More government = more corporatism

[Fenton Lum]

Agreed, the struggle is endless, a way of life, a way of being in the world as a human being; a preceptual reality that any ruling class attempts to distort via the media, "patriotism", and the confusion of religion with true spirituality which is communal in nature.

When I was a kid we had bomb drills, "cold war" stuff. We would cower under our desks upon command. Even as a kid I understood this had nothing at all to do with safety, it was about thought control and instillation of fear of the other, of another way of looking at the world. The Islamists preform that function for the power structure now.

Amen.

The inexplicable struggle for freedom and peace defines the human condition. You could cast aside that flaming spirit and live a relatively peaceful and content life, but that pain will never go away.

You are also spot on about the human spirit being distorted with religion. Interestingly enough, many organized religions actually voice that confusion, like with the holy spirit in regards to Christianity.

Most who know how evil and deluded the state is, often become hopeless and complacent with their oppressed reality. Even mainstream libertarians just seem like empty shells pushing for empty solutions.

I believe there may come a day when lovers of true freedom will dominate the power hegemony, and those that seek to oppress will be squaloring in dirt. Many believe that makes me batshit crazy, but I would rather be batshit crazy than a willing slave.

John Trudell who passed recently was I think one of the most coherent and clear voices on this. As he pointed out, we are all the decedents of tribes and spirituality, even whites, it just happened to us first, we got the disease first. "Go back and learn how your people became 'civilized'" he argued, "it was anything but civil". And then the virus rolled out across the rest of the world via colonialism and perceptual reality based upon the subjugation of others.

 

[Fenton Lum]

There is one way. Support the Article V movement.

We need states to rise up and take away Federal power. I contend the first thing to do is to impose term limits on Congress and pass some sort of balanced budget amendment. Take the $$$ away.

How can this get done? Well most people have been dumbed down to the point that they look to the President for all their answers and have no idea who else in government is in power. As a result, most of the dead heads only come out during the Presidential election, and usually only vote for the President.

This gives those in the know an opportunity to target state legislature positions who push the Article V movement. As a result, there is no need to get a mass message out there. Once enough states pass process to proceed, which we are close to obtaining, then the whole process is out of reach of the Federal government.

The problem then becomes, how do we protect the corrupting influence on the legislatures who are in charge of the proceedings?

Shrug. One step at a time I suppose.

I think you must be pretty aware that I would totally support that. That is the answer, the balance to the Federal government is the States. The idea that one arm of the Federal government (the courts) was going to keep Federal power in check was as stupid and doomed to failure as it sounds. The courts like all the Federal government gain power the more power the Federal government has

The Progressive era is what did it with the passage of the Federal Income tax amendment, among other things.

They amended the Constitution to break it, so we must fix it the same way.

Even worse than the income tax were the 17th amendment and FDR's threat to stack the court with new justices if they didn't give up on enforcing the 10th amendment. Those are what removed any and all checks and balances to Federal power

Couldn't agree more and .a.prime reason i.call fdr a fascist.

Yes, and you clearly are one of the few who actually know what fascist means to point that out

Oh for fuck's sake. This is why we stay stuck where we are. Partisanshitheads.

 

[kaz]

I think you must be pretty aware that I would totally support that. That is the answer, the balance to the Federal government is the States. The idea that one arm of the Federal government (the courts) was going to keep Federal power in check was as stupid and doomed to failure as it sounds. The courts like all the Federal government gain power the more power the Federal government has

The Progressive era is what did it with the passage of the Federal Income tax amendment, among other things.

They amended the Constitution to break it, so we must fix it the same way.

Even worse than the income tax were the 17th amendment and FDR's threat to stack the court with new justices if they didn't give up on enforcing the 10th amendment. Those are what removed any and all checks and balances to Federal power

Couldn't agree more and .a.prime reason i.call fdr a fascist.

Yes, and you clearly are one of the few who actually know what fascist means to point that out

Oh for fuck's sake. This is why we stay stuck where we are. Partisanshitheads.

What does it have to do with "partisan?" Just the word you came up with at the moment that sounded the worst to you?

Dude, it's history, FDR threatened specifically to start nominating supreme court justices if the court didn't stop enforcing the 10th amendment. Nine is not in the Constitution. The Democrat Senate could have ratified them and flooded the current Republican court.

Learn the history of your country

 

[Onyx]

Post #15

That was the post I was looking the hardest at.

