Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

The proper function of government is to pass only
the minimum number of laws to be sure capitalism—the concept of which
has existed for millennia—doesn't become unfair or burdensome to the
people.  There are no "czars" or government officials required to pull
any of the strings.

Which is necessarily ZERO laws. As Capitalism is the system in which people are free to use their private property without outside interference.
As already pointed out from one of the 'snippets' of this constitution you allowed others to 'see' ... your constitution intervenes in the free use of property.

Maximum civil liberties parallel having the MINIMUM of government
interaction with the people.  And that is NOT anarchy.  My New
Constitution clearly defines the limits of both business, social, and
governmental influences of our lives. 

You contradict the FIRST section (above) with this section.
Again, what is it you imagine 'civil' liberties to entail?

Regard$,
--MJ

Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think that you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.  -- Francisco d'Anconia

Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

John,

If, as you stated earlier, YOUR New Constitution "defines the limits of both business, social, and governmental influences of our lives."

Will it allow me the right to live my life in any way I choose so long as I respect the equal rights of others?

Will it allow me to defend my right to life, liberty, and property-rights — rights that existed naturally before any government was created?

Will it allow me the freedom to travel unrestricted — a right that existed naturally before any government was created?

Will it limit government initiation of force to actions that involve the prior initiation of force by others — such as murder, rape, robbery, kidnapping, and fraud?

Will it allow businesses to compete on equal footing — no special privileges to Monsanto, AT&T, Lockheed Martin, etc.?

I could continue, but you have a tendency to not answer any questions — preferring instead to resort to name calling. Will this instance be any different?

On 03/23/2011 08:51 AM, NoEinstein wrote:

Dear Jonathan:  You don't qualify to interpret even one sentence of my New Constitution!  The proper function of government is to pass only the minimum number of laws to be sure capitalism—the concept of which has existed for millennia—doesn't become unfair or burdensome to the people.  There are no "czars" or government officials required to pull any of the strings.  Maximum civil liberties parallel having the MINIMUM of government interaction with the people.  And that is NOT anarchy.  My New Constitution clearly defines the limits of both business, social, and governmental influences of our lives.  I recommend to others (than Jonathan) my recently published book: "The Shortest Distance; Harmony Through Prosperity."  from Amazon, and Barnes and Noble.  There is a chapter on spheres of freedom that explains how your personal freedoms are limited only when those directly and negatively impact the freedoms of others.  If anyone thinks they have the "freedom" to tell others how to live their lives, I would suggest you immediately moving out of the USA.  No "group" nor individuals will have the power to limit your personal liberties—trust me on that!  —  John A. Armistead — Patriot 

On Mar 22, 7:02 pm, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote: 

John,  Hopefully you realize that the term "capitalism" was non-existent when the Constitution was written. It first appeared circa 1854.  Setting that aside, in pure capitalism, also called the free-market system, all economic decisions are made _without government intervention_. Yet YOUR New Constitution appears to ignore that concept.  Any constitution that wants to promote free market enterprise should by necessity prevent government intervention into business.  I must also point out that if one has to codify "maximum civil liberties" (as YOUR New Constitution is want to do) it implies that a government has control over ones life. Otherwise one would have complete liberty without such need.      *LIBERTY,* n. [L. libertas, from liber, free.]      1. Freedom from restraint, in a general sense, and applicable to the     body, or to the will or mind.*      CIVIL*, a. Relating to the community, or _to the policy and     government of the citizens and subjects of a state_;  On 03/22/2011 03:35 PM, NoEinstein wrote:          

Mark, if you feel that way, then you too are a socialist-communist�or else you can't read and comprehend.  Attack me in any way, and you attack fair, free-enterprise capitalism and having maximum civil liberties for the vast majority of Americans.  Until you can recognize those facts, I have you correctly pegged-through-the-heart with a sharply pointed wooden stake.  ï¿½ NE � On Mar 22, 11:55 am, Mark<markmka...@gmail.com>  wrote: 

Kinda like you and your supposed "constitution" that goes beyond the scope of a REAL Constitution ie. 

