Tuesday, November 2, 2010

Re: Gotta love the intelligence of our betters - wonder if anyone ever explained to that lady in red who Keynes was

Hi MJ,..... How you doin'?
Okay , I hope....
I like your appreciation for "Freedom and Liberty" .... As a
"thematic consideration"... broad terms...Do you ever think along the
lines of whether there is a distinction to be made between.... say....
Liberty and License?.... I wonder how you would frame such a
distinction, yourself.....
nominal9

On Nov 2, 12:00 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> No socialist author ever gave a thought to the possibility that the abstract entity which he wants to vest with unlimited power whether it is called humanity, society, nation, state, or government could act in a way of which he himself disapproves.
> -- Ludwig von Mises, Human Action: A Treatise on Economics, 692 (rev'd ed. 1966)At 07:34 AM 11/2/2010, you wrote:Economics (all of it).....Too Much "theory".... not enough factual
> empirical verification....after all, it is a Social Science... there
> are "humans" imvolved.... Free will... at work... it isn.t like a
> strict inanimate chemical reaction, say... where t you have
> certifiable and expected cause and effect relations under similar
> circumstances, every time...... Human reactions (Social Sciences,
> Economincs, et al) are more Action-Reaction, where human input
> interjects a "choice" (even if limited) in both the Actiuon and the
> Reaction....long strory short... my observation... Keynes , Smith,
> Marx...Joe Shmo..; whoever... when it comes to economic theory....
> it's always a crapshoot as to what the "result" will be....if the
> carrot doesn't work... take out the stick.... if stimulus money
> doesn't work.... the fat-cats just "pocket" their profits... then tax
> the shit out of the greedy crumb-bums....empirical verification....
> On Nov 1, 11:10 pm, dick thompson <rhomp2...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > g
> > j   http://althouse.blogspot.com/2010/11/obama-keynesian-sign-makes-rally...
> --
> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
> * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Is it coincidental that Iraq has sunk into a blood bath again at time of Congressional elections?

a day after dozens of Catholic Christians were slaughter by both terrorists and Iraqi security forces, today and just a while ago in fact dozens were killed in Baghdad. Whoever is doing the killing in Iraq seems like wants to send a message to Obama and that is: You have failed and you must stay in Iraq...come back/ or go back..Iraq is not yet secure !!



http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2010/11/02/124655.html


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Lo siento... I am sorry

what hemisphere are you in?

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 1:31 PM, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmkahle@gmail.com> wrote:
Fellow Moderators and Members,

I am sorry for not having been here during the past few days. It is
rainy season here and I am getting about 6-8" per day and at times
more, it rains so hard at times that the seals on the lines are busted
open and the cables get wet. On top of that on Saturday we had the
national DNS/DSL servers go down due to a loss of conductivity and a
bridge blown out that contained the fiber optic cables.

I'm back.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Lo siento... I am sorry

Keith, 

My US ballots are cast in Az. I did indeed cast the right ballots.

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 12:19 PM, Keith In Tampa <keithintampa@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey Mark!!
 
Well, hopefully, you mashed the right levers!!!  (And ya know that I am kidding!!)
 
Keith

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 2:18 PM, Mark <markmkahle@gmail.com> wrote:
Keith,

I already voted a few weeks ago. Mail in is great. I vote in the US, CR and Germany.

I feel it is a civic duty.


On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Keith In Tampa <keithintampa@gmail.com> wrote:
Good to see that you are well, dry and (probably not!!)  voting!!
 
<Grin>!!
 


 
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 1:40 PM, dick thompson <rhomp2002@earthlink.net> wrote:
Wondering what happened to you.  So glad to see you back here again.  Good timing today.


On 11/02/2010 01:31 PM, THE ANNOINTED ONE wrote:
Fellow Moderators and Members,

I am sorry for not having been here during the past few days. It is
rainy season here and I am getting about 6-8" per day and at times
more, it rains so hard at times that the seals on the lines are busted
open and the cables get wet. On top of that on Saturday we had the
national DNS/DSL servers go down due to a loss of conductivity and a
bridge blown out that contained the fiber optic cables.

I'm back.


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.



--
Mark M. Kahle H.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.



--
Mark M. Kahle H.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Lo siento... I am sorry

Hey Mark!!
 
Well, hopefully, you mashed the right levers!!!  (And ya know that I am kidding!!)
 
Keith

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 2:18 PM, Mark <markmkahle@gmail.com> wrote:
Keith,

I already voted a few weeks ago. Mail in is great. I vote in the US, CR and Germany.

I feel it is a civic duty.


On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Keith In Tampa <keithintampa@gmail.com> wrote:
Good to see that you are well, dry and (probably not!!)  voting!!
 
<Grin>!!
 


 
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 1:40 PM, dick thompson <rhomp2002@earthlink.net> wrote:
Wondering what happened to you.  So glad to see you back here again.  Good timing today.


On 11/02/2010 01:31 PM, THE ANNOINTED ONE wrote:
Fellow Moderators and Members,

I am sorry for not having been here during the past few days. It is
rainy season here and I am getting about 6-8" per day and at times
more, it rains so hard at times that the seals on the lines are busted
open and the cables get wet. On top of that on Saturday we had the
national DNS/DSL servers go down due to a loss of conductivity and a
bridge blown out that contained the fiber optic cables.

I'm back.


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.



--
Mark M. Kahle H.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Lo siento... I am sorry

Keith,

I already voted a few weeks ago. Mail in is great. I vote in the US, CR and Germany.

