Dear MJ: You, rightly, have it in your mind that democracy can allow
selfish do-nothings to dominate the hard-working do-much people. But
you aren't realizing that such a situation amounts to group-against-
group, UNCONSTITUTIONAL government—exactly like the Founding Fathers
wanted so much to avoid! There are candidates for public office, out
there, who use government money that is not theirs as inducements to
get votes. Back in 2008, that Kenya native, Barack Obama, promised
gas price relief to every American. He was using government money to
advance his own treasonous bid for the White House.
The only sure way to know that there will be no "hidden" group-against-
group block votes, is not to outlaw the selfishly motivated, but to
make it a CAPITAL CRIME for any elected office holder to propose or to
support any bill that is the least bit socialistic or communistic. By
the simple expedient of requiring all elected officials to sware to
uphold the "NC", under penalty of death, I have, in a few sentences,
stopped the up-front or disguised power of groups to influence
anything that that government does that is even vaguely socialistic or
communistic:
"The Will of the People is the foundation of government. So,
Citizens' votes shall have parity without compromise. Principles of
fair play and democracy shall have supremacy in the USA. Any public
office holder who disavows or manifests disagreement with the latter
shall be guilty of treason. Those found guilty can be punished up to
and including the death penalty. Any government employee, media
figure or private person(s) who uses the authority or influence of
their job, or their celebrity, to argue against democracy and fair
play shall be guilty of a felony. Note: Fair play shall be defined as
any individual or group action that achieves positive results without
bias or partiality of the weak toward the strong nor of the strong
toward the weak so as to selfishly or maliciously exploit any
individual, group or class. None of the latter shall be allowed to
claim the personal property of others, or to limit the rights of others
—whether by government edict or private business rules—without first
obtaining the free consent of the property holder, or of the person or
group whose property is being taken or whose rights are being
limited. In no case shall fair play be defined as an entitlement of
an individual, group or class to have equality of lifestyle, material
possessions or any assisted living equivalent thereof paid for by
others. In the USA the ideal shall be to have reasonable equality of
opportunity for self determination of one's own lifestyle and level of
personal achievement within our Free Enterprise System without
requiring government oversight."
So, MJ, a constitution-limited democracy-on-demand government, such as
my "NC" will form, can never turn socialistic! Realize, that since
you desire to pay no taxes, all that you need to do is to not buy
anything other than non-taxed food and drugs. If you lived in a
dwelling which you already own, you would be able to live tax-free
because ONLY value-added tax is allowed under my "NC". Because I am
an architect who periodically got hit by recession unemployment, in
the back of my mind I knew there should be some way to take financial
pressures off of people who are under such stresses. I can envision
buried-in-the-ground "storm shelters" that have solar collectors for
power and sealed, waterless toilets for sewage and organic waste
digestion for creating methane gas for cooking. The only outside
"cost" would be like a ¼" cold water pipe that could be run from the
'parent' house. If any person or small family wished to live there
for months or years, that would be possible. Remember, our
'ancestors' lived in caves. I'm not expecting to be doing that,
myself, but I hope this relieves your concerns that a selfish
democracy will ever adversely affect anyone. — John A. Armistead
—
On Sep 20, 8:36 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> What you continue to miss is that you have 50%+1
> deciding to VIOLATE the (natural) rights of at least 50%-1.
> Taxation is theft. It is immoral. It is a
> violation of every Individual's (natural) rights.
> If an Individual were to perform the SAME action, he would be a thief.
> "The fact is that government, like a highwayman,
> says to a man: "Your money or your life." And
> many, if not most, taxes are paid under the
> compulsion of that threat. The government does
> not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place,
> spring upon him from the roadside, and, holding a
> pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his
> pockets. But the robbery is none the less a
> robbery on that account; and it is far more
> dastardly and shameful." -- Lysander Spooner
> If your Constitution EMBRACES such, then the
> Government it creates is merely ANOTHER Gang.