*The fundamental law, written or unwritten, that establishes the character of a government by defining the basic principles to which a society must conform; by describing the organization of the government and regulation, distribution, and limitations on the functions of different government departments; and by prescribing the extent and manner of the exercise of its sovereign powers.* * * ***Go, get a new life. **what you are doing is a waste of your time and most importantly....MINE. I have to read all the drivel (your "constitution" posts) as well as all the meaningful stuff every day on this forum. What you have written and displayed so far IS A JOKE.* 

On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 9:33 AM, NoEinstein<noeinst...@bellsouth.net>wrote: 

MJ:  All of those quotations of others that you cut and paste aren't increasing your status in the groups one bit.  And haven't you heard? It isn't polite to YELL (use larger type size).  You are a pest on my post, simply because you know I have a lot of things going for me.  In the perhaps years you have "tooted" your one page constitution, you haven't gotten many readers, have you.  Please make a "quote" of your own worthy of being in Bartlett's.  If you can't do that, then you should seriously consider getting another (pretend) hobby.  ï¿½ J. A. A. � On Mar 21, 10:11 am, MJ<micha...@america.net>  wrote: 

And yet AGAIN ... you offer a response. SADLY, you offer no support to your claims. Regard$, --MJMuch of the intellectual legacy of Marx is an anti-intellectual 

legacy. It has been said that you cannot refute a sneer. Marxism has taught many-inside and outside its ranks-to sneer at capitalism, at inconvenient facts or contrary interpretations, and thus ultimately to sneer at the intellectual process itself. This has been one of the sources of its enduring strength as a political doctrine, and as a means of acquiring and using political power in unbridled ways. -- Thomas SowellAt 10:06 AM 3/21/2011, you wrote:Party crashers, like MJ, are undeserving of being replied to.  ï¿½ J. A. 

A. � On Mar 19, 9:50 pm, MJ<micha...@america.net>  wrote: 

It is my understanding that I am a member (in good standing?) of this 

Group (PoliticalFo...@GoogleGroups.com). 

I never claimed to be a moderator. I did not request a 'discussion'. I did, however, ask for YOU to support YOUR assertion and explain:    What 'constitutional rights' do you imagine 'run counter' when you 

claim, "sometimes runs counter to the Constitutional rights of both patients and their families" 

Apparently you cannot support your claim(s) which is why you resort to 

spewing fallacy when anyone responds to your posts. 

Regard$, --MJ"Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a 

right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature." -- Samuel Adams, November 20, 1772At 05:42 PM 3/18/2011, you wrote:Dear MJ:  You are a rude party crasher, not a moderator.  I am not 

interested in having a discussion with anyone regarding the specifics of my New Constitution.  As for science, I am the King of the Hill of patriotic Americans!  ï¿½ J. A. Armistead � On Mar 17, 8:45 pm, MJ<micha...@america.net>  wrote: 

In medical facilities all across the country, "medical protocol" sometimes runs counter to the Constitutional rights of both patients and their families. 

What 'constitutional rights' do you imagine to have 'run counter'? Please cite some examples. Regard$, --MJ Today, when a concerted effort is made to obliterate this point, it cannot be repeated too often that the Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals -- that it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government -- that it is not a charter _for_ government power, but a charter of the citizen's protection _against_ the government. -- Alyssa Rosenbaum 

-- 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 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 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. 

-- *Mark M. Kahle H.* * * *Fila Coffee* *www.filacoffee.com* 

 -- Never, ever interact with a government official without having a recorder running.  Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft <http://8f7ab0ybg8rx5p6mloffi9yw8t.hop.clickbank.net/> 

--
Never, ever interact with a government official without having a recorder running.

Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft

Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

 If you find what I'm writing to be interesting enough to read every day, then you are either very much in favor of what I'm saying or very threatened and thus opposed.