I do not see the "only solutions."

You can't train those who want to be dependent to want to be independent

Nor do you have to.

Humans either operate self sufficiently, find some independent individual to leech off of, or they die.

I am far gone with that kind of collectivist bullshit. All that matters is that there is a sufficient armed force to knock the ruling class into the dirt.[/QUOTE]

 

[Fenton Lum]

The Progressive era is what did it with the passage of the Federal Income tax amendment, among other things.

They amended the Constitution to break it, so we must fix it the same way.

Even worse than the income tax were the 17th amendment and FDR's threat to stack the court with new justices if they didn't give up on enforcing the 10th amendment. Those are what removed any and all checks and balances to Federal power

Couldn't agree more and .a.prime reason i.call fdr a fascist.

Yes, and you clearly are one of the few who actually know what fascist means to point that out

Oh for fuck's sake. This is why we stay stuck where we are. Partisanshitheads.

What does it have to do with "partisan?" Just the word you came up with at the moment that sounded the worst to you?

Dude, it's history, FDR threatened specifically to start nominating supreme court justices if the court didn't stop enforcing the 10th amendment. Nine is not in the Constitution. The Democrat Senate could have ratified them and flooded the current Republican court.

Learn the history of your country

I have, the problems with america were in place from the beginning.

 

[kaz]

Post #15

That was the post I was looking the hardest at.

I do not see the "only solutions."

OK, does the color coding help?

Well, I would look at it as that government is the worst solution to any problem, so it should only be used when it is the only solution. If you want to sit in a tower by yourself all day with a gun waiting to defend it from people who want to take it from you, go ahead. But there can only be one police force, one military. There needs to be general recognition of property rights, one set of criminal and civil courts. The reality is when you end those, you end up with clans ruling with terror like in Somalia. Then people like you and me and bripat join together to defeat them, then bam, we have government again

 

[Onyx]

John Trudell who passed recently was I think one of the most coherent and clear voices on this. As he pointed out, we are all the decedents of tribes and spirituality, even whites, it just happened to us first, we got the disease first. "Go back and learn how your people became 'civilized'" he argued, "it was anything but civil". And then the virus rolled out across the rest of the world via colonialism and perceptual reality based upon the subjugation of others.

Yeah, states sustain themselves on uncivil means. Civility is only what is recognizable on the surface.

The good thing is that rejecting states, does not mean we need to reject all the advancements we have made. We do not need to go back to being primitive tribals in order to retake our humanity, as many claim will happen upon rejecting statism.

The problem was always subjugation by lesser beings.

 

[Onyx]

there can only be one police force, one military.

You do not need the police. They are not real public defenders, but rather state goons who enforce opinions on how best the population should be controlled.

In regards to the common defense, I disagree that there can only be one organized fighting force. Solidarity behind one group certainly helps, but if all groups share a common cause, then there is no harm.

The only rule in my ideal society is to not harm the personhood or property of others. If you do, then that justifies the usage of self defense.

There needs to be general recognition of property rights, one set of criminal and civil courts.

Recognizing certain moral principals can be important.

Like my version of the NAP that I spoke of above.

Courts are bad. They are the byproduct of an organized system of self-imposed assholes, that is illegitimately given the power to instigate population control.

 

[kaz]

Even worse than the income tax were the 17th amendment and FDR's threat to stack the court with new justices if they didn't give up on enforcing the 10th amendment. Those are what removed any and all checks and balances to Federal power

Couldn't agree more and .a.prime reason i.call fdr a fascist.

Yes, and you clearly are one of the few who actually know what fascist means to point that out

Oh for fuck's sake. This is why we stay stuck where we are. Partisanshitheads.

What does it have to do with "partisan?" Just the word you came up with at the moment that sounded the worst to you?

Dude, it's history, FDR threatened specifically to start nominating supreme court justices if the court didn't stop enforcing the 10th amendment. Nine is not in the Constitution. The Democrat Senate could have ratified them and flooded the current Republican court.

Learn the history of your country

I have, the problems with america were in place from the beginning.

There were always problems, but none of those three, the income tax, direct election of Senators or the Supreme Court ignoring the 10th amendment were, the Constitution was specifically designed against those.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make regarding the discussion

 

[kaz]

there can only be one police force, one military.

You do not need the police. They are not real public defenders, but rather state goons who enforce opinions on how best the population should be controlled.

In regards to the common defense, I disagree that there can only be one organized fighting force. Solidarity behind one group certainly helps, but if all groups share a common cause, then there is no harm.

The only rule in my ideal society is to not harm the personhood or property of others. If you do, then that justifies the usage of self defense.

There needs to be general recognition of property rights, one set of criminal and civil courts.

Recognizing certain moral principals can be important.

Like my version of the NAP that I spoke of above.

Courts are bad. They are the byproduct of an organized system of self-imposed assholes, that is illegitimately given the power to instigate population control.

See, as I said all you said was ... yes it is. You didn't give any specifics how anything I pointed out would work. For example, all you said is we don't need police, sure, well, you said so. I totally disagree and as much as I hate government, you gave me zero reason to see how it would actually work. Yeah, we do need them

 

[Fenton Lum]

Couldn't agree more and .a.prime reason i.call fdr a fascist.

Yes, and you clearly are one of the few who actually know what fascist means to point that out

Oh for fuck's sake. This is why we stay stuck where we are. Partisanshitheads.

What does it have to do with "partisan?" Just the word you came up with at the moment that sounded the worst to you?

Dude, it's history, FDR threatened specifically to start nominating supreme court justices if the court didn't stop enforcing the 10th amendment. Nine is not in the Constitution. The Democrat Senate could have ratified them and flooded the current Republican court.

Learn the history of your country

I have, the problems with america were in place from the beginning.

There were always problems, but none of those three, the income tax, direct election of Senators or the Supreme Court ignoring the 10th amendment were, the Constitution was specifically designed against those.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make regarding the discussion

america has always been a lie. It was always set up to protect the substantial people from the "rabble".

 

[Fenton Lum]

there can only be one police force, one military.

You do not need the police. They are not real public defenders, but rather state goons who enforce opinions on how best the population should be controlled.

In regards to the common defense, I disagree that there can only be one organized fighting force. Solidarity behind one group certainly helps, but if all groups share a common cause, then there is no harm.

The only rule in my ideal society is to not harm the personhood or property of others. If you do, then that justifies the usage of self defense.

There needs to be general recognition of property rights, one set of criminal and civil courts.

Recognizing certain moral principals can be important.

Like my version of the NAP that I spoke of above.

Courts are bad. They are the byproduct of an organized system of self-imposed assholes, that is illegitimately given the power to instigate population control.

See, as I said all you said was ... yes it is. You didn't give any specifics how anything I pointed out would work. For example, all you said is we don't need police, sure, well, you said so. I totally disagree and as much as I hate government, you gave me zero reason to see how it would actually work. Yeah, we do need them

The police are the armed wing of the govt you protest.

 

[buckeye45_73]

I think you must be pretty aware that I would totally support that. That is the answer, the balance to the Federal government is the States. The idea that one arm of the Federal government (the courts) was going to keep Federal power in check was as stupid and doomed to failure as it sounds. The courts like all the Federal government gain power the more power the Federal government has

The Progressive era is what did it with the passage of the Federal Income tax amendment, among other things.

They amended the Constitution to break it, so we must fix it the same way.

Even worse than the income tax were the 17th amendment and FDR's threat to stack the court with new justices if they didn't give up on enforcing the 10th amendment. Those are what removed any and all checks and balances to Federal power

Couldn't agree more and .a.prime reason i.call fdr a fascist.

Yes, and you clearly are one of the few who actually know what fascist means to point that out

Oh for fuck's sake. This is why we stay stuck where we are. Partisanshitheads.

Stacking the Supreme Court is not a fascist move?

 

[kaz]

Yes, and you clearly are one of the few who actually know what fascist means to point that out

Oh for fuck's sake. This is why we stay stuck where we are. Partisanshitheads.

What does it have to do with "partisan?" Just the word you came up with at the moment that sounded the worst to you?

Dude, it's history, FDR threatened specifically to start nominating supreme court justices if the court didn't stop enforcing the 10th amendment. Nine is not in the Constitution. The Democrat Senate could have ratified them and flooded the current Republican court.

Learn the history of your country

I have, the problems with america were in place from the beginning.

There were always problems, but none of those three, the income tax, direct election of Senators or the Supreme Court ignoring the 10th amendment were, the Constitution was specifically designed against those.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make regarding the discussion

america has always been a lie. It was always set up to protect the substantial people from the "rabble".

It's ironic you used the word "substantial" in that post given that it's a bunch of air headed propaganda chatter. What are you talking about?

 

[kaz]

there can only be one police force, one military.

You do not need the police. They are not real public defenders, but rather state goons who enforce opinions on how best the population should be controlled.

In regards to the common defense, I disagree that there can only be one organized fighting force. Solidarity behind one group certainly helps, but if all groups share a common cause, then there is no harm.

The only rule in my ideal society is to not harm the personhood or property of others. If you do, then that justifies the usage of self defense.

There needs to be general recognition of property rights, one set of criminal and civil courts.

Recognizing certain moral principals can be important.

Like my version of the NAP that I spoke of above.

Courts are bad. They are the byproduct of an organized system of self-imposed assholes, that is illegitimately given the power to instigate population control.

See, as I said all you said was ... yes it is. You didn't give any specifics how anything I pointed out would work. For example, all you said is we don't need police, sure, well, you said so. I totally disagree and as much as I hate government, you gave me zero reason to see how it would actually work. Yeah, we do need them

The police are the armed wing of the govt you protest.

I do? Where did I do that?

 

[Onyx]

See, as I said all you said was ... yes it is.

Not sure what you mean.

I contested your false notions. Is there a problem with that?

For example, all you said is we don't need police, sure, well, you said so.

We need true public defenders.

Armed working class civilians with a watchful eye and a mind for community self defense.

What we do not need are police. They are the armed paramilitary wing of the government, like Fenton Lum has already pointed out.

I totally disagree and as much as I hate government, you gave me zero reason to see how it would actually work. Yeah, we do need them

How am I supposed to offer solutions when you have not laid out the problems?

Sure, we talked about how evil the state is. I offered a solution to that.

If you have other problems, then you should address them so I can tell you how you go about dealing with them.

Also, there is no utopian society. People of your inclination are falsely misconceived into thinking problems can be solved through the state. If you recognize they cannot, then arguing for the existence of the state is irrelevant.

 

[whitehall]

Corporations R us. Every single pension plan in the U.S. is heavily invested in corporate wealth. People who claim corporations are the enemy think in political cliches if they think at all.

 

[kaz]

See, as I said all you said was ... yes it is.

Not sure what you mean.

I contested your false notions. Is there a problem with that?

For example, all you said is we don't need police, sure, well, you said so.

We need true public defenders.

Armed working class civilians with a watchful eye and a mind for self defense.

What we do not need are police. They are the armed paramilitary wing of the government, like Fenton Lum has said.

I totally disagree and as much as I hate government, you gave me zero reason to see how it would actually work. Yeah, we do need them

How am I supposed to offer solutions when you have not laid out the problems?

Sure, we talked about how evil the state is. I offered a solution to that.

If you have other problems, then you should address them so I can tell you how you go about dealing with them.

Exactly, you advocate a different system, and all you provide is prove you wrong. When you say empty things like "Armed working class civilians with a watchful eye and a mind for self defense" that's true, but you aren't describing a system, just a neighborhood. Gangs would provide that role in the hood. That's how we end up with Somalia

 

[Onyx]

Corporations R us. Every single pension plan in the U.S. is heavily invested in corporate wealth. People who claim corporations are the enemy think in political cliches if they think at all.

Here we go. Our first dissenter.

Please take over fellow patriots...

 

[buckeye45_73]

there can only be one police force, one military.

You do not need the police. They are not real public defenders, but rather state goons who enforce opinions on how best the population should be controlled.

In regards to the common defense, I disagree that there can only be one organized fighting force. Solidarity behind one group certainly helps, but if all groups share a common cause, then there is no harm.

The only rule in my ideal society is to not harm the personhood or property of others. If you do, then that justifies the usage of self defense.

There needs to be general recognition of property rights, one set of criminal and civil courts.

Recognizing certain moral principals can be important.

Like my version of the NAP that I spoke of above.

Courts are bad. They are the byproduct of an organized system of self-imposed assholes, that is illegitimately given the power to instigate population control.

See, as I said all you said was ... yes it is. You didn't give any specifics how anything I pointed out would work. For example, all you said is we don't need police, sure, well, you said so. I totally disagree and as much as I hate government, you gave me zero reason to see how it would actually work. Yeah, we do need them

The police are the armed wing of the govt you protest.

Wait, you want to get rid of cops?