I feel it is a civic duty.

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Keith In Tampa <keithintampa@gmail.com> wrote:
Good to see that you are well, dry and (probably not!!)  voting!!
 
<Grin>!!
 


 
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 1:40 PM, dick thompson <rhomp2002@earthlink.net> wrote:
Wondering what happened to you.  So glad to see you back here again.  Good timing today.


On 11/02/2010 01:31 PM, THE ANNOINTED ONE wrote:
Fellow Moderators and Members,

I am sorry for not having been here during the past few days. It is
rainy season here and I am getting about 6-8" per day and at times
more, it rains so hard at times that the seals on the lines are busted
open and the cables get wet. On top of that on Saturday we had the
national DNS/DSL servers go down due to a loss of conductivity and a
bridge blown out that contained the fiber optic cables.

I'm back.


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.



--
Mark M. Kahle H.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Lo siento... I am sorry

Good to see that you are well, dry and (probably not!!)  voting!!
 
<Grin>!!
 


 
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 1:40 PM, dick thompson <rhomp2002@earthlink.net> wrote:
Wondering what happened to you.  So glad to see you back here again.  Good timing today.


On 11/02/2010 01:31 PM, THE ANNOINTED ONE wrote:
Fellow Moderators and Members,

I am sorry for not having been here during the past few days. It is
rainy season here and I am getting about 6-8" per day and at times
more, it rains so hard at times that the seals on the lines are busted
open and the cables get wet. On top of that on Saturday we had the
national DNS/DSL servers go down due to a loss of conductivity and a
bridge blown out that contained the fiber optic cables.

I'm back.


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Must Watch YouTube: STUNNING - 'I REMEMBER, SO I'M VOTING'



On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 9:37 AM, Tommy News <tommysnews@gmail.com> wrote:
Voting Republican is voting against Civil Rights, against equality. A
Republican-led Congress could set back federal LGBT equality for
YEARS. A Republican Governor and State Assembly could prevent civil
rights from passing for YEARS. Please consider your LGBT friends and
family before you vote today. PLEASE remember. PLEASE vote Democrat.
PLEASE pass this on to everyone.

Watch this on Youtube before you vote:

STUNNING - 'I REMEMBER, SO I'M VOTING, AND NOT REPUBLICAN.'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BJfMPxQuiU&feature=player_embedded


--
Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
Have a great day,
Tommy

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Don’t Vote

Can't be much worse than what we have now!

On 11/2/2010 10:48 AM, Keith In Tampa wrote:
Well, how, "Moonbattery" of Mr. Kinsella!
 
"Argorist"??  I had to go and look up the term, which means, "Anarcho-Capitalist".  
 
No rules of law,  just a free market.   Hmmmmm.....Wonder how that will work out?
 
See Robber Barons, Soviet Nomenclatura, Bhopal India,  Bernie Madoff,  et. al;
 


 
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 12:14 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

Don't Vote
by Stephan Kinsella on November 2, 2010


Slave                   Suggestion Box (anti-voting)

A relative in Singapore called and said "Happy Election Day." Somewhat in jest. I have relatives and friends begging me to vote this time–Republican of course–"to kick those Marxists out of office." Yes, to replace them with the Republicans, who a few years ago started two wars, added Medicare Prescription socialism, and began the Bankster Bailouts. Yeah.

Last year I took my 6-year old with me to the polls and let him watch me cast a blank ballot. But a friend on Facebook recently admonished me:

Any participation in the voting process, even casting a blank ballot in protest, is acknowledging, perpetuating, and giving legitimacy to the state and its system.
Withdraw from the state. Don't vote at all. Embrace agorism. Spread freedom like a virus.

And of course the anti-voting position is common among many anarchist libertarians. 1 I'm still not completely convinced that it's immoral or unlibertarian to vote–especially just casting a blank ballot–but I'm leaning in that direction; and I certainly think there is no duty to vote. One libertarian I know thinks that while it's problematic to vote for a candidate for a given office, it's less problematic to vote on a ballot measure or law itself (like legalizing drugs or lowering taxes). Not sure, but I don't think I'm going to vote today.


Endnotes

  1. See Wendy McElroy's various articles and resources, such as Why I Would Not Vote Against Hitler, The Good Intentions Paving Company, Act Responsibly: Don't Vote!, Anti-voting Resources; also John Roscoe and Ned Roscoe, Don't Vote: 20 Practical Reasons; Carl Watner, Non-Voting; George H. Smith, The Ethics of Voting; John Pugsley, Harry, Don't Run!. But see  R.W. Bradford, Voting Is No Sin. [ ]

http://www.libertarianstandard.com/2010/11/02/dont-vote/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thelibertarianstandard+%28The+Libertarian+Standard%29&utm_content=FaceBook
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Your personal email. Anytime, anywhere.
Ridiculously affordable at $19.95. No contracts.
http://www.getpeek.com/lavabit.html

--
Your remedy is in the courts - learn civil litigation with Jurisdictionary®

I Refuse To Comply With The Unconstitutional Demands Of The Federal Government
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure.

Government is only as strong as those who allow themselves to be governed are weak.

"The 'art' of politics is diverting attention from what's really happening. What
separates politicians from other criminal organizations is superior public relations."
- Marc Stevens

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free it expects something that cannot be."
- Thomas Jefferson

Today’s Election: Progressive Socialists vs . Conservative Con Men


Today's Election: Progressive Socialists vs. Conservative Con Men
by Scott McPherson, November 2, 2010

Before nagging your neighbor about his yard, it's not a bad idea to take a look at your own first. It's like making sure you're not in a glass house before throwing a rock. But these pearls of wisdom aren't of much interest to a lot of people calling themselves "conservatives" these days.