Fallacy of bifurcation

 The "tone" of my document is pro control of government by the people; maximum civil liberties; having the most efficient use of tax dollars; respect for the environment; and respect for the rights of others.  I suspect you can't see the positive tone, because
you are jealous of my commitment and talent to accomplish what I have. 

By WHICH people?
What is a 'civil liberty'?
Most efficient as defined by whom? Why them? You do realize by clinging to 'taxation' you are endorsing what you previously suggested that you opposed.

If you are FOR the people, Mark, embrace my New Constitution.

Fallacy of Audiatur et altera pars as well as Denial of the antecedent -- among others.

If you are AGAINST the people, then stop replying on my posts.  No
socialist-communists are welcomed in the USA!  — John A. Armistead —

I think you uphold Inigo Montoya's observation quite well.
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."



YOU DO REALIZE THAT THIS IS YELLING!?!?

Regard$,
--MJ

Much of the intellectual legacy of Marx is an anti-intellectual legacy. It has been said that you cannot refute a sneer. Marxism has taught many-inside and outside its ranks-to sneer at capitalism, at inconvenient facts or contrary interpretations, and thus ultimately to sneer at the intellectual process itself. This has been one of the sources of its enduring strength as a political doctrine, and as a means of acquiring and using political power in unbridled ways. -- Thomas Sowell


