Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Obviously you do not understand, because there are no problems, outside of relinquishing control over the lives of private citizens.
You think the government deals in actual physical money, they do not. They deal in virtual money, keystrokes on a computer. The Federal Reserve has been creating money for 5 years in massive amounts to purchase toxic assets and yet during that entire time period the actual amount of physical money in circulation (M2) has decreased.
This has not stopped hysterical idiots who lack the grey matter to understand the monetary system from screaming the world is ending because of hyperinflation.
When the country used a gold standard there was a need for taxes because dollars could be exchanged for physical silver which limited the government’s ability to create dollars. That is no longer the case. The Federal Reserve itself explains the purpose of income tax is to drain purchasing power from the economy, not to fund the government. Our economy is "managed" in order to meet specific goals.
If you want to discuss the monetary system, I suggest you go to threads discussing the monetary systems. I have merely said that alternative methods of funding the government have their own inherent problems, problems that I think are worse than taxation. I would say that if you start such a thread I'll be happy to debate this with you, but I'm packing it up, and going away for the long weekend. I hope everyone enjoys Labor Day. And Jim, feel free to post your sovereign citizen propaganda to your heart's content. I'll be gone, but probably someone else will come along to challenge your assertions. Have a good weekend!
As for drugs, I've already agreed with you that many drug laws are overreaching. I simply pointed out that people on drugs do tend to be impaired, and that the government's actions are meant to protect us from the actions of those who are impaired. I don't care about Johnny getting high in his basement. And since millions of Johnnies do get high in their basement every day, I don't think the government cares all that much, either. They care when Johnny sets fire to that basement. Or when Johnny gets the munchies and gets in the car to make a run to Taco Bell. Yes, the law against Johnny getting high in the basement is overreaching. But it's meant to stop Johnny from putting people at risk.
And I would point out that attitudes about Johnny getting high in the basement are changing, and our government's approach is changing. Just Say No has really fallen by the wayside, though I respect Mrs Reagan for her efforts.
None of what you have written here addresses the issue we are discussing. It does not matter what the government’s intent is, or how the government or the public’s attitude is changing. What we are discussing is the letter of the law.
The government has no legal jurisdiction to tell you what you can do with your own body.
This is not overreaching, it is illegal usurpation of power by government. When more people begin to understand this concept, then the government has no choice but to back down.
None of what you have written here addresses the issue we are discussing. It does not matter what the government’s intent is, or how the government or the public’s attitude is changing. What we are discussing is the letter of the law.
The government has no legal jurisdiction to tell you what you can do with your own body.
This is not overreaching, it is illegal usurpation of power by government. When more people begin to understand this concept, then the government has no choice but to back down.
This day is coming fast..
Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day. Thomas Jefferson
Go back a few posts where you ref. that you were getting something free ? I am short of time, getting ready to go off the grid for the holiday, noon today or sooner which ever comes first.
I worked 55 years for this, paid in all those years, I dam sure will take advantage of it...only a fool would not, including Medicare, which you have little choice anyway. Since I turned 65 insurance costs have gone down a lot, including drugs. OK by me, so if I am taking things for free, well I am here to tell you it was NOT free all those years.
Yes it is slavery on both counts, except, some women have been dumped on so badly by not only some low life drunk, but they have been fighting the system as well, being treated as second class and in some cases considered no class at all, remember Women were once considered as property. It was not that long ago they finally got the right to vote, so soon so many forget...
its a stretch when you define slavery the way you do. I am here to tell you your thinking on that is not shared by most people.....No one can force you to do anything, if you do not like the system , leave, its that simple. In a small way I have done just that by leaving NC. when I did a few years ago now, I loved the mountains, but not the politics nor the power of the Evangelical church that ran so many peoples lives, some were friends of mine too.
Taking my labor without my permission is not slavery, but marriage, which an individual enters into voluntarily, is slavery?
Really? Think before you speak, the position you are taking is ridiculous.
I DO NOT enter into government voluntarily, women enter into marriage voluntarily.
If you can tak ANYTHING from me without my permission, it is theft. If someone enters into an agreement, no matter how raw the deal, they chose it.
No woman is forced into marriage via the threat of force in this country, I am however required to pay for WHATEVER the majority deems reasonable or I end up in a cage or dead.
You are making it painfully obvious that you have not read any books from the enlightenment period.
You are not arguing whether or not slavery is acceptable, you are arguing TO WHICH DEGREE slavery is acceptable as long as it pays for your healthcare.
Again, since you have refused to answer my questions again, can you tell me..
Does society own my body?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
I've read all your posts. Several times.