Whether it's Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, or any standard Republican candidate, they're all highly vocal about Democrat big spenders and President Obama's socialism leading us down a path to big government and a socialist agenda that threatens to bankrupt America.

Several years ago a friend of mine told me, "Conservatives like to talk about limited government, they just never get around to saying what it is they want government limited to." Beyond the libertarian rhetoric that Republicans throw out every election year (or at least those election years when Democrats are in charge), conservatism looks like a variation of the same old socialist theme.

During the American Revolution, Americans denounced the British for having "erected a multitude of New Offices to harass our people, and eat out their substance." A few years later they would write a Constitution enumerating a few defined powers granted to the federal government. They had experienced bureaucracy and the petty tyrants it creates, and wanted to protect themselves and their posterity from a central government that, if left unchecked, would drain their wealth and snuff out their freedom.

Conservatives often point this out. But how many Republican candidates (other than Texas congressman Ron Paul) have called for abolishing the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the Department of Transportation, or the Department of Agriculture, just to name a few, pointing out that they are not specifically authorized by the Constitution? Conservatives routinely call themselves "strict constructionists," so it would be interesting to hear their arguments for keeping these departments in existence.

Talk of "trimming the fat," "doing away with pork," and "getting rid of waste, fraud, and abuse" are certainly good campaign sound bites, but they are no substitute for sound fiscal policies. If conservatives are really concerned about the enormous amount of debt incurred by Congress and the president and an imploding economy that threatens our future well-being, then think of the money that can be saved by targeting and abolishing some of these massive federal departments and agencies that help no one but the bureaucrats who staff them. The "party of limited government" could at least be having a serious debate about it.

All over the country Republicans are promising voters that Social Security and Medicare are "safe". The Federal Reserve, socialist institution par excellence, is never criticized. They don't even mention it. Ditto the federal income tax ­ Republicans just want to cut the rate a bit. And don't forget George W. Bush's massive prescription drug-entitlement program that Republicans voted for.

Conservatives would have us believe that conservatism is about supporting freedom and opposing socialism, but in actuality it is about maintaining the status quo, especially when Republicans are in power. A socialistic status quo. When pressed, some conservatives will even accuse you of wanting to throw old people out into the street. Yes, oftentimes Republicans sound exactly like Democrats!

We are long overdue for an honest debate about government. Conservatives can take aim at Obamacare and TARP, but our nation's march towards socialism didn't start in January 2009. Since they support every other socialist program, they ought to at least be honest with themselves and with voters. When they talk about a "conservative ascendancy," don't they actually mean a Republican-managed socialist status quo?

Let's face it: In order to get elected, Republican candidates preach free enterprise while supporting socialism. Our choice in today's elections is between honest-to-goodness progressive socialists and conservative con men. God help us.


http://www.fff.org/comment/com1011c.asp

Re: The Media Aren't Liberal

Neither does your anarchist views!  There is a distinction between being in favor of individual freedoms and being a strict constructionist of the Constitution, and then misinterpreting the very document that you are relying upon to come up with, "Anarcho-Capitalism"!
 
 
 
 
 


 
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 2:02 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

ROTFLMAO!
Spreading the State Gospel hardly makes you an advocate of 'smaller' OR a 'realist'.

Regard$,
--MJ

Will gentlemen suffer me to ask them to point out to me, if they can, the power which this government possesses to adopt to system for the avowed purpose of encouraging particular branches of industry? The power to declare war may involve the right of bringing into existence the means of national defence. But to tell us we have a right to resort to theoretical speculations, as to the most convenient or profitable employments of industry, and that you can, by law, encourage certain pursuits and prohibit others, is to make this not merely a consolidated, but an unlimited government. If you can control and direct any, why not all the pursuits of your citizens? And if all, where is the limitation to your authority? Gentlemen surely forget that the supreme power is
not in the government of the United States. They do not remember that the several states are free and independent sovereignties, and that all power not expressly granted to the federal government is reserved to the people of those sovereignties. When I say expressly delegated, I wish to be understood that no power can be exercised by Congress which is not expressly granted, or which is not clearly incident to such a grant. Now, when we call upon gentlemen to show their authority, they tell us it is derived from the authority to "regulate commerce."  But are regulation and annihilation synonymous terms? Does one include the other? Or are they not rather opposites, and does not the very idea of regulation exclude that of destruction? I rejoice, sir, to find that gentlemen refer us to commerce; for the very clause which expressly confers the right to regulate commerce, by saying nothing of the regulation of manufactures, or of agriculture,
or home industry, seems to demonstrate that they were intended to be put beyond our control, and to be reserved to the people of the states respectively.
-- Mr. Hayne, Debates of the Several ...



At 01:54 PM 11/2/2010, you wrote:
"Commerce" is the transaction or sale of items, between one indiviual, or entity, or corporation, or Nation-State, and another. 
 
I don't need a Latin, or a 1850 dictionary to tell me what Commerce means.  The definition meant the same 235 years ago, as it does today.
 
There is also the issue of, "What Is", verus, "What ought to be".  Whether we like it.....Or we don't like it, our Federal Courts have determined the definition of "Commerce" and has given our Congress wide latitude.  (c.f.;  See Lopez v. United States, and Sullivan v. Louisiana
 
I am not a big fan of, nor do I trust our Federal Government.   I do my part, each and every day, to make them smaller, and accountable!
 