Patriot

>
On Mar 22, 7:50 pm, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The biggest problem Einstein will have with his "New Constitution" is that
> we CAN READ AND COMPREHEND.
>
> The other immediate problem is that he can't remember one day to the next
> what he says.
>
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 4:47 PM, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
>
> > Asked and answered -- only you tried to change the subject while pretending
> > it did not occur. ELSEWHERE in THIS thread: Socialism and communism are
> > the anti-thesis of a representative republic or a democracy.  My New
> > Constitution RETURNS civil liberties to the People and will fire, jail or
> > hang those in government who support socialism and communism.  When you
> > attack my New Constitution with your "include me" talk, you are attacking
> > THE most pro capitalism and pro civil liberties person on the planet!  Get
> > lost, Jonathan!  ­ J. A. A. ­
> > And now HERE in THIS thread the same person:
> > I am personally recommending that Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and
> > Unemployment Insurance ALL be privatized­while continuing to "cover" only
> > those older or sicker people who have no other means of surviving or of
> > getting first rate care.
>
> >  The implications are rather OBVIOUS, but perhaps the author fails to see
> > his EMBRACE of socialism.
>
> > There is ALSO this from the same person:
> > Businesses or professions meeting licensing standards germane to the type
> > and scope of work such perform, and being regularly apprised of substantive
> > new developments, may control their own work without governmental sanction,
> > nor, once licensed, being required to be other than self-trained to maintain
> > continuing competency for doing safe work within their chosen type.
> > Professionals qualified by training, testing and experience who perform safe
> > and acceptable work within an area of their competency shall not be
> > sanctioned for being unlicensed in another job class or licensing
> > jurisdiction­beyond fair registration cost.  No more than 25% of regulatory
> > board members shall have been employed in the profession or industry
> > regulated.
> > Again continuing to EMBRACE socialism.
>
> > It should no longer be a 'mystery' why this 'constitution' is NEVER fully
> > presented NOR that the author cannot support what drivel he presents. <sigh>
> > Sad.
>
> > As noted, were you to actually PROVIDE the text ... one would see MORE
> > examples -- one might easily conclude THAT is essentially the reason you
> > refuse to present and merey proclaim.
>
> > Regard$,
> > --MJ
>
> > Much of the intellectual legacy of Marx is an anti-intellectual legacy. It
> > has been said that you cannot refute a sneer. Marxism has taught many-inside
> > and outside its ranks-to sneer at capitalism, at inconvenient facts or
> > contrary interpretations, and thus ultimately to sneer at the intellectual
> > process itself. This has been one of the sources of its enduring strength as
> > a political doctrine, and as a means of acquiring and using political power
> > in unbridled ways. -- Thomas Sowell
>
> > At 06:43 PM 3/22/2011, you wrote:
>
> > MJ: You are a deranged, socialist-communist who is clearly LYING about
> > the people-oriented content of my New Constitution!  Please reference
> > a single location whereby intervention is allowed in how private
> > property is used.  You can't do that, I'm sure!  Ha, ha, HA!  —  John
> > A. Armistead —  Patriot
>
> > On Mar 22, 1:03 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > Capitalism is the FOUNDATION of a successful USA!  You
> > > aren't telling me anything that I don't tout, daily.  You are probably
> > > doing so to make the readers think it is you who have the right Ideas
> > > and I the converse.
> > > It only takes a cursory review of those pieces you have offered to see
> > how it fails to embrace capitalism -- much less utilize it as a foundation.
> > > Capitalism is the system in which people are free to use their private
> > property without outside interference.
> > > Your 'constitution' is filled with intervention.
> > > Regard$,
> > > --MJ "Bureaucrats write memoranda both because they appear to be busy
> > when they are writing and because the memos, once written, immediately
> > become proof that they were busy" -- Charles Peters.If you agree with me say
> > something like this:  "I
> > > applaud your New Constitution!  We need less, more efficient
> > > government and the return of lost civil liberties.  Outlawing career
> > > politicians from Congress seems like a great place to start.  Good
> > > luck in everything you are seeking to do for the good of the country!
> > > — J. A. Armistead  —
>
> > > On Mar 21, 11:54 am, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > John,
>
> > > > eBay is a perfect example of capitalism at work. Over 2,000
> > transactions
> > > > are performed every minute throughout the world with no need for
> > > > government. Both parties involved in those transactions report they are
> > > > happy with the transaction 96% of the time.
>
> > > > There is no need for government involvement in commerce.
>