>
> Regard$,
> --MJ
>
> "The State is almost universally considered an
> institution of social service. Some theorists
> venerate the State as the apotheosis of society;
> others regard it as an amiable, though often
> inefficient, organization for achieving social
> ends; but almost all regard it as a necessary
> means for achieving the goals of mankind, a means
> to be ranged against the "private sector" and
> often winning in this competition of resources.
> With the rise of democracy, the identification of
> the State with society has been redoubled, until
> it is common to hear sentiments expressed which
> violate virtually every tenet of reason and
> common sense such as, "we are the government."
> The useful collective term "we" has enabled an
> ideological camouflage to be thrown over the
> reality of political life. If "we are the
> government," then anything a government does to
> an individual is not only just and untyrannical
> but also "voluntary" on the part of the
> individual concerned. If the government has
> incurred a huge public debt which must be paid by
> taxing one group for the benefit of another, this
> reality of burden is obscured by saying that "we
> owe it to ourselves"; if the government
> conscripts a man, or throws him into jail for
> dissident opinion, then he is "doing it to
> himself" and, therefore, nothing untoward has
> occurred. Under this reasoning, any Jews murdered
> by the Nazi government were not murdered;
> instead, they must have "committed suicide,"
> since they were the government (which was
> democratically chosen), and, therefore, anything
> the government did to them was voluntary on their
> part. One would not think it necessary to belabor
> this point, and yet the overwhelming bulk of the
> people hold this fallacy to a greater or lesser degree.
>
> "We must, therefore, emphasize that "we" are not
> the government; the government is not "us." The
> government does not in any accurate sense
> "represent" the majority of the people.[1] But,
> even if it did, even if 70 percent of the people
> decided to murder the remaining 30 percent, this
> would still be murder and would not be voluntary
> suicide on the part of the slaughtered
> minority.[2] No organicist metaphor, no
> irrelevant bromide that "we are all part of one
> another," must be permitted to obscure this basic
> fact." -- Murray Rothbard, The Anatomy of the State
>
> [1] We cannot, in this chapter, develop the many
> problems and fallacies of "democracy." Suffice it
> to say here that an individual's true agent or
> "representative" is always subject to that
> individual's orders, can be dismissed at any time
> and cannot act contrary to the interests or
> wishes of his principal. Clearly, the
> "representative" in a democracy can never fulfill
> such agency functions, the only ones consonant with a libertarian society.
>
> [2] Social democrats often retort that
> democracy majority choice of rulers logically
> implies that the majority must leave certain
> freedoms to the minority, for the minority might
> one day become the majority. Apart from other
> flaws, this argument obviously does not hold
> where the minority cannot become the majority,
> for example, when the minority is of a different
> racial or ethnic group from the majority.
>
> At 06:35 PM 9/19/2012, you wrote:
>
>
>
> >Dear MJ: You get one vote, if there is ever a proposed controversial
> >bill to do away with all taxation. I will bet that you would lose.
> >But I admire your strength of conviction. But have you written a New
> >Constitution that accomplishes your objectives? Note: Your one or two
> >page outline comes up about fifty pages and twenty years shy of being
> >something workable that can be voted on, and passed, in a single day.
> >— John A. Armistead —
>
> >On Sep 19, 12:42 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > Taxation remains theft.
> > > Any infrastructure will be provided by the
> > marketplace and paid for by those using said infrastructure.
> > > Do some research concerning the Militia AND
> > also standing armies. Perhaps some light might be shed.
> > > Why am I suppose to accept theft (or rape)
> > ... or seek some other place to live? Huh?
> > > Why not fund government by donation? If it is
> > THAT important, the People will send their dollars in without hesitation.
> > > Regard$,
> > > --MJ
> > > "If taxation without consent is not robbery,
> > then any band of robbers have only to declare
> > themselves a government and all their robberies
> > are legalized." -- Lysander SpoonerAt 08:14 AM
> > 9/19/2012, you wrote:MJ: Most Americans, other
> > than survivalists living off the land,
> > > realize that we must pay "something" for infrastructure and for the
> > > protection of our military. 10% value added tax should produce enough
> > > money to do the job, with no administrative IRS required. If you want
> > > total freedom from taxation, buy a desert island and don't move off.
