The Myth of Laissez Faire Capitalism, the Constitution, and Government Economic Intervention. The Panic of 1819.

[ovcatto]

Originally Posted by Shizzles

As far as your posting, putting a 209 page PDF here and screaming "Look how ya'll don't get it" when most of us neither have the time nor the background to fully engage in this discussion isn't a shining example of honesty. You know damn well by the time any of us actually read it, this thread will have sunk into cyber-space history.

Ah, reading the 209 pages is not a requirement, as I said, it is there for those who are interested. As for time or background, I haven't seen that as being something that has restricted far too many from engaging in a discussion around the central themes of this thread. Surely if one is going to argue that their was some period of time prior to 1933 when the government wasn't heavily involved in economic activity, that the Constitution doesn't provide for such activity or that that laissez faire capitalism was the economic ideal of the Founders, reading 209 pages of a PDF would be a trifle in comparison to the knowledge acquired to make such assertions, don't you think? As a result, I would think that if can make such assertions one should be prepared to discuss the issue without anything but a casual glance at the linked to piece.

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by dramamama6685

Though I agree.. with some of your post(i.e.e socialism and communism being predatory) you have the Libertarian platform completely wrong.

Platform | Libertarian Party

My apologies - the last time I examined it, point by point, was in 1996.

Apparently, it has mutated, in response to changing times. (FWIW - the "new Patriots" didn't categorically oppose Socialist Insecurity in the early 1990s, either. Many believed that it was "their money" owed to them for years of paying "their share".)

I may be in error, but if sovereign Americans are not subject citizens, then the goals of sovereignty for Libertarians are impossible. One cannot exercise the franchise, vote, and serve, and NOT be subject of the government. And if one wishes to be sovereign, free and independent, one cannot be a subject citizen.

In other words, most of the political goals espoused by partisan Libertarians are inapplicable to citizens, but already exist in the law for sovereign Americans.

For example:

3.6 Representative Government
We support electoral systems that are more representative of the electorate at the federal, state and local levels.

Why would sovereign people, in the republican form, wish "representation" in the democratic form of government?

If one is sovereign, the internal affairs of the foreign corporation known as government are not important. It only becomes important if you are INSIDE the belly of the beast.

If you exclude all laws based on Socialism, all laws only applicable to "persons liable", what's left to object to?

"A Sovereign cannot be named in any statute as merely a 'person' or 'any person'".
Wills v. Michigan State Police, 105 L.Ed. 45 (1989)

"In common usage, the term 'person' does not include the sovereign, [and] statutes employing the [word] are ordinarily construed to exclude it."
Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe, 442 U.S. 653, 667, 61 L.Ed2. 153, 99 S.Ct. 2529 (1979)
(quoting United States v. Cooper Corp. 312 U.S. 600, 604, 85 L.Ed. 1071, 61 S.Ct. 742 (1941)).

"All PERSONS born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
[14th Amendment, Section 1.]

Sovereigns are not "persons", and therefore do not come under the presumption of submission to the Federal or State governments.

Coincidentally, when constitutional government wishes a law to be applicable to everyone, it uses the term, "Whoever...". When the law is not applicable to everyone, it uses the term, "person....".

Title 18 USC § 111. Assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain
officers or employees
(a) In General.-- Whoever--
(1) forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with any person designated in section 1114 of this title while engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties;

Contrast with:

Title 18 USC § 228. Failure to pay legal child support obligations
(a) Offense.-- Any person who--
(1) willfully fails to pay a support obligation with respect to a child who resides in another State, if such obligation has remained unpaid for a period longer than 1 year, or is greater than $5,000;

If one was unaware of the difference, one might believe that both laws were universally applicable. Of course, if you were unaware that the latter obligation is tied to one's VOLUNTARY participation in National Socialism (a.k.a. Social Security), you might not catch the distinction. Liability for obedience requires consent, otherwise it would be involuntary servitude, and unconstitutional.

Consider what would happen to the power of the government if 90% of Americans ceased volunteering to be socialists and citizens?
The remaining 10% could do far less mischief, and have much fewer resources with which to play politics with. In fact, the 10% citizens would be more likely to be unselfish civic minded folks and not greedy parasites trying to feed at the public trough.

[BigJon3475]

America = Quasi-Neo-Con-Neo-Liberal. Are wars getting farther and farther apart? Of course more and more money is spent almost always has. Only a few brief periods of our history have run in the black.