> > > > On 03/21/2011 07:15 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > > > > Socialism and communism are the anti-thesis of a representative
> > > > > republic or a democracy.  My New Constitution RETURNS civil liberties
> > > > > to the People and will fire, jail or hang those in government who
> > > > > support socialism and communism.  When you attack my New Constitution
> > > > > with your "include me" talk, you are attacking THE most pro
> > capitalism
> > > > > and pro civil liberties person on the planet!  Get lost, Jonathan!
> > �
> > > > > J. A. A. �
> > > > > On Mar 19, 10:57 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> Civil liberties require government permission. As I choose to be a
> > free
> > > > >> sovereign, I do not consent.
>
> > > > >> As for free enterprise, I sell on eBay. No government interference,
> > 96%
> > > > >> successful transactions worldwide. That is as pro free enterprise as
> > it
> > > > >> gets.
>
> > > > >> On 03/19/2011 07:45 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > > > >>> Jonathan Ashley isn't pro civil liberties nor pro free enterprise.
> > > > >>> So, like I first assumed, he is a socialist-communist bent on
> > tearing
> > > > >>> down this country rather than saving it.  He should be railroaded
> > out
> > > > >>> of the USA!  � J. A. A. �
> > > > >>> On Mar 18, 5:49 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > >>>> Wanna-Be-Dictator John A. Armistead has spoken once again!
> > > > >>>> He wants to close down all news networks and outlaw political
> > parties.
> > > > >>>> He also thinks world government proponent Newt Gingrich has "the
> > smarts
> > > > >>>> and the temperament to be President."
> > > > >>>> On 03/18/2011 02:35 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
> > > > >>>>> Bill O'Reilly and Chris Wallace get hot-under-the-collar if a
> > "guest",
> > > > >>>>> like Sarah Palin, avoids answering questions that tie her hands
> > on
> > > > >>>>> issues that are in flux.  Those two Fox jerks suppose that since
> > they
> > > > >>>>> are high paid and elitist, that people must do exactly like they
> > say
> > > > >>>>> or face ridicule.  Within one week after my New Constitution is
> > > > >>>>> ratified, the entire Fox News Network will likely be closed down
> > for
> > > > >>>>> not being in the best interest of the country.  But not to
> > worry!  The
> > > > >>>>> other News Networks will be shuttered as well.  The "problem" is
> > that
> > > > >>>>> NEWS, and commentary on that news, cannot occur on the same
> > network.
> > > > >>>>> Of course that is only for news relating to elections or
> > "politics".
> > > > >>>>> I put that word in quotes, because political parties will be
> > > > >>>>> outlawed!  Socialism will become a non issue, because any
> > "politician"
> > > > >>>>> proposing anything like socialism will be hanged for TREASON!
> > Believe
> > > > >>>>> me, people, I can straighten out this country faster than any
> > yellow-
> > > > >>>>> livered politician.  Newt Gingrich has the smarts and the
> > temperament
> > > > >>>>> to be President. But he is too much in love with our FAILED
> > system of
> > > > >>>>> government to save the country from economic doom.  The Donald
> > has a
> > > > >>>>> good idea to make IRAQ pay for all we have done for those
> > people.  We
> > > > >>>>> should do those things AND tell China they will get back ONLY the
> > > > >>>>> principle on their loans to the USA.  �Walk tall and carry a
> > big
> > > > >>>>> stick!�  Only tough-love can save this country... NOT more
> > God-damned
> > > > >>>>> politics and wasted campaign money... as usual.  After Barack
> > Obama
> > > > >>>>> has been hanged and has rotted to the ground for TREASON, this
> > country
> > > > >>>>> will be on the path to economic recovery!  � John A. Armistead
> > �
> > > > >>>>> Patriot
> > > > >>>>> On Mar 16, 3:38 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com
>
> > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>> As usual, "no specifics are open for discussion." What an ego
> > this guy
> > > > >>>>>> has. Mustn't let anyone ask any questions. His head might
> > explode.
> > > > >>>>>> On 03/16/2011 11:53 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>> Folks:  The vast majority of the still apt portions of our
> > original
> > > > >>>>>>> Constitution remains within my New Constitution.  Issues
> > relating to
> > > > >>>>>>> having government be deferential to the people, and placing
> > reasonable
> > > > >>>>>>> limits of the type and scope of the laws that may be passed, is
> > the
> > > > >>>>>>> subject of much that I have expanded on in my New
> > Constitution.  I've
> > > > >>>>>>> placed great importance on seeing to it that the corruption in
> > > > >>>>>>> government�state, local and federal�which I have observed
> > first hand,
> > > > >>>>>>> shall never again negatively impact any law-abiding citizen.
> > > > >>>>>>> There are dozens of well-defined, unconstitutional acts by
> > government
> > > > >>>>>>> employees or elected officials that will either get the persons
> > fired
> > > > >>>>>>> or sent to prison.  Working for government, even for the
> > President,
>
> ...
>
> 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.