I've gathered from reading your posts that to you, decentralizing the federal government does not mean its dissolution, but rather shifting power from the federal government to the states. I've asked you to tell us which powers you want the states to exercise that they currently aren't exercising, and which powers you want the federal government to stop exercising that it's currently exercising.
No, you haven't or you would have never said that I was NOT linking the 17th to states rights. You would have read the context and understood that I AM linking the 17th to state rights, but not the debt numbers.
You JUST said, AGAIN YOU just said that I claimed to not be linking the 17th to state rights.
This is blatently incorrect. I just posted that the 17th amendment is affront to states rights. but that the national debt numbers are an argument against the federal government, not for states rights.
Congratulations, you just failed to understand the same post two times in a row. I may not have called anyone stupid, and I won't, but you are not doing much to make yourself seem smart.
If you have read my posts many times it is even more sad that you can not comprehend the English language.
You claim by tranfering power away from a centralized base where the citizen has no input, to a less centralized base where citizens have more leverage makes things worse... worse for who? Not the citizens.
" less centralizes base " ? ( sorry, I have been off the grid over the weekend) Not sure what or who you would transfer the power to, but , State Government would be even more difficult. Each State would, or could, enact different laws, there could be 50 different laws addressing the same thing, do you have any idea the confusion that would come of that? !!! The laws still would have to be Constitutional according to The Highest Court in the land, unless you had 50 countries of coarse ! There has been talk about states in a given area banding together , like New England, for example.This could be a good thing if the matter passes muster fia the Courts and did not violate the Commerce clause..... This IS happening now in special laws that apply directly those states. Each State would have to join the group, economy of scale would be one benefit
Citizens have less "leverage" at the State Level..All you need to know ( there is a lot more ) is how many Citizens vote in local elections compared to Federal Elections. Way more interest in National Politics, always has been, or at lest for the last 100 years or so.
Taking my labor without my permission is not slavery, but marriage, which an individual enters into voluntarily, is slavery?
Really? Think before you speak, the position you are taking is ridiculous.
I DO NOT enter into government voluntarily, women enter into marriage voluntarily.
If you can tak ANYTHING from me without my permission, it is theft. If someone enters into an agreement, no matter how raw the deal, they chose it.
No woman is forced into marriage via the threat of force in this country, I am however required to pay for WHATEVER the majority deems reasonable or I end up in a cage or dead.
You are making it painfully obvious that you have not read any books from the enlightenment period.
You are not arguing whether or not slavery is acceptable, you are arguing TO WHICH DEGREE slavery is acceptable as long as it pays for your healthcare.
Again, since you have refused to answer my questions again, can you tell me..
Does society own my body?
No, you haven't or you would have never said that I was NOT linking the 17th to states rights. You would have read the context and understood that I AM linking the 17th to state rights, but not the debt numbers.
You JUST said, AGAIN YOU just said that I claimed to not be linking the 17th to state rights.
This is blatently incorrect. I just posted that the 17th amendment is affront to states rights. but that the national debt numbers are an argument against the federal government, not for states rights.
Congratulations, you just failed to understand the same post two times in a row. I may not have called anyone stupid, and I won't, but you are not doing much to make yourself seem smart.
If you have read my posts many times it is even more sad that you can not comprehend the English language.
Marriage and women is quite different today than it was before women could vote. I was laying out some history for you, hoping that would get through, guess it has not.
You "own" your own body of coarse,( with exceptions that refer to sound mind) the problem is you use this phrase to apply to almost everything. Listen , YOU do not have the right to do anything that could, would, effect the rights of others labor. YOU are nothing special, no different than the millions out there that seek THEIR own autonomy .
Marriage and women is quite different today than it was before women could vote. I was laying out some history for you, hoping that would get through, guess it has not.
You "own" your own body of coarse,( with exceptions that refer to sound mind) the problem is you use this phrase to apply to almost everything. Listen , YOU do not have the right to do anything that could, would, effect the rights of others labor. YOU are nothing special, no different than the millions out there that seek THEIR own autonomy .
No, dude, you were not laying out history, you made a passing comment about how some women view marriage as slavery, read your own damn post!
I countered with the point that they enter into marriage voluntarily and I do NOT enter into taxes voluntarily. Your response to this is:
"Marriage and women is quite different today than it was before women could vote. I was laying out some history for you, hoping that would get through, guess it has not."
Which makes NO SENSE in the context of the conversation.
What the heck are you talking about? You are the one saying that you have a right to my labor through taxes! How in your twisted mind can you reconcile that with this statement: "YOU do not have the right to do anything that could, would, effect the rights of others labor." ?