I am also a realist!
 
 
 


 
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 1:41 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

There you go again.
Praise be to the Almighty Federal Government, Amen.

Americans in 1913 UNDERSTOOD the Constitution -- apparently better than you -- and sought the proper course found in Article V.

Regulate, of course, does not mean ban.  An Individual, of course, is not a State, Nation or Indian Tribe.  Commerce is the exchange of title.
CO'MMERCE.n.s.
[commercium, Latin. It was anciently accented on
the last syllable.]
Intercourse; exchange of one thing for another;
interchange of any thing; trade; traffick.
Samuel Johnson 1750
To RE'GULATE.v.a. [regula, Lat.]
1. To adjust by rule or method.
   Nature, in the production of things, always
   designs them to partake of certain, regulated,
   established essences, which are to be the models
   of all things to be produced: this, in that crude
   sense, would need some better explication.
 Locke.
2. To direct.
    Regulate the patient in his manner of living.
 Wiseman.
    Ev'n goddesses are women; and no wife
    Has pow'r to regulate her husband's life.
 Dryden.

Regard$,
--MJ

To "regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the States, and with the Indian tribes." To erect a bank, and to regulate commerce, are very different acts. He who erects a bank, creates
a subject of commerce in its bills; so does he who makes a bushel of wheat, or digs a dollar out of the mines; yet neither of these persons regulates commerce thereby. To make a thing which
may be bought and sold, is not to prescribe regulations for buying and selling. Besides, if this was an exercise of the power of regulating commerce, it would be void, as extending as much to the internal commerce of every State, as to its external. For the power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State, (that is to say of the commerce between citizen and citizen,) which remain exclusively with its own legislature; but to its external commerce only, that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes. Accordingly the bill does not propose the measure as a regulation of trade, but as "productive of considerable advantages to trade." Still less are these powers covered by any other of the special enumerations. -- Thomas Jefferson





At 01:31 PM 11/2/2010, you wrote:
Hey Michael!
 
See Title 21 United States Code, §841(a)(1) and §846.   In accordance with the Constitution, the Congress has the dominion to regulate interstate, (to some degree intrastate, if it affects interstate of international), and international  Commerce;
 
See U.S. Constitution, Article One, Section Eight, Clause Three:
 
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;


On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 11:58 AM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:
Note Amendment XVIII
Section. 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
Section. 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Section. 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
and its complement Amendment XXI
Section. 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Section. 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
Section. 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

Now, where -- exactly -- is the Amendment that empowers those Feds to criminalize -- say -- an arbitrary list of substances?
Give up?

Regard$,
--MJ

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. -- Amendment X





 
This simply, is  failed and misguided logic.   A state is more than capable of enacting environmental laws that are more stringent than federal guidelines,  but a State cannot legalize something that is outright prohibited in this Nation. 

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Tea party antics could end up burning Republicans

No, migration to the United States is not a "natural right"! 
 
In the same vein, I would hope that you would agree, since you want to make the distinction between "Naturalization" and "Immigration", (and I agreed with you that the terms are distinct, albeit they are tied together at the hip);  then I submit, (and the Courts agree with me!)  that those who who simply choose to, "migrate" do not have the same protections of rights,  as those who choose to be "Citizens".  
 
 
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 1:36 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:


 
Prior to the Constitution's inception and the first Naturalization Act of 1790,  the States were the ones who dictated Naturalization policy.   By 1795, the Congress framed the first Immigration and Naturalization Act (of 1795, and of which I have written to you previously about!!)  the key criteria for citizenship of the Naturalization Act of 1795 remain part of American law to this date:  (1) five years of (lawful) residence within the United States; (2) a "good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States"; (3) the taking of a formal oath to support the Constitution and to renounce any foreign allegiance; and (4) the renunciation of any hereditary titles.
 
Most importantly, the 1795 Act, as is the law today, requires that  any new citizen must  "absolutely and entirely renounce" any previous allegiance to any other Nation-State.   Somehow, the Obama Administration, (as well as the Bush Administration) forgot this most important aspect!!


I posted the text in its entirety.  It said NOTHING about immigration.
FURTHERMORE immigration AND naturalization remain distinctly different things.

Bob (pronounced Bub) comes to America.  If he wants to become a Citizen, (ie. to be naturalized) he must follow the rules drafted by Congress per AIS8C4.  If he has no interest whatsoever in becoming naturalized those rules have absolutely no bearing upon him whatsoever.

Migration, of course, is a natural right -- corollary to one's right to life.

Regard$,
--MJ

Do not separate text from historical background. If you do,
you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which
can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate
government.  -- James Madison

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: The Media Aren't Liberal


ROTFLMAO!
Spreading the State Gospel hardly makes you an advocate of 'smaller' OR a 'realist'.

Regard$,
--MJ

Will gentlemen suffer me to ask them to point out to me, if they can, the power which this government possesses to adopt to system for the avowed purpose of encouraging particular branches of industry? The power to declare war may involve the right of bringing into existence the means of national defence. But to tell us we have a right to resort to theoretical speculations, as to the most convenient or profitable employments of industry, and that you can, by law, encourage certain pursuits and prohibit others, is to make this not merely a consolidated, but an unlimited government. If you can control and direct any, why not all the pursuits of your citizens? And if all, where is the limitation to your authority? Gentlemen surely forget that the supreme power is
not in the government of the United States. They do not remember that the several states are free and independent sovereignties, and that all power not expressly granted to the federal government is reserved to the people of those sovereignties. When I say expressly delegated, I wish to be understood that no power can be exercised by Congress which is not expressly granted, or which is not clearly incident to such a grant. Now, when we call upon gentlemen to show their authority, they tell us it is derived from the authority to "regulate commerce."  But are regulation and annihilation synonymous terms? Does one include the other? Or are they not rather opposites, and does not the very idea of regulation exclude that of destruction? I rejoice, sir, to find that gentlemen refer us to commerce; for the very clause which expressly confers the right to regulate commerce, by saying nothing of the regulation of manufactures, or of agriculture,
or home industry, seems to demonstrate that they were intended to be put beyond our control, and to be reserved to the people of the states respectively.
-- Mr. Hayne, Debates of the Several ...



At 01:54 PM 11/2/2010, you wrote:
"Commerce" is the transaction or sale of items, between one indiviual, or entity, or corporation, or Nation-State, and another. 
 
I don't need a Latin, or a 1850 dictionary to tell me what Commerce means.  The definition meant the same 235 years ago, as it does today.
 
There is also the issue of, "What Is", verus, "What ought to be".  Whether we like it.....Or we don't like it, our Federal Courts have determined the definition of "Commerce" and has given our Congress wide latitude.  (c.f.;  See Lopez v. United States, and Sullivan v. Louisiana
 
I am not a big fan of, nor do I trust our Federal Government.   I do my part, each and every day, to make them smaller, and accountable!
 
I am also a realist!
 
 
 


 
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 1:41 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

There you go again.
Praise be to the Almighty Federal Government, Amen.

Americans in 1913 UNDERSTOOD the Constitution -- apparently better than you -- and sought the proper course found in Article V.

Regulate, of course, does not mean ban.  An Individual, of course, is not a State, Nation or Indian Tribe.  Commerce is the exchange of title.
CO'MMERCE.n.s.
[commercium, Latin. It was anciently accented on
the last syllable.]
Intercourse; exchange of one thing for another;
interchange of any thing; trade; traffick.
Samuel Johnson 1750
To RE'GULATE.v.a. [regula, Lat.]
1. To adjust by rule or method.
   Nature, in the production of things, always
   designs them to partake of certain, regulated,
   established essences, which are to be the models
   of all things to be produced: this, in that crude
   sense, would need some better explication.
 Locke.
2. To direct.
    Regulate the patient in his manner of living.
 Wiseman.
    Ev'n goddesses are women; and no wife
    Has pow'r to regulate her husband's life.
 Dryden.

Regard$,
--MJ

To "regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the States, and with the Indian tribes." To erect a bank, and to regulate commerce, are very different acts. He who erects a bank, creates
a subject of commerce in its bills; so does he who makes a bushel of wheat, or digs a dollar out of the mines; yet neither of these persons regulates commerce thereby. To make a thing which
may be bought and sold, is not to prescribe regulations for buying and selling. Besides, if this was an exercise of the power of regulating commerce, it would be void, as extending as much to the internal commerce of every State, as to its external. For the power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State, (that is to say of the commerce between citizen and citizen,) which remain exclusively with its own legislature; but to its external commerce only, that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes. Accordingly the bill does not propose the measure as a regulation of trade, but as "productive of considerable advantages to trade." Still less are these powers covered by any other of the special enumerations. -- Thomas Jefferson





At 01:31 PM 11/2/2010, you wrote:
Hey Michael!
 
See Title 21 United States Code, §841(a)(1) and §846.   In accordance with the Constitution, the Congress has the dominion to regulate interstate, (to some degree intrastate, if it affects interstate of international), and international  Commerce;
 
See U.S. Constitution, Article One, Section Eight, Clause Three:
 
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;


On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 11:58 AM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:
Note Amendment XVIII
Section. 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
Section. 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Section. 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
and its complement Amendment XXI
Section. 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Section. 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
Section. 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

Now, where -- exactly -- is the Amendment that empowers those Feds to criminalize -- say -- an arbitrary list of substances?
Give up?

Regard$,
--MJ

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. -- Amendment X





 
This simply, is  failed and misguided logic.   A state is more than capable of enacting environmental laws that are more stringent than federal guidelines,  but a State cannot legalize something that is outright prohibited in this Nation. 

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

That Mercantilist Commerce Clause


The Goal Is Freedom
That Mercantilist Commerce Clause
By Sheldon Richman
Published: 11 May 2007

The Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution has been used to justify a wide expansion of government power, from antidiscrimination laws to drug prohibition to a ban on guns near schools. In objecting to use of the Commerce Clause for such remote purposes, some constitutionalists rely on a particular historical interpretation of both the Clause and the Constitution as a whole. Roger Pilon, for instance, writes, [T]he Commerce Clause, through which so much modern drug law has been enacted, was written to enable Congress to regulate, or 'make regular,' commerce among the states–and, in particular, to enable Congress to override or address the state and foreign protectionism that was frustrating free trade when the clause was written…. It is all but a commonplace, however, that that was the principal rationale for the clause ­ indeed, for the new Constitution ­ in the first place. It was out of a pressing need to regularize the domestic and foreign commerce of the nation that was breaking down under government measures the Articles of Confederation permitted.

There certainly seems to be support for that position. As Pilon notes, Justice William Johnson put it in his concurrence in the first great Commerce Clause case, Gibbons v. Ogden: 'If there was any one object riding over every other in the adoption of the constitution, it was to keep the commercial intercourse among the States free from all invidious and partial restraints.'"

But there is to be more to the story, and it goes against Pilon's argument. In 2004 a revealing paper appeared in the William amp; Mary Bill of Rights Journal with the curious title, The Panda's Thumb: The Modest and Mercantilist:Original Meaning of the Commerce Clause. It's by Calvin Johnson, a law professor at the University of Texas. I came across this paper for the first time the other day while reading Richard Epstein's book How the Progressives Rewrote the Constitution.

Let's start with the text. Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, of the Constitution delegates to Congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.

What does regulate commerce mean? Does it mean only to make regular? Johnson took a promising route to finding out. He writes, To determine what was meant by 'regulation of commerce,' this review collects and categorizes 161 uses of the phrase 'regulation of commerce' or the word 'commerce' in the debates over the adoption of the Constitution. One hundred thirty-nine of those uses are associated with a specific goal or program…. The samples come from both sides of the debate and the sampling was intended to be omnivorous.

Here is Johnson's summary of his findings:

In the original debates over adoption of the Constitution, regulation of commerce was used, almost exclusively, as a cover of words for specific mercantilist proposals related to deep-water shipping and foreign trade. The Constitution was written before Adam Smith, laissez faire and free trade came to dominate economic thinking and the Commerce Clause draws its original meaning from the preceding mercantilist tradition. All of the concrete programs intended to be forwarded by giving Congress the power to regulate commerce were restrictions on international trade giving subsidy or protection to favored domestic merchants or punishing imports or foreign producers. [Emphasis added.]

He adds, Neither trade with the Indians nor interstate commerce shows up as a significant issue in the original debates.

And to drive the point home, he writes, "It is often now stated that the major purpose of the Constitution was to prevent protectionist economic policies among the states and to establish a common market with free trade across state borders. Barriers on interstate commerce, however, were not a notable issue in the original debates. (Emphasis added.)" This is consistent with the fact that the first economic bill passed by the first Congress under the Constitution ­ on July 4, 1789 ­ was a comprehensive protectionist tariff. (See TGIF: The Rent-Seeking Habit.) Moreover, as Jeffrey Rogers Hummel points out, the mercantilist Alexander Hamilton believed a strong national government was necessary precisely to keep the tariff higher than the states could have kept it. States competing for trade would drive it down to low levels, Hamilton feared. As he wrote in Federalist 12:

It is therefore, evident, that one national government would be able, at much less expence [sic], to extend the duties on imports, beyond comparison further, than would be practicable to the States separately, or to any partial confederacies: Hitherto I believe it may safely be asserted, that these duties have not upon an average exceeded in any State three per cent. . . . There seems to be nothing to hinder their being increased in this country, to at least treble their present amount.

Treble what the states were imposing! But only if trade policy was cartelized under a central government. This was a reason for replacing the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution. One can look at it as a document intended to stifle competition among the states.

Johnson reinforces this point: Hamilton argued that imposts by the individual states would be difficult to enforce because the bays, rivers and long borders between the states made smuggling too easy. On the federal level, however, there was only one side to guard ­ the Atlantic. The general government would regulate commerce with a uniform impost and so make commerce productive of general revenue.

Revenue was the big attraction for the advocates of a strong central government. James Madison asked, [W]as it not an acknowledged object of the Convention, and the universal expectation of the people, that the regulation of trade should be submitted to the general government in such a form as would render it an immediate source of general revenue?" Unfortunately, Johnson adds, the Anti-federalists did not oppose giving the power to tax imports to the national government. However, as he points out, the national government didn't need the Commerce Clause to tax imports or to stop the states from doing so. Those things are handled elsewhere in the Constitution.

Johnson continues:

Commerce in the constitutional debates primarily referred, at 83% of the program-associated quotes, to Atlantic Ocean shipping. The most important issues within regulation of commerce were tax issues: to regulate commerce meant to tax it (27% of program-associated quotes). The remainder of the actively-proposed programs under regulation of commerce, besides tax, were restrictions on foreign trade. Proponents of the Constitution advocated retaliatory tariffs against the British as punishment for excluding American ships from the British West Indies (28%) and they advocated giving American ships a monopoly on the export of American commodities (22%). [Emphasis added.]


Subsidies Favored Too

As this shows, revenue was not the only concern. Johnson documents that Federalists and Anti-federalists alike feared trade imbalances, the loss of gold and silver, and the importation of luxury goods. They were, at bottom, mercantilists. So too did they favor subsidies under the rubric regulation of commerce. Johnson writes, Hamilton had argued as early as 1781 that the Congress needed the 'power of regulating trade, comprehending a right of granting bounties and premiums by way of encouragement.' He was joined in this mercantilist effort by George Washington and Madison, who, lamenting what he called the present anarchy of our commerce, joined [Johnson writes] in the enthusiasm, denouncing those who were 'decoying the people into a belief that trade ought in all cases to be left to regulate itself.'

Johnson comments: Indeed, given that Madison had condemned those who advocated free trade and had traced most of our political and moral errors to the imports that drained us of our precious metals, the insincere part of Madison's 1789 address to the House was the opening claim that he was 'the friend to a very free system of commerce.'

The upshot of Johnson's thesis is that the Commerce Clause, contrary to common belief, was mercantilist in intent, although most of the protectionist program was never adopted because the people didn't want it. As a result, Johnson doesn't believe the Clause was the main impetus to the Constitution: Clause 1, the first power listed, gives the federal government the power to tax to provide for the common defense and general welfare. The tax power gave effect and consequence to the federal government. The explanation for the constitutional revolution thus plausibly resides in Clause 1, tax to provide for common defense and general welfare, rather than in Clause 3, the Commerce Clause.

But what about Justice Johnson's quote above claiming that the chief purpose of the Constitution was to keep interstate trade open? Professor Johnson responds: Justice Johnson's comments are not a fair description of the effect of the Constitution, but they are a fair description of a movement for nationalization and against balkanization of the states, which includes the adoption of the Articles [of Confederation]. He continues:

Reducing barriers on interstate trade, however, was not an important part of the constitutional debates. The major reason for this was that the goal had already been mostly achieved and was not challenged. The Articles of Confederation had already prohibited any state from imposing a duty, imposition or restriction on any out-of-state citizens that it did not impose on its own inhabitants. The states seem to have followed the norm well enough that the issue did not make it among the issues the debaters were most concerned about.

Nevertheless, many people believe that interstate trade barriers were the concern of the framers and ratifiers. How can that be? It might have something to do with the fact, Johnson writes, that The Federalists did use the specter of trade barriers to scare voters toward ratification of the Constitution…. [But] Hamilton's example of interstate barriers came from the German empire, not from the United States.

This brings us to Johnson's title, The Panda's Thumb. Fans of Stephen Jay Gould (pdf) will recognize that phrase. It's the title essay of one of his books and refers to the evolution of a panda's thumb from a wrist bone. Johnson's point is that from mercantilist beginnings, the Commerce Clause evolved into something else very different: That the power to regulate commerce was once a mercantilist clause, regulating commerce by restricting it, should not bother us very much. We are no longer mercantilists.

Considering the daily panic of pundits and politicians about the trade deficit, one has to wonder what Johnson is talking about here.

http://fee.org/articles/the-goal-is-freedom-that-mercantilist-commerce-clause/

Re: Don’t Vote


Spewing fallacy again.

You list failures of Government and then suggest they are instead free market failures.
Not the least unusual nor atypical.

Regard$,
--MJ

If to prevent trade were to stimulate industry
and promote prosperity, then the localities
where he was most isolated would show the first
advances of man. The natural protection to home
industry afforded by rugged mountains-chains,
by burning deserts, or by seas too wide and
tempestuous for the frail bark of the early
mariner would have given us the first glimmerings
of civilization and shown its most rapid growth.
But, in fact, it is where trade could best be
carried on that we find wealth first accumulating
and civilization beginning. It is on accessible
harbors, by navigable rivers and much traveled
highways that we find cities arising and the
arts and sciences developing.
  -- Henry George, Protection or Free Trade 1886




At 01:48 PM 11/2/2010, you wrote:
Well, how, "Moonbattery" of Mr. Kinsella!
 
"Argorist"??  I had to go and look up the term, which means, "Anarcho-Capitalist".  
 
No rules of law,  just a free market.   Hmmmmm.....Wonder how that will work out?
 
See Robber Barons, Soviet Nomenclatura, Bhopal India,  Bernie Madoff,  et. al;
 


 
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 12:14 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

Don't Vote
by Stephan Kinsella on November 2, 2010




A relative in Singapore called and said "Happy Election Day." Somewhat in jest. I have relatives and friends begging me to vote this time–Republican of course–"to kick those Marxists out of office." Yes, to replace them with the Republicans, who a few years ago started two wars, added Medicare Prescription socialism, and began the Bankster Bailouts. Yeah.

Last year I took my 6-year old with me to the polls and let him watch me cast a blank ballot. But a friend on Facebook recently admonished me:

Any participation in the voting process, even casting a blank ballot in protest, is acknowledging, perpetuating, and giving legitimacy to the state and its system.
Withdraw from the state. Don't vote at all. Embrace agorism. Spread freedom like a virus.

And of course the anti-voting position is common among many anarchist libertarians. 1 I'm still not completely convinced that it's immoral or unlibertarian to vote–especially just casting a blank ballot–but I'm leaning in that direction; and I certainly think there is no duty to vote. One libertarian I know thinks that while it's problematic to vote for a candidate for a given office, it's less problematic to vote on a ballot measure or law itself (like legalizing drugs or lowering taxes). Not sure, but I don't think I'm going to vote today.


Endnotes

See Wendy McElroy's various articles and resources, such as Why I Would Not Vote Against Hitler, The Good Intentions Paving Company, Act Responsibly: Don't Vote!, Anti-voting Resources; also John Roscoe and Ned Roscoe, Don't Vote: 20 Practical Reasons; Carl Watner, Non-Voting; George H. Smith, The Ethics of Voting; John Pugsley, Harry, Don't Run!. But see  R.W. Bradford, Voting Is No Sin. [ ]
http://www.libertarianstandard.com/2010/11/02/dont-vote/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thelibertarianstandard+%28The+Libertarian+Standard%29&utm_content=FaceBook

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: The Media Aren't Liberal

"Commerce" is the transaction or sale of items, between one indiviual, or entity, or corporation, or Nation-State, and another. 
 
I don't need a Latin, or a 1850 dictionary to tell me what Commerce means.  The definition meant the same 235 years ago, as it does today. 
 
There is also the issue of, "What Is", verus, "What ought to be".  Whether we like it.....Or we don't like it, our Federal Courts have determined the definition of "Commerce" and has given our Congress wide latitude.  (c.f.;  See Lopez v. United States, and Sullivan v. Louisiana)   
 
I am not a big fan of, nor do I trust our Federal Government.   I do my part, each and every day, to make them smaller, and accountable!
 
I am also a realist!
 
 
 


 
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 1:41 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

There you go again.
Praise be to the Almighty Federal Government, Amen.

Americans in 1913 UNDERSTOOD the Constitution -- apparently better than you -- and sought the proper course found in Article V.

Regulate, of course, does not mean ban.  An Individual, of course, is not a State, Nation or Indian Tribe.  Commerce is the exchange of title.
CO'MMERCE.n.s.
[commercium, Latin. It was anciently accented on
the last syllable.]
Intercourse; exchange of one thing for another;
interchange of any thing; trade; traffick.
Samuel Johnson 1750

To RE'GULATE.v.a. [regula, Lat.]
1. To adjust by rule or method.
   Nature, in the production of things, always
   designs them to partake of certain, regulated,
   established essences, which are to be the models
   of all things to be produced: this, in that crude
   sense, would need some better explication.
 Locke.
2. To direct.
    Regulate the patient in his manner of living.
 Wiseman.
    Ev'n goddesses are women; and no wife
    Has pow'r to regulate her husband's life.
 Dryden.

Regard$,
--MJ

To "regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the States, and with the Indian tribes." To erect a bank, and to regulate commerce, are very different acts. He who erects a bank, creates
a subject of commerce in its bills; so does he who makes a bushel of wheat, or digs a dollar out of the mines; yet neither of these persons regulates commerce thereby. To make a thing which
may be bought and sold, is not to prescribe regulations for buying and selling. Besides, if this was an exercise of the power of regulating commerce, it would be void, as extending as much to the internal commerce of every State, as to its external. For the power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State, (that is to say of the commerce between citizen and citizen,) which remain exclusively with its own legislature; but to its external commerce only, that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes. Accordingly the bill does not propose the measure as a regulation of trade, but as "productive of considerable advantages to trade." Still less are these powers covered by any other of the special enumerations. -- Thomas Jefferson





At 01:31 PM 11/2/2010, you wrote:
Hey Michael!
 
See Title 21 United States Code, §841(a)(1) and §846.   In accordance with the Constitution, the Congress has the dominion to regulate interstate, (to some degree intrastate, if it affects interstate of international), and international  Commerce;
 
See U.S. Constitution, Article One, Section Eight, Clause Three:
 
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;


On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 11:58 AM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

Note Amendment XVIII
Section. 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
Section. 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Section. 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
and its complement Amendment XXI
Section. 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Section. 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
Section. 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

Now, where -- exactly -- is the Amendment that empowers those Feds to criminalize -- say -- an arbitrary list of substances?
Give up?

Regard$,
--MJ

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. -- Amendment X





 
This simply, is  failed and misguided logic.   A state is more than capable of enacting environmental laws that are more stringent than federal guidelines,  but a State cannot legalize something that is outright prohibited in this Nation. 

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Black Ops...oh....I mean Ops of Color


wonder why no conspiracy theory people are writing about how immediately after this massive electoral loss, Obama and hundreds of members of his regime are going to India. A week after dirty bomb scares on the DC subway system. So if there is some kind of massive lethal explosion in DC when he is safely away, and some kind of emergency martial law....

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Don’t Vote

Well, how, "Moonbattery" of Mr. Kinsella!
 
"Argorist"??  I had to go and look up the term, which means, "Anarcho-Capitalist".  
 
No rules of law,  just a free market.   Hmmmmm.....Wonder how that will work out?
 
See Robber Barons, Soviet Nomenclatura, Bhopal India,  Bernie Madoff,  et. al;
 


 
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 12:14 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

Don't Vote
by Stephan Kinsella on November 2, 2010


Slave Suggestion Box (anti-voting)

A relative in Singapore called and said "Happy Election Day." Somewhat in jest. I have relatives and friends begging me to vote this time–Republican of course–"to kick those Marxists out of office." Yes, to replace them with the Republicans, who a few years ago started two wars, added Medicare Prescription socialism, and began the Bankster Bailouts. Yeah.

Last year I took my 6-year old with me to the polls and let him watch me cast a blank ballot. But a friend on Facebook recently admonished me:

Any participation in the voting process, even casting a blank ballot in protest, is acknowledging, perpetuating, and giving legitimacy to the state and its system.
Withdraw from the state. Don't vote at all. Embrace agorism. Spread freedom like a virus.

And of course the anti-voting position is common among many anarchist libertarians. 1 I'm still not completely convinced that it's immoral or unlibertarian to vote–especially just casting a blank ballot–but I'm leaning in that direction; and I certainly think there is no duty to vote. One libertarian I know thinks that while it's problematic to vote for a candidate for a given office, it's less problematic to vote on a ballot measure or law itself (like legalizing drugs or lowering taxes). Not sure, but I don't think I'm going to vote today.


Endnotes

  1. See Wendy McElroy's various articles and resources, such as Why I Would Not Vote Against Hitler, The Good Intentions Paving Company, Act Responsibly: Don't Vote!, Anti-voting Resources; also John Roscoe and Ned Roscoe, Don't Vote: 20 Practical Reasons; Carl Watner, Non-Voting; George H. Smith, The Ethics of Voting; John Pugsley, Harry, Don't Run!. But see  R.W. Bradford, Voting Is No Sin. [ ]

http://www.libertarianstandard.com/2010/11/02/dont-vote/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thelibertarianstandard+%28The+Libertarian+Standard%29&utm_content=FaceBook

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.