War Is a Government Program

Pursuit of Happiness
War Is a Government Program
David R. Henderson
April 2011 • Volume: 61 • Issue: 3 •

Libertarians and conservatives who argue for economic freedom and against government control tend to make both principled and practical arguments for their positions. Take health insurance, for example. The principled argument against government regulation of health insurance is twofold: (1) No government has the right to dictate to someone what kind of insurance he should buy or whether he should buy it at all; and (2) no government has the right to dictate to an insurance company what kind of insurance it may sell and what it many charge. The practical arguments are many; for example, if government sets prices too low, it will cause shortages and rationing, which most people would find undesirable.

But when some of those same libertarians and many conservatives think about war, their critical thinking skills seem to go out the window. On the principle side, they rarely argue that the U.S. government doesn't have the right to force U.S. taxpayers to support oppressive dictators in foreign countries such as Kuwait. Why? Because they seem to think the fact that an even more vicious dictator, Saddam Hussein, attacked Kuwait makes coerced funds from U.S. taxpayers morally obligatory. And on the practical side, they tend to drop their skepticism about the consequences of government action. Yet, even aside from any argument based on principle, if libertarians and conservatives were to be as skeptical of our own government abroad as they are of it at home, they would likely favor keeping the United States out of foreign wars. Indeed, as I shall show, there are two reasons we should be even more skeptical of our government's actions overseas.

One of the strongest practical arguments against government intervention in the domestic economy comes from Ludwig von Mises: One intervention, by causing unintended consequences, leads to further intervention. At each point in the chain the government could back down and deregulate. But governments tend not to do that. Take an example I wrote about in this publication ("Unintended Consequences in Energy Policy," March 2009, www.tinyurl.com/adv6gm). Richard Nixon's price controls on gasoline caused a shortage that then led to fuel-economy standards for cars.

The same kind of reasoning applies to foreign policy. In 1963 the Central Intelligence Agency helped a young Iraqi ally who, along with other plotters, overthrew Gen. Abdel-Karim Kassem. His name: Saddam Hussein. Five years later, the CIA backed another coup that made Hussein deputy to the new military ruler. Then, in 1979, Hussein took his turn as dictator.

In 1980 Hussein proceeded to wage a long and costly war on Iran. Interestingly, the Reagan administration supported this invasion with billions of dollars in export credits and with satellite intelligence. Consider how this one intervention led to another.

Why did the U.S. government support Saddam Hussein in his war on Iran? The Iranian government had become an enemy of the U.S. government a year earlier, when Ayatollah Khomeini took over and some Iranians held Americans in the U.S. embassy hostage. Why did so many Iranians dislike the U.S. government? One reason was that in 1953 the CIA had helped depose the democratically elected premier, Mohammad Mossadegh, and reinstalled the shah of Iran. The shah created a secret terrorist police force, SAVAK, that tortured its own citizens and imprisoned political opponents. The CIA helped train SAVAK. The shah also undertook a highly inflationary monetary policy that caused the value of the Iranian currency to plummet. Inflation and torture: funny how that upsets people.


No Laughing Matter

Interestingly, when James Woolsey, former director of central intelligence in the Clinton administration, spoke at the Naval Postgraduate School in August 2003, he addressed the 1953 uprising in response to my question. During his speech Woolsey had stated that the war with militant Islam had begun in November 1979, when some Iranians took over the U.S. embassy. I asked him whether he didn't think it might have begun in 1953, when the CIA helped depose Mossadegh. Laughing, Woolsey quoted Winston Churchill's claim that Americans, after doing many wrong things, would always end up doing the right thing. In other words, Woolsey seemed to admit CIA complicity, but dismissed the idea that this mattered because the U.S. government, at some point (he didn't specify when), had gotten it right.

But Woolsey's answer evaded the issue: The consequences of the U.S. government's intervention in 1953 have been horrendous and cannot be laughingly dismissed.

Or take the unintended consequences of U.S. government intervention in Afghanistan. Although the U.S. government now fiercely opposes the radical Muslims who until 2001 ran the Afghan government, it helped put them in that position in the first place. Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter, bragged in an interview in Le Nouvel Observateur that in 1979 he had persuaded Carter to destabilize Afghanistan's pro-Soviet government so that the Soviets would invade. In December 1979 Brzezinski got his wish: The Soviets invaded Afghanistan. The CIA proceeded to finance Afghan Muslim jihadis through Pakistan.

Just as the economy is a complex nexus of rights and exchanges with each participant having, as Adam Smith put it, his own "principle of motion," so it is with whole countries. U.S. government officials­and there are many­who think they can plan another country to make it better clearly don't recognize these principles of motion. They have what F. A. Hayek called, in his criticism of government intervention in the economy, a "fatal conceit." And, as we've seen with the above-mentioned wars, the conceit is literally fatal.

There are two reasons to think that the consequences of government intervention abroad will be worse than the consequences of government intervention at home. First, the major victims of this foreign intervention will typically be foreigners. Foreigners don't vote in U.S. elections. Therefore, U.S. politicians will never have to worry about the negative votes of foreigners and will therefore be more destructive than otherwise. Second, when people see the negative consequences of intervention, they, all else equal, tend to turn against it. That's why people tend to oppose taxes more than regulation: Virtually everyone can observe the wealth lost to taxes. But because most of the obvious consequences of foreign intervention occur abroad, they are less visible to Americans. How many Americans are aware that the CIA helped overthrow a democratically elected prime minister?

War is a government program. Libertarians and conservatives should bring the same skepticism to war that they bring to other government programs.

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/pursuit-of-happiness/war-is-a-government-program/

Re: A Foolish and Unconstitutional War

And AGAIN, Here is the Constitution: http://www.constitution.org/cons/constitu.txt

POINT to where you imagine such is endorsed. (both the unconstitutional War Powers Act AND this current escapade).

And YES all those Presidents (and more) violated the Constitution.

You will find no Power within the Constitution for EITHER the unconstitutional War Powers Act NOR this current escapade. As such, they are both unconstitutional.

Regard$,
--MJ

"Usurpation, the exercise of power not granted, is not legitimized by repetition" -- Raoul Berger.



At 11:56 AM 3/23/2011, you wrote:

See War Powers Act, and that was after more than one of the below.

Are you actually saying that Truman, JFK, LBJ, Reagan, both Bush's and
Clinton violated the constitution?

Really?

I mean, you do know that war hasn't been declared by congress since
1941, and we've been blowing shit up ever since then, right?

Even if you are just a staunch republican hater (which is fine), Jesus
H., the "undeclared" wars in Korea and Vietnam make anything any
republican has done look like a Girl Scout fight in a school yard.


On Mar 23, 11:41 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> Here is the Constitution:http://www.constitution.org/cons/constitu.txt
>
> POINT to where you imagine such is endorsed.
>
> Regard$,
> --MJ
>
> I am for relying, for internal defense, on our
> militia solely, till actual invasion, and for
> such naval force only as may protect our coasts
> and harbors from such depredations as we have
> experienced; and not for a standing army in time
> of peace, which may overawe the public sentiment;
> not for a navy, which, by its own expenses and
> the eternal wars in which it will implicate us,
> will grind us with public burdens, and sink us
> under them. I am for free commerce with all
> nations; political connection with none; and
> little or no diplomatic establishment. -- Thomas Jefferson
>
> At 10:59 AM 3/23/2011, you wrote:
>
>
>
> >I happen to like Pat, but its not unconstitutional.  Nor was Iraq nor
> >Afghansitan (yea, I know, at least Bush asked congress, but he didn't
> >have to), Desert Storm (BEGGED by the UN), Bosnia/Kosovo (no asky),
> >Grenada (indeed asky), Vietnam or Korea.
>
> >Pat is right on Grenada, as there were indeed 500 American students in
> >immediate peril, but thats about it.
>
> >On Mar 23, 8:56 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > A Foolish and Unconstitutional Warby Patrick J. Buchanan
> > > "The president does not have power under the
> > Constitution to unilaterally authorize a
> > military attack in a situation that does not
> > involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."
> > > So said constitutional scholar and Senator
> > Barack Obama in December 2007 -- the same man
> > who, this weekend, ordered U.S. air and missile
> > strikes on Libya without any authorization from Congress.
> > > Obama did win the support of Gabon in the
> > Security Council, but failed with Germany. With
> > a phone call to acquitted rapist Jacob Zuma, he
> > got South Africa to sign on, but not Brazil,
> > Russia, India or China. All four abstained.
> > > This is not the world's war. This is Obama's war.
> > > The U.S. Navy fired almost all the cruise
> > missiles that hit Libya as the U.S. Air Force
> > attacked with B-2 bombers, F-15s and F-16s.
> > > "To be clear, this is a U.S.-led operation,"
> > said Vice Adm. William Gortney.
> > > "In wartime, truth is so precious that she
> > should always be attended by a bodyguard of
> > lies," said Winston Churchill. Obama is a quick study.
> > > In his Friday ultimatum, he said, "We are not
> > going to use force to go beyond a well-defined
> > goal -- specifically, the protection of civilians in Libya."
> > > Why, then, did we strike Tripoli and Moammar Gadhafi's compound?
> > > So many U.S. missiles and bombs have struck
> > Libya that the Arab League is bailing out.
> > League chief Amr Moussa has called an emergency
> > meeting of the 22 Arab states to discuss
> > attacks that have "led to the deaths and
> > injuries of many Libyan civilians." We asked
> > for a no-fly zone, said Moussa, not the "bombardment of civilians."
> > > What caused Obama's about-face from the
> > Pentagon position that imposing a no-fly zone
> > on Libya was an unwise act of war?
> > > According toThe New York Times, National
> > Security Council aide Samantha Power, U.N.
> > envoy Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton flipped
> > him. The three sisters feel guilty about us not
> > invading Rwanda when Hutu were butchering Tutsi.
> > > They did not want to be seen as standing by
> > when Gadhafi took Benghazi, which he would have
> > done, ending the war in days, had we not intervened.
> > > While Obama is no longer saying Gadhafi must
> > go, Hillary insists that has to be the outcome.
> > No question who wears the pants here.
> > > As U.S. prestige and power are committed, if
> > Gadhafi survives, he will have defeated Obama
> > and NATO. Hence, we must now finish him and his
> > regime to avert a U.S. humiliation and prevent another Lockerbie.
> > > The Arab League and African Union are
> > denouncing us, but al-Qaida is with us. For
> > eastern Libya provided more than its fair share
> > of jihadists to kill U.S. soldiers in Iraq. And
> > jihadists are prominent among the rebels we just rescued.
> > > Yet, even as Obama was announcing U.S.
> > intervention to prevent "unspeakable
> > atrocities," security police of Yemen's
> > President Saleh, using sniper rifles, massacred
> > 45 peaceful protesters and wounded 270. Most of
> > the dead were shot in the head or neck, the work of marksmen.
> > > Had Mahmoud Ahmadinejad done this in Tehran,
> > would U.S. protests have been so muted?
> > > In Bahrain, 2,000 Saudi soldiers and troops
> > from emirates of the Gulf have intervened to
> > save King Khalifa, whose throne was threatened
> > by Shia demonstrators in the Pearl roundabout
> > in Manama. The town square was surrounded, the
> > Shia driven out, the 300-foot Pearl monument destroyed.
> > > This crackdown on Bahrain's Shia has been
> > denounced by Iran and Iraq. Grand Ayatollah
> > Sistani, most revered figure in the Shia world,
> > ordered seminaries shut in protest. This is serious business.
> > > Not only are the Shia dominant in Iran, and
> > in Iraq after the Americans ousted the
> > Sunni-dominated Baathist Party, they are
> > heavily concentrated in the Eastern Province of
> > Saudi Arabia, where the oil deposits are located.
> > > They are a majority in Bahrain, where the
> > U.S. Fifth Fleet is based. Shia Hezbollah is
> > now the dominant military and political force in Lebanon.
> > > Riyadh must have regarded the threat to
> > Bahrain a grave one to have so exacerbated the
> > religious divide and raised the specter of sectarian war.
> > > Yet, again, why are we bombing Libya?
> > > Gadhafi did not attack the West. He faced an
> > uprising to dethrone him and rallied his troops
> > to crush it, as any ruthless ruler would have
> > done. We have no vital interest in who wins his civil war.
> > > Indeed, Gadhafi has asked of Obama, "If you
> > found them taking over American cities by force of arms, what would you do?"
> > > Well, when the South fired on Fort Sumter,
> > killing no one, Abraham Lincoln blockaded every
> > Southern port, sent Gen. Sherman to burn
> > Atlanta and pillage Georgia and South Carolina,
> > and Gen. Sheridan to ravage the Shenandoah. He
> > locked up editors and shut down legislatures
> > and fought a four-year war of reconquest that
> > killed 620,000 Americans ­ a few more than have
> > died in Gadhafi's four-week war.
> > > Good thing we didn't have an "international community" back then.
> > > The Royal Navy would have been bombarding
> > Lincoln's America.www.buchanan.org
>
> >--
> >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.- 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.