I noticed that you emphasized the word "you"... are you saying that everyone has a right to my labor, but I specifically do not have the right to anyone else's?
No, dude, you were not laying out history, you made a passing comment about how some women view marriage as slavery, read your own damn post!
I countered with the point that they enter into marriage voluntarily and I do NOT enter into taxes voluntarily. Your response to this is:
"Marriage and women is quite different today than it was before women could vote. I was laying out some history for you, hoping that would get through, guess it has not."
Which makes NO SENSE in the context of the conversation.
What the heck are you talking about? You are the one saying that you have a right to my labor through taxes! How in your twisted mind can you reconcile that with this statement: "YOU do not have the right to do anything that could, would, effect the rights of others labor." ?
I noticed that you emphasized the word "you"... are you saying that everyone has a right to my labor, but I specifically do not have the right to anyone else's?
Come on ! You know what I mean. There is no need to quibble over any of the things that we already have said and agreed or disagreed with. I use "you" because you did not bring in the rights of others. ... So I will Ask you , since you have avoided to answer. Number 1 Do you think others should have the same rights as you ? No. 2 Can you justify doing things as a " free Man" that would harm others as a result ?
You know How I feel , It is important to respect the rights if others, and if necessary , give up some of your " free man labor" to do so. I am talking about equality for one, for all. This is where Socialism comes in, its necessary, its in our lives everywhere and is impossible to separate as many of the collective things, benefits, etc. can only happen when we all are apart of a system. No Man is an Island, you can try, it may work for some people for a while, but always fails in the end. Mankind is a social animal, that is how it is.
Come on ! You know what I mean. There is no need to quibble over any of the things that we already have said and agreed or disagreed with
Wrong, you are flat-out refusing to address points that are brought up, instead you deflect/twist the issue. This is not quibbling, this is being a child, straight-up.
Quote:
I use "you" because you did not bring in the rights of others. ... So I will
Ask you , since you have avoided to answer
Again, wrong. I have not avoided the answer, the answer is the cornerstone of my argument. I don't avoid answers, notice I typically break down posts point by point and address each one, like I am doing now. You are the one who avoids/ignores questions.
Quote:
Number 1 Do you think others should have the same rights as you ?
No. 2 Can you justify doing things as a " free Man" that would harm others as a
result ?
1. I think everyone has the EXACT same set of rights.
2. No, I do not think I am allowed to infringe on any others rights in any way. You on the other hand DO justify harming my rights "for the greater good" in the form of taking my labor via the threat of violence.
Quote:
You know How I feel , It is important to respect the rights if others, and if
necessary , give up some of your " free man labor" to do so.
You can not respect rights of others by taking my labor by force. This is a direct disrespect of my right to my body.
Quote:
I am talking about equality for one, for all. This is where
Socialism comes in, its necessary, its in our lives everywhere and is impossible
to separate as many of the collective things, benefits, etc. can only happen
when we all are apart of a system.
It is funny how often you are just plain wrong. You are talking about products and services and almost ALL of them could be provided in the private marketplace, and via competition would be cheaper for a better product.
They are products and services, nothing more. They are the same things as TV's and car-washes.
It is amazing how sold you are on having a "mommy" government to take care of you from cradle to grave... but you think you believe in freedom. You believe that a majority can vote on how much to take from my labor and what to spend it on.... and you think you believe in freedom.
This is where I differ from you, I believe that society can function under voluntary agreements between free individuals. You believe that you have the right to FORCE other people into your system with VIOLENCE. THIS IS NOT FREEDOM.
Quote:
No Man is an Island, you can try, it may work for some people for a while, but always fails in the end. Mankind is a social animal, that is how it is.
Jesus H Christ, you can not read can you? If you could you would not have typed that sentence, because you are talking about a completely different concept than I am. I am not advocating each person be an island.
I encourage people to, and do, enter into voluntary cooperation with other individuals as a society, where I draw the line is using violence to coerce someone into doing what I think is right, even for the greater good.
Again I refer you to read books by the luminaries of the Scottish enlightenment, read some Milton Friedman, or some Thomas Jefferson. You need to. Again, you do not understand freedom... YOU DO NOT KNOW THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CONVERSATION.
You are posting fallacies that nobody who has read a book from the enlightenment period would dare to post.
So far , you have no points, you ARE quibbling. This thread should be about specifics. Those are what have been asked, that's about as far as it goes. I am NOT interested in your " non answers", or your insults anymore. Debate which issues you want to see taken away from the Federal Government and given to the States. That's it, that's all. Instead you use " points" like " nanny state", which means nothing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
