the part of capitalism, but instead the confiscatory greed of socialism that currently does not leave sufficent profit for capitalism to fully support the arts and charity.

It was feudal tyrants that brought on the dark ages and Italian Capitalism that brought on the Renaissance.. it is capitalism that is bringing China out of poverty, Eastern Europe out of poverty, and the middle east out of the 11th century, and it is capitalism that brought Europe out of the horrors of war and destruction.

It is an imbalance of wealth that has provided the free time to explore and invent and creat and construct every great wonder and accomllishment of human kind and the funds to sponsor every great accomplishment in the arts and science.

At capitalism's wake, should it ever come, all the celibrators of that death will have to eat and drink is foul water and burnt ashes.. for no other system can supply the wealth to buy the wine and meat for the party.

Rather than the death of capitalism, I suspect that Capitalism will be further refined ... How blind must you be to not see that failure is a necessity to have success, what other yardstick can you have to measure either one but the other. Investment rewards and punishes relative to the risk incurred. Capitalism cannot garantee success in and of itself, all it offers is oportunity and the possibility of reward for success , but to offer that it must also offer the opportunity to fail. We are having one of the "failure moments" but it is a failure of individuals, just as every success is a success of individuals, not of the system that provided the opportunity. All the alternatives have already proven themselves as failures to provide suffcient opportunity of individual success to satisfy the soul of man.

What we have had, for some time now is a hobbled, restrained, and skewed form of capitalism forced to carry unnecessary burdens by a failure of democracy to stay within the bounds of the Constitution that provided for a limited goverment. Capitalism , like Christianity, has never failed for the simple reason it has never actually been tried in it's pure form.

What is so funny about this debate about what is the best form of economy for human society is that the answer is in the very demands for regulation. For Capitalism the demand is for regulation to curb full and unfettered participation in full and unfettered capitalism.. For all other forms, communism, facism, feudalism, whathaveyou, the regulation is needed to enforce human participation in the other froms of economy ... ever notice that?

Well laid out and Well Done! ;)

sharehard
21st October 2009, 12:47
What we have had, for some time now is a hobbled, restrained, and skewed form of capitalism forced to carry unnecessary burdens by a failure of democracy to stay within the bounds of the Constitution that provided for a limited goverment. Capitalism , like Christianity, has never failed for the simple reason it has never actually been tried in it's pure form.


Absolutly - and government is the impediment to a free market. When government is limited profits soar and then the government starts to take more and more of the rpofit and eventaully you have a bloated government breathing down your kneck.

WE DO NOT NEED A GOVERNMENT.

Free market anarchy - i.e. a voluntary society - is the only just possibility. It is what follows from the premise that the initiation of force is never justified.

Jake
21st October 2009, 13:13
Sharehard Said:
"WE DO NOT NEED A GOVERNMENT.

Free market anarchy - i.e. a voluntary society - is the only just possibility. It is what follows from the premise that the initiation of force is never justified"

Well, Of course we need a government. Only a nation of laws can survive. This country does not need to be changed. This administration has accelerated the trashing of our constitution.

The "trashing" started in 1913 but began in earnest in 1932 with the redistribution of tax-payer resources from those who have to those who have-not.

The solution is simple, but the implementation is complicated. I don't remember who said it but "we are always just one generation from losing our freedom" meaning that each generation that comes along must be taught by previous generations how to preserve the freedom that we enjoy.

Thus "freedom" is not anarchy but is the natural state of the human condition that is lost in societies without laws that place the indiviual first.

So, the solution is to return to a strict interpretation of a document that is already in place in this country...our constitution.

beach miner
21st October 2009, 13:42
Wow Lone Ranger: That is one of the best posts I have ever read. Thanks for putting it out there. Yer right--No one should be considered too big to fail, and especially be bailed out by the Creative, Industrious, and the True Wealth Producers of this Country. We need to be LIBERATED from the Financial Aristocrates who hold this countrie's, and Purse and Power. Who are they to come into our Private Lives and say YOU OWE ME. Bernake, Paulson, Giethner, Summers, Rubin, be damned. I hope they feel the rath of French Revolution. See Ya At The Top.

sharehard
21st October 2009, 13:48
I agree Jake, that we need law - one law: do no harm This is not a political law but a natural law like gravity.

The notion that we need a state to use violent force to protect us is a dogma that is hard to question.

Take the constitution for example. It is 4 pieces of paper that no one ever agreed to. I certainly did not agree to it. It wasn't even signed (only witnessed to) and even ifit was how could it have power over people generations after the fact. Is it magic??? Social contract is is just a myth.

There is a fear of living without government. I get that. But why should any service be offered at the barrel of a gun. Police, fire, medical.. all can be offered through the free market.

I am just suggesting to look into free market anarchy (voluntaryism).

Peace and go silver.
chris

TheLoneRanger
21st October 2009, 14:04
I agree Jake, that we need law - one law: do no harm This is not a political law but a natural law like gravity.

The notion that we need a state to use violent force to protect us is a dogma that is hard to question.

Take the constitution for example. It is 4 pieces of paper that no one ever agreed to. I certainly did not agree to it. It wasn't even signed (only witnessed to) and even ifit was how could it have power over people generations after the fact. Is it magic??? Social contract is is just a myth.

There is a fear of living without government. I get that. But why should any service be offered at the barrel of a gun. Police, fire, medical.. all can be offered through the free market.

I am just suggesting to look into free market anarchy (voluntaryism).

Peace and go silver.
chris

Actually fire fighting was private at one time.. Insurance Companies formed Fire Fighting Companies to cover their clients.. Houses were marked with a Plaque indicating who insured the home. If it caught fire all the companies in range responded but only the company whi insured the house actually fought the fire.. the rest went home.. and who got there first each time was mentioned in advertisements.. often claiming that had they insured with us the house wouldn't be cinders now.. But anyway..to many folks skiped insurance and to many uninsured homes burned down taking to many insured homes and neighborhoods with them.. So it sorta got incorporated into city charters and fees out of a rare flash of common sense. Same with private cops that enforced their employers policy instead of the law.. ticked off to many competitors and non involved folks.

sharehard
21st October 2009, 14:38
Same with private cops that enforced their employers policy instead of the law

Kinda sounds familiar...

Jake
21st October 2009, 14:48
When the collapse hits, we may need private cops and a whole lot more to keep the peace.
There’s nothing in the constitution that prevents privatization of any of those services you suggest Sharehard. When I read “we don’t need a Government, I thought you were referring to a real anarchy, which would defeat the purpose of a free-loving society.

I believe most services could and should be privatized.
Maybe the only things left for govt. to do would be Defense and Interstate Infrastructure.

TheLoneRanger
21st October 2009, 15:07
Jake.. the Preamble to the Constitution defines why we have a Constitution.. spells out exactly what the Constitution is supposed to accomplish.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

promote the general welfare is pretty broad.. broader than interstate infrastructure anyway.. then there is the blessings of Liberty .. which I take to mean equal treatment under the law and sticking with consitiutional safegaurds on intrusions into my life.

Jake
21st October 2009, 15:21
Yep, Lone, bingo

sharehard
21st October 2009, 16:14
When the collapse hits, we may need private cops and a whole lot more to keep the peace.
There’s nothing in the constitution that prevents privatization of any of those services you suggest Sharehard. When I read “we don’t need a Government, I thought you were referring to a real anarchy, which would defeat the purpose of a free-loving society.

I believe most services could and should be privatized.
Maybe the only things left for govt. to do would be Defense and Interstate Infrastructure.

Welll actually I am proposing no government - and a free and loving society.

FYI there is no legal duty to protect on the part of the government so even if you believe in the constitution the government has violated the reciprical obligation.

we can at least agree we both want peace - it is just that I am uncomporomising in my approach - i..e. no initiation of force ever (thus no government)

TheLoneRanger
21st October 2009, 16:27
Welll actually I am proposing no government - and a free and loving society.