> > > — J. A. A. —
> > > On Sep 18, 8:51 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > > Consent is illusory.
> > > > Taxes are theft.
>
> > > > Regard$,
> > > > --MJ
>
> > > > 640K ought to be enough for anybody. -- Bill Gates, 1981
>
> > > > At 08:42 PM 9/14/2012, you wrote:
>
> > > > >MJ: Constitutional government has no power without the consent of the
> > > > >governed. That means, within limits, that there can be no taxation
> > > > >without representation. Taxes TAKE property. And if such is without
> > > > >consent, doing so is a crime. The top 5% of the income makers are
> > > > >paying over half of the taxes. Some, such as the super-rich Hollywood
> > > > >stars, don't mind allowing government to take 95% of what they have.
> > > > >That way, they get to feel less guilty for being better-off than
> > > > >most. Know this: Under my "NC" there will be the requirement of
> > > > >having the approval of the taxpayers, if any amount of money beyond
> > > > >the "consensus" of the wealthy is taken. I would bet that such amount
> > > > >won't exceed 15%. Being allowed to protect one's hard-earned property
> > > > >and being allowed to pass such to chosen heirs and assigns is
> > > > >fundamental. Governments shall be deferential to the People; never
> > > > >again, the taskmasters of the People! — J. A. Armistead —
>
> > > > >On Sep 13, 7:04 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > > > > Source of RightsbyFrank ChodorovThe axiom of
> > > > > what is often called "individualism" is that
> > > > > every person has certain inalienable rights.
> > > > > For example, "individualism" holds that
> > > > > propertyas suchobviously has no rights; there
> > > > > is only the inherent right of a person to
> > his honestly acquired property. . . .
> > > > > > The axiom of socialism is that the individual
> > > > > has no inherent rights. The privileges and
> > > > > prerogatives that the individual enjoys are
> > > > > grants from society, acting through its
> > > > > management committee, the government. That is
> > > > > the condition the individual must accept for
> > > > > the benefit of being a member of society.
> > > > > Hence, the socialists (including many who do
> > > > > not so name themselves) reject the statement of
> > > > > rights in the Declaration of Independence,
> > > > > calling it a fiction of the eighteenth century.
> > > > > > In support of his denial of natural rights,
> > > > > the socialist points out that there is no
> > > > > positive proof in favor of that doctrine. Where
> > > > > is the documentary evidence? Did God hand man a
> > > > > signed statement endowing him with the rights
> > > > > he claims for himself, but denies to the birds
> > > > > and beasts who also inhabit the earth? If in
> > > > > answer to these questions you bring in the soul
> > > > > idea, you are right back to where you were in
> > > > > the beginning: How can you prove that man has a soul?
> > > > > > Those who accept the axiom of natural rights
> > > > > are backed against the wall by that kind of
> > > > > reasoning, until they examine the opposite
> > > > > axiom, that all rights are grants or loans from
> > > > > government.Where did government get the rights
> > > > > which it dispenses?If it is said that its fund
> > > > > of rights is collected from individuals, as the
> > > > > condition for their membership in society, the
> > > > > question arises, where did the individual get
> > > > > the rights which he gave up? He cannot give up
> > > > > what he never had in the first place,
> > which is what the socialist maintains.
> > > > > > What is this thing called government, which
> > > > > can grant and take away rights? There are all
> > > > > sorts of answers to that question, but all the
> > > > > answers will agree on one point, that
> > > > > government is a social instrument enjoying a monopoly of coercion.
> > > > > > The socialist says that the monopoly of
> > > > > coercion is vested in the government in order
> > > > > that it may bring about an ideal social and
> > > > > economic order; others say that the government
> > > > > must have a monopoly of coercion in order to
> > > > > prevent individuals
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment