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 from using coercion on one
> > > another. In short, the essential characteristic
> > > of government is power. If, then, we say that
> > > our rights stem from government, on a loan
> > > basis, we admit that whoever gets control of
> > > the power vested in government is the author of
> > > rights. And simply because he has the power to
> > > enforce his will. Thus,the basic axiom of
> > > socialism, in all its forms, is that might is right.
> > > > And that means that power is all there is to
> > > morality. If I am bigger and stronger than you
> > > and you have no way of defending yourself, then
> > > it is right if I thrash you; the fact that I
> > > did thrash you is proof that I had the right to
> > > do so. On the other hand, if you can intimidate
> > > me with a gun, then right returns to your side.
> > > All of which comes to mere nonsense. And a
> > > social order based on the socialistic axiom
> > > which makes the government the final judge of
> > > all morality is a nonsensical society. It is a
> > > society in which the highest value is the
> > > acquisition of power as exemplified in a Hitler
> > > or a Stalin and the fate of those who cannot
> > > acquire it is subservience as a condition of existence.
> > > > The senselessness of the socialistic axiom is
> > > shown by the fact that there would be no
> > > society, and therefore no government, if there
> > > were no individuals. The human being is the
> > > unit of all social institutions; without a man
> > > there cannot be a crowd. Hence, we are
> > > compelled to look to the individual to find an
> > > axiom on which to build a non-socialistic moral
> > > code. What does he tell us about himself?
> > > > In the first place, he tells us that above
> > > all things he wants to live. He tells us this
> > > even when he first comes into the world and
> > > lets out a yell. Because of that primordial
> > > desire, he maintains, he has a right to live.
> > > Certainly, nobody else can establish a valid
> > > claim to his life, and for that reason he
> > > traces his own title to an authority that
> > > transcends all men, to God. That title makes sense.
> > > > When the individual says he has a valid title
> > > to life, he means that all that is he, is his
> > > own: his body, his mind, his faculties. Maybe
> > > there is something else in life, such as a
> > > soul, but without going into that realm, he is
> > > willing to settle on what he knows about
> > > himself his consciousness. All that is "I" is
> > > "mine." That implies, of course, that all that
> > > is "you" is "yours" for, every "you" is an "I." Rights work both ways.
> > > > But, while just wanting to live gives the
> > > individual a title to life, it is an empty
> > > title unless he can acquire the things that
> > > make life liveable, beginning with food,
> > > raiment, and shelter. These things do not come
> > > to you because you want them; they come as the
> > > result of putting labor to raw materials. You
> > > have to give something of yourself your brawn
> > > or your brain to make the necessary things
> > > available. Even wild berries have to be picked
> > > before they can be eaten. But the energy you
> > > put out to make the necessary things is part of
> > > you; it is you.Therefore, when you cause these
> > > things to exist, your title to yourself, your
> > >...
>
> read 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.
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Re: Paying taxes doesn’t allow Atheists, nor any g roup , to dictate to others.
Dear MJ: The US Senate is prominently mentioned in the original
Constitution. Such is an oligarchy, not a Representative Republic,
and is thus unconstitutional. The US Supreme Court was "mentioned",
and happened to be part of an entire article relative to the courts.
Airheads wrongly assumed that because the latter was explained in a
separate article that there was this intent (sic) that there be a
balance of power, with the courts being equal to the executive and to
the "Congress"—which as a 'total' (with the Senate) is
unconstitutional. Nowhere is the Supreme Court given the power to do
anything other than to say, "yea or nay" to Constitutionality, and to
refer any questionable law back to the Congress to bring into
compliance, or else to rescind that law. But what we have is BIASED
justices being so thrilled to have been nominated, that they vote on
issues the way the President(s) who nominated them would wish. Thus,
the God damned Supreme Court has become this "alternate" way to get
controversial things enacted, such as the clearly UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Obama Care!!! My "NC" castrates the entire court system to never be
considered part of some imaginary "balance of power". I know that I
am right on this, because the "swing" vote of a single justice now has
more 'power' than the entire Congress. I can assure you that the
Founding Fathers only wanted levels of appeal in order to be certain
that no individual wrongly gets long sentences or is put to death.
The above should point out the "constitutionality" is an issue of
effect, not of the means. The effect of political parties is to allow
either of two biased groups to control our government. If FAIRNESS
matters to you, MJ, you will understand that political parties have no
more right to be controlling our government than labor unions and
right-to-lifers. Deciding issues by which group is the strongest was
the norm for millennia, and THAT is what our forefathers were fleeing
from when they formed the USA. Anyone who defends 'group' anything,
is against having the USA survive as a nation. Get on-board, MJ!
There are worthy adversaries to moral government that you should be
attacking. I want the USA to survive! And the quicker Obama can be
hanged for TREASON, the better! — John A. Armistead —
On Sep 19, 12:42 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> <sigh>
> LOTS of things are not mentioned in the Constitution -- does not make them unconstitutional.
> The people will NEVER be in equal control of the Government nor should they. Government -- legitimate Government -- secures (natural) rights <period>. Anything else necessarily provides advantage to some at the expense of everyone else. This reduces Government to just another run-of-the-mill GANG.
> What does this 'control' look like? 50%+1 forcing 50%-1 to do as they wish?
> A Political Party -- an association of people with an 'elective' goal -- is in no way unconstitutional.
> Members of said Parties USING Government to garner advantage for said parties and similar *IS* unconstitutional.
> Regard$,
> --MJ
> "Americans upset by laws, regulations, and policies are constantly demanding government reforms. But, on reflection, this demand is almost preposterous, because the people are calling on the very persons who, to promote their own interests, created the offensive laws, regulations, and policies in the first place. Calling for the rulers to reform the government is like calling for cats to befriend mice or for cannibals to take up vegetarianism." -- Robert HiggsAt 08:26 AM 9/19/2012, you wrote:Dear MJ: Political parties aren't mentioned in the original
> Constitution. The main objective of the latter is to have the people
> to be equally in control of government. I've explained the rationale
> quite clearly. What you state is freedom of association. Apart from
> that, when any group having any ideology interjects itself between the
> people and the government that they are supposed to control, that is
> an entirely different form of government than the sought, but never
> realized, Representative Republic the Founding Fathers had in mind.
> Look at the EFFECTS not just the associations, and you will realize
> that having dominate group power is NOT why the USA was formed! — J.
> A. A. —
> On Sep 18, 8:51 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > Political parties are NOT unconstitutional.
> > When they use Government to secure advantage, those ACTIONS are certainly unconstitutional.
> > Regard$,
> > --MJ
> > "Politics under democracy consists almost wholly of the discovery, chase and scotching of bugaboos. The statesman becomes, in the last analysis, a mere witch-hunter, a glorified smeller and snooper, eternally chanting Fe, Fi, Fo, Fum! It has been so in the United States since the earliest days. The whole history of the country has been a history of melodramatic pursuits of horrendous monsters, most of them imaginary: the red-coats, the Hessians, the monocrats, again the red-coats, the Bank, the Catholics, Simon Legree, the Slave Power, Jeff Davis, Mormonism, Wall Street, the rum demon, John Bull, the hell hounds of plutocracy, the trusts, General Weyler, Pancho Villa, German spies, hyphenates, the Kaiser, Bolshevism. The list might be lengthened indefinitely; a complete chronicle of the Republic could be written in terms of it, and without omitting a single important episode." -- H.L. Mencken, 1926At 09:23 AM 9/16/2012, you wrote:Dear Keith: Political parties began with the objective of "beating-the-
> > bushes" to be sure there would be candidates running who would be
> > acceptable to a particular faction if such candidate(s) got elected.
> > Soon it was realized that the best benefit to the faction would be to
> > use its growing influence to try to assure that the candidate favored
> > by the faction would get elected. At that point, political parties
> > became UNCONSTITUTIONAL! A process too many of us now accept as the
> --
> 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.
Constitution. Such is an oligarchy, not a Representative Republic,
and is thus unconstitutional. The US Supreme Court was "mentioned",
and happened to be part of an entire article relative to the courts.
Airheads wrongly assumed that because the latter was explained in a
separate article that there was this intent (sic) that there be a
balance of power, with the courts being equal to the executive and to
the "Congress"—which as a 'total' (with the Senate) is
unconstitutional. Nowhere is the Supreme Court given the power to do
anything other than to say, "yea or nay" to Constitutionality, and to
refer any questionable law back to the Congress to bring into
compliance, or else to rescind that law. But what we have is BIASED
justices being so thrilled to have been nominated, that they vote on
issues the way the President(s) who nominated them would wish. Thus,
the God damned Supreme Court has become this "alternate" way to get
controversial things enacted, such as the clearly UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Obama Care!!! My "NC" castrates the entire court system to never be
considered part of some imaginary "balance of power". I know that I
am right on this, because the "swing" vote of a single justice now has
more 'power' than the entire Congress. I can assure you that the
Founding Fathers only wanted levels of appeal in order to be certain
that no individual wrongly gets long sentences or is put to death.
The above should point out the "constitutionality" is an issue of
effect, not of the means. The effect of political parties is to allow
either of two biased groups to control our government. If FAIRNESS
matters to you, MJ, you will understand that political parties have no
more right to be controlling our government than labor unions and
right-to-lifers. Deciding issues by which group is the strongest was
the norm for millennia, and THAT is what our forefathers were fleeing
from when they formed the USA. Anyone who defends 'group' anything,
is against having the USA survive as a nation. Get on-board, MJ!
There are worthy adversaries to moral government that you should be
attacking. I want the USA to survive! And the quicker Obama can be
hanged for TREASON, the better! — John A. Armistead —
On Sep 19, 12:42 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> <sigh>
> LOTS of things are not mentioned in the Constitution -- does not make them unconstitutional.
> The people will NEVER be in equal control of the Government nor should they. Government -- legitimate Government -- secures (natural) rights <period>. Anything else necessarily provides advantage to some at the expense of everyone else. This reduces Government to just another run-of-the-mill GANG.
> What does this 'control' look like? 50%+1 forcing 50%-1 to do as they wish?
> A Political Party -- an association of people with an 'elective' goal -- is in no way unconstitutional.
> Members of said Parties USING Government to garner advantage for said parties and similar *IS* unconstitutional.
> Regard$,
> --MJ
> "Americans upset by laws, regulations, and policies are constantly demanding government reforms. But, on reflection, this demand is almost preposterous, because the people are calling on the very persons who, to promote their own interests, created the offensive laws, regulations, and policies in the first place. Calling for the rulers to reform the government is like calling for cats to befriend mice or for cannibals to take up vegetarianism." -- Robert HiggsAt 08:26 AM 9/19/2012, you wrote:Dear MJ: Political parties aren't mentioned in the original
> Constitution. The main objective of the latter is to have the people
> to be equally in control of government. I've explained the rationale
> quite clearly. What you state is freedom of association. Apart from
> that, when any group having any ideology interjects itself between the
> people and the government that they are supposed to control, that is
> an entirely different form of government than the sought, but never
> realized, Representative Republic the Founding Fathers had in mind.
> Look at the EFFECTS not just the associations, and you will realize
> that having dominate group power is NOT why the USA was formed! — J.
> A. A. —
> On Sep 18, 8:51 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > Political parties are NOT unconstitutional.
> > When they use Government to secure advantage, those ACTIONS are certainly unconstitutional.
> > Regard$,
> > --MJ
> > "Politics under democracy consists almost wholly of the discovery, chase and scotching of bugaboos. The statesman becomes, in the last analysis, a mere witch-hunter, a glorified smeller and snooper, eternally chanting Fe, Fi, Fo, Fum! It has been so in the United States since the earliest days. The whole history of the country has been a history of melodramatic pursuits of horrendous monsters, most of them imaginary: the red-coats, the Hessians, the monocrats, again the red-coats, the Bank, the Catholics, Simon Legree, the Slave Power, Jeff Davis, Mormonism, Wall Street, the rum demon, John Bull, the hell hounds of plutocracy, the trusts, General Weyler, Pancho Villa, German spies, hyphenates, the Kaiser, Bolshevism. The list might be lengthened indefinitely; a complete chronicle of the Republic could be written in terms of it, and without omitting a single important episode." -- H.L. Mencken, 1926At 09:23 AM 9/16/2012, you wrote:Dear Keith: Political parties began with the objective of "beating-the-
> > bushes" to be sure there would be candidates running who would be
> > acceptable to a particular faction if such candidate(s) got elected.
> > Soon it was realized that the best benefit to the faction would be to
> > use its growing influence to try to assure that the candidate favored
> > by the faction would get elected. At that point, political parties
> > became UNCONSTITUTIONAL! A process too many of us now accept as the
> --
> 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.
Fwd: Gary Johnson LIVE Town Hall in ONE HOUR
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:
Date: Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Subject: Gary Johnson LIVE Town Hall in ONE HOUR
To: endorse@garyjohnson2012.com
LIVE Town Hall TONIGHT -- WEDNESDAY SEPTEMBER 19th at 7PM EDT --
The program will feature our new commercials, as well as the finalists for the fan video contest. Gov. Johnson will also take questions during the town hall.
We encourage you to find a local viewing party for the Live National Townhall! Check your state's Facebook page for more information on the closest viewing party near you.
We encourage you to find a local viewing party for the Live National Townhall! Check your state's Facebook page for more information on the closest viewing party near you.
You can also watch the townhall by visiting www.GaryJohnson2012.com. Viewing is free.
See you there!
See you there!
I Side With NEWS
I Side With would like to add all of the 2012 Libertarian Senate and House Candidates to our user's results pages.
Please take the quiz and email us the URL to their results pages: info@isidewith.com
For more information about us click here: http://www.isidewith.com/about/
For information on the quiz click here: http://www.isidewith.com/faqs
For more information contact Taylor Peck co-founder, iSideWith.com at taylorEpeck@gmail.com
46 MORE days to GO!!
Joe
Joseph G. Buchman, PhD
Candidate Research and Development
Direct: 435 602 0798 Campaign HQ: 801 303 7926
Candidate Research and Development
Direct: 435 602 0798 Campaign HQ: 801 303 7926
731 East South Temple, Salt Lake City, Utah 84102
GaryJohnson2012.com
Join us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter Make A Contribution
GaryJohnson2012.com
Join us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter Make A Contribution
--
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.
Judge Jim Gray, Libertarian veep
------
| ||||||
--
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.
Judge Jim Gray on school choice
--
| ||||||
--
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)