FYI there is no legal duty to protect on the part of the government so even if you believe in the constitution the government has violated the reciprical obligation.

we can at least agree we both want peace - it is just that I am uncomporomising in my approach - i..e. no initiation of force ever (thus no government)

Sounds Good... but what are you going to do with all the people? They are going to mess that happy land up in a New York minute. And then there is the dilema of how to enforce the no enforcement rule.. cuz as sure as the sun comes up somebody is going to take "cuts" in line or flirt with the wrong girl.. and then you got trouble.. right here in River City.

Yeah I want peace , but the difference between you and me is that I am willing to bomb Afghanistan out of the stone age and into the 19th century to get it.

Jake
21st October 2009, 16:27
Welll actually I am proposing no government - and a free and loving society.

NOW, YOU'RE LOSING ME

sharehard
21st October 2009, 17:12
multigenerational project

Jake
21st October 2009, 17:23
multigenerational project

You're Still Losing Me

sharehard
21st October 2009, 17:30
My point is that the notion that we need government is an unexamined dogma unsupported by evidence. It would take more than a few posts to artculate my argument and I know this isn't the place for it.

Well - this isn't the forum for this but let me suggest a couple sites:

http://www.marcstevens.net/
http://www.strike-the-root.com/
http://www.freedomainradio.com/

sharehard
21st October 2009, 17:32
Sounds Good... but what are you going to do with all the people? They are going to mess that happy land up in a New York minute. And then there is the dilema of how to enforce the no enforcement rule.. cuz as sure as the sun comes up somebody is going to take "cuts" in line or flirt with the wrong girl.. and then you got trouble.. right here in River City.

Yeah I want peace , but the difference between you and me is that I am willing to bomb Afghanistan out of the stone age and into the 19th century to get it.

OMG! You believe the official story about 9-11!?!!?? I have some tin bullion to sell you.

Jake
21st October 2009, 17:38
OMG! You believe the official story about 9-11!?!!?? I have some tin bullion to sell you.

Now You’re Really, Really Losing Me!

Been to those websites you posted
Bunch of Legalize Pot-Jibberish
Utopia has been tried by many communists and hippies
It works for robots, not people.
How old are you?

sharehard
21st October 2009, 17:49
Been to those websites you posted
Bunch of Legalize Pot-Jibberish
Utopia has been tried by many communists and hippies
It works for robots, not people.
How old are you?

I am 40. I could address all of your points at length but this is not the place. I think we should agree to disagree on this one.

Jake
21st October 2009, 17:54
I am 40. I could address all of your points at length but this is not the place. I think we should agree to disagree on this one.

Ok---But address this one question:
Assuming you have kids—What would you do if your Son/daughter was killed by a guy driving under the influence of a pot-induced euphoria?---Would you use your Anarchist pistol and find him in a dark alley?

sharehard
21st October 2009, 18:43
Ok---But address this one question:
Assuming you have kids—What would you do if your Son/daughter was killed by a guy driving under the influence of a pot-induced euphoria?---Would you use your Anarchist pistol and find him in a dark alley?

This cannot be addressed in a single post - very involved. The book practicle anarchy addresses all of this and is free here: http://www.freedomainradio.com/free/

fullsafe
21st October 2009, 18:53
'Practicle anarchy'? what an oxymoron that is! I've been an anarchist all my life and from experience I can attest there is no practicality about it. Madison was right with his statement about 'if men were angels....'

Jake
21st October 2009, 19:08
This cannot be addressed in a single post - very involved. The book practicle anarchy addresses all of this and is free here: http://www.freedomainradio.com/free/

answer the question

sharehard
21st October 2009, 19:10
anarchy means an absence of government - not chaos. The free market (to the extent that it exists) is very ordered in spite of a lack of central control. IT is a taboo to consider that society could also organize in an ordered way without giving bureaucrats a monooly on law and force. Don' judge a book by your misinterpritation of the meaning of its cover.

sharehard
21st October 2009, 19:16
answer the question

I am not dodging the question and it is a good one but I really really really do not want to get into an argument here. I think you have your heels dug in so what ever I say would raise more question and on and on it would go. If you are interested read the book I recomended and then we can talk. Or lets just move on.

Jake
21st October 2009, 19:19
I am not dodging the question and it is a good one but I really really really do not want to get into an argument here. I think you have your heels dug in so what ever I say would raise more question and on and on it would go. If you are interested read the book I recomended and then we can talk. Or lets just move on.

Ok, I'll Answer It For You
Well...I Guess I'd Be Mad About It...Rethink This Anarchy Nonsense...and get with the program.

akak
21st October 2009, 19:23
anarchy means an absence of government - not chaos. The free market (to the extent that it exists) is very ordered in spite of a lack of central control. IT is a taboo to consider that society could also organize in an ordered way without giving bureaucrats a monooly on law and force. Don' judge a book by your misinterpritation of the meaning of its cover.


I tend to agree with Sharehard here ---- anarchy, as a moral and philosophical system, is and has been perhaps the most maligned, misunderstood, misinterpreted and unfairly ridiculed of any of the "isms". It is just the logical end result of road of free market, pro-liberty thinking. Deep down, I have a problem with the idea that we must have SOME level of institutionalization and monopolization of force within society for it to function. Most arguments against no-government usually strike me as intellectually weak if not nonsensical as those arguments made against the free-market by socialists and communists: "It's just not practical!", "But who is going to do (x, y, z) if the government doesn't do it!", blah blah blah.

On a practical level, those proponents of limited government have the onus on them to try to explain how any limited government, no matter how small or reduced in size it may be, can be controlled from ever regrowing and metastasizing again once people become complacent, as happened in the USA. Remember, always, that those most attracted to power are sociopaths if not outright evil, and they will always, ALWAYS find a way to use and expand power to their advantage, while simultaneously and piously proclaiming that their expanded power is "necessary" and "for the common good".

You know, if some random stranger walked up to somebody on the street and pointed a gun at them, picked their pocket and them told them "This is for your own good", I doubt very many would believe him. But why do so many believe them when they use the office and power of government to do the exact same thing, with the exact same feeble rationalizations and excuses?

Jake
21st October 2009, 19:30
I tend to agree with Sharehard here ---- anarchy, as a moral and philosophical system, is and has been perhaps the most maligned, misunderstood, misinterpreted and unfairly ridiculed of any of the "isms". It is just the logical end result of road of free market, pro-liberty thinking. Deep down, I have a problem with the idea that we must have SOME level of institutionalization and monopolization of force within society for it to function. Most arguments against no-government usually strike me as intellectually weak if not nonsensical as those arguments made against the free-market by socialists and communists: "It's just not practical!", "But who is going to do (x, y, z) if the government doesn't do it!", blah blah blah.

On a practical level, those proponents of limited government have the onus on them to try to explain how any limited government, no matter how small or reduced in size it may be, can be controlled from ever regrowing and metastasizing again once people become complacent, as happened in the USA. Remember, always, that those most attracted to power are sociopaths if not outright evil, and they will always, ALWAYS find a way to use and expand power to their advantage, while simultaneously and piously proclaiming that their expanded power is "necessary" and "for the common good".

You know, if some random stranger walked up to somebody on the street and pointed a gun at them, picked their pocket and them told them "This is for your own good", I doubt very many would believe him. But why do so many believe them when they use the office and power of government to do the exact same thing, with the exact same feeble rationalizations and excuses?

Now I'm Really Lost
AKAK...Anarchy means you would be looking around corners every where you go, gun in hand, just to get the food you need that has been priced outta sight because the store owner can't defend himself.
In anarchy, the best gun slinger wins.
Even Dodge City had to get Wyatt Erp to restore order.
Com-on...admit it you posted this to stir it up a little---right?

akak
21st October 2009, 19:34
Now I'm Really Lost
AKAK...Anarchy means you would be looking around corners every where you go, gun in hand, just to get the food you need that has been priced outta sight because the store owner can't defend himself.
In anarchy, the best gun slinger wins.
Even Dodge City had to get Wyatt Erp to restore order.
Com-on...admit it you posted this to stir it up a little---right?

No, Jake, in all seriousness I did not make that post to "stir the pot", although I knew that it would, so visceral is the reaction that statists of all stripes have instilled in the public to the word "anarchy". I almost did not post this, knowing the reaction I was likely to receive for it.

To say that anarchy could not function, is to essentially also say that the free market cannot function. The free market is just anarchy in the economic sphere --- anarchy meaning nothing more, nor less, than "no government".

Think about it: the statists and their government schools have brainwashed virtually everyone to believe that "no-government" instantly means "chaos". I suggest that reality is much closer to the opposite.

fullsafe
21st October 2009, 19:34
Angelic anarchy----yeah , there's something I can really bet the location of my stack on!

I prefer a Constitiutional Republic , if we could've kept it.

akak
21st October 2009, 19:41
Angelic anarchy----yeah , there's something I can really bet the location of my stack on!

I prefer a Constitiutional Republic , if we could've kept it.


Can ANY society keep a limited government? History has shown that they cannot --- the most evil and venal ALWAYS take control of power, no matter how limited it may be, and eventually expand it into every corner of society, at their benefit and everyone else's expense. It is the same sad story since prehistory, precisely because we are implicitly and explicitly taught that we MUST always have government controlling us! Really, isn't this exactly what those power-seekers and ponerologists would want everyone to believe?

sharehard
21st October 2009, 19:42
Now I'm Really Lost
AKAK...Anarchy means you would be looking around corners every where you go, gun in hand, just to get the food you need that has been priced outta sight because the store owner can't defend himself.
In anarchy, the best gun slinger wins.

I am biting my tongue so hard it is bleeding. (http://www.freedomainradio.com/free/books/FDR_5_PDF_Practical_Anarchy_Audiobook.pdf)

akak
21st October 2009, 19:46
This is probably not the time and place to delve into such a deep and complicated philosophical argument. I would just like to leave those who are interested in it with one thought: that, just perhaps, almost everything you think you know about "anarchy" and those who advocate it may be wrong. Beyond erroneously equating anarchy with "chaos", what DO most people know about the philosophy of anarchy?

Jake
21st October 2009, 19:53
No, Jake, in all seriousness I did not make that post to "stir the pot", although I knew that it would, so visceral is the reaction that statists of all stripes have instilled in the public to the word "anarchy". I almost did not post this, knowing the reaction I was likely to receive for it.

To say that anarchy could not function, is to essentially also say that the free market cannot function. The free market is just anarchy in the economic sphere --- anarchy meaning nothing more, nor less, than "no government".

Think about it: the statists and their government schools have brainwashed virtually everyone to believe that "no-government" instantly means "chaos". I suggest that reality is much closer to the opposite.


Ok...I'm going to assume you are distinguishing between "Fiscal Anarchy" and "Social Anarchy".

But Even Fiscal Anarchy, or Business Anarchy...Meaning "keep the govt. out of the Business of Business, would collapse without regulations of some kind.

If I sold a product that made you sick or killed you, your family would come out and kill me using your vigilante friends.

Or... If I sold a product that made you sick or killed you---I would be under no obligation to fix it for the next patron.

The Human reduces to an ape when no govt. or laws are around to keep it civilized. And don't tell me that, given time, we all would realize the necessity to care for the greater good by restraining ourselves against chaos, because it doesn't work.

The fact is, communists, Fascists, Hippies, and Sharehard have or want to try it and the human can not function in this kind of system.

Unless you've been brainwashed by big brother in "1984", no one survives and thrives in a living, growing, free society, unless they enact a set of rules to live by enforced by the will of the people.

Even True democracy breaks down as there are too many cooks in the kitchen. Not every little grievance can be addressed and preserve the order.

Thus, a republic that was envisioned and thoughtfully put together by the founding fathers without the tyranny of a central bank is the only enduring framework acceptable to all parties which also addresses the imperfections of the human being.

fullsafe
21st October 2009, 19:58
Can ANY society keep a limited government? History has shown that they cannot --- the most evil and venal ALWAYS take control of power, no matter how limited it may be, and eventually expand it into every corner of society, at their benefit and everyone else's expense. It is the same sad story since prehistory, precisely because we are implicitly and explicitly taught that we MUST always have government controlling us! Really, isn't this exactly what those power-seekers and ponerologists would want everyone to believe?

I think you're making my point!

How can the flawed create an unflawed system except in some esoteric world of etherial logic created from a derivation of Dungeon and Dragons? You have to go with the best , not regress. Fix it , don't trash it.

Jake
21st October 2009, 20:16
Can ANY society keep a limited government? History has shown that they cannot --- the most evil and venal ALWAYS take control of power, no matter how limited it may be, and eventually expand it into every corner of society, at their benefit and everyone else's expense. It is the same sad story since prehistory, precisely because we are implicitly and explicitly taught that we MUST always have government controlling us! Really, isn't this exactly what those power-seekers and ponerologists would want everyone to believe?

Our govt. would have been fine, and was fine until political leaders who wanted power allowed people to vote themselves largess thereby transforming what was a govt. part-time representative job into a career.

The founding fathers meant govt. representatives to be in office in service as part of their duty to society (if they so chose), but not to make a career out of it.

Unfortunately, term limits has not solved this problem. And unfortunately, Central bankers inevitably step in when govt's can't pay for the largess obligations that were enacted because of govt's insatiable need for power.

Thus, the founding fathers knew their system was flawed and allowed amendments that needed a large majority to pass so that an original document could be improved upon, but not discarded.

Unfortunately, again, Today's statists want us to believe the constitution is a "living document" that can be interpreted using today's reduced standards of conduct, civility and morality.

AKA, there just isn't any better system...certainly not something that does away with all forms of order, law and regulation.

digger
21st October 2009, 22:27
Absolutly - and government is the impediment to a free market. When government is limited profits soar and then the government starts to take more and more of the rpofit and eventaully you have a bloated government breathing down your kneck.

WE DO NOT NEED A GOVERNMENT.

Free market anarchy - i.e. a voluntary society - is the only just possibility. It is what follows from the premise that the initiation of force is never justified.

I can only think of one example of a country (in modern times) with no government...Somolia. They truely have anarchy. Is that what you really want?

Cup-of-Ruin
22nd October 2009, 00:38
All goverments need to know is one law really, it's a big one, one of the big ten, unfortunately even though it is only four words it is still to difficult for governments to understand, now I know governments are full of dim-witted half-baked immoral morons, but maybe if I say the words really slow and with emphasis they might for once understand, (but probably not), OK;

THOU SHALT NOT STEAL

You wouldn't think it was hard, but for some it's impossible, maybe if we just made it two words- Stealing Bad! And that's basically all governments need to know, if they can't remember those four words or two words then is it worth having them? I know their dullards, and morally challenged but is there any benefit in having these people around any longer if they are incapable of basic human communication....

skijake
22nd October 2009, 01:22
All goverments need to know is one law really, it's a big one, one of the big ten, unfortunately even though it is only four words it is still to difficult for governments to understand, now I know governments are full of dim-witted half-baked immoral morons, but maybe if I say the words really slow and with emphasis they might for once understand, (but probably not), OK;

THOU SHALT NOT STEAL

You wouldn't think it was hard, but for some it's impossible, maybe if we just made it two words- Stealing Bad! And that's basically all governments need to know, if they can't remember those four words or two words then is it worth having them? I know their dullards, and morally challenged but is there any benefit in having these people around any longer if they are incapable of basic human communication....

If Only?
Instead of all the new laws which will be passed this year which no one cares or knows anything about, how about if we could just force Congress to abide by that one, Thou shalt not steal. Most of our biggest problems would melt away peacefully with-in a decade or so and we would once again be the Greatest Nation on Earth.
I know, It's a pipe dream. :rolleyes: