The State Is a Deluded, Dangerous Religion

Your group of constitutional scholars would be just as political as scotus. Leave it to them. A referendum could only be used for major issues which would have to be spelled out clearly

 

Too late, we're already there in many ways. In fact "ALL of the above" are symptoms/characterizations of a totalitarian form of government, in the case of the US government, a soft version meant to deceive Americans into believing otherwise.

 

I have used the Frog analogy as well ! It is so appropriate. The people in general are completely oblivious the fact that things are getting hot - They are deaf to the sound of the canaries in the coal mine of totalitarianism - despite the fact that they are screeching at the top of their lungs.

The above is not completely true .. the raging masses are feeling the pain and are hearing something - they just do not know the source of the pain or the sound.

One thing left out of the list was control over education/ indoctrination. 12 years of school and we manage not to teach a kid the basic principles on which this nation was founded. I find this beyond confounding - that this is even possible 12 friggen years and we do not even teach the basics ?!

12 years of school and a kid is not taught the basics of Philosophy. I am not talking Kant here .. Just the basics such as Logic, Logical Fallacy, "What constitutes a valid argument', basic critical thinking.

I have talked about this with numerous teachers - many of whom are as frustrated as I am. One time though - a Teacher said "We don't teach these things because we do not want kids arguing with us"

My head nearly did a 360 on hearing that one.

Without these basics tools - how is the average person supposed to wade through the daily cacophony of fallacy and bad argument raining down on them from Politicians, Political Pundits and the Media ?

Without an educated populace ( not Math and Science but in the basics described above) - there is no such thing as a functional democratic process.

 

Not necessarily if these are properly chosen and rotated regularly. SCOTUS are selected for life, these constitutional scholars would only serve for a selected period of time. Apples and oranges. Remember what I added:

 

Properly chosen translates to people who think like me.

That is totalitarian

 

Indeed. The point of assuming "Gov't now is generally good and has our best interests at heart" was simply to illustrate even if this were true, it is still not a legitimate justification for removal of safeguards.

I talk a bit on the screeching canaries in the coal mind of totalitarianism in post 78.

 

Entirely correct.

Seems you may have read this book.



There's No Government Like No Government celebrates the belief in the human spirit unmolested by state-worship. It extols the value of individual judgment, based on perceptions, experience, and reason, and in the process derisively mocks the mindless blind faith in the inherent righteousness of the law. It excoriates the belief that politicians ought to have, or even could have, the ability to alter morality simply by scribbling some words on a piece of paper.

It offers a systematic approach to debunking the myth of the state using a logical analysis of the concept of "government," in tandem with extracts of debates between the defenders of liberty and various authoritarians. The sheep themselves reveal the bogus nature of the supposed authority of all rulers, be they elected democratically or chosen otherwise, in their downright insane descriptions of "government." Variously described as "General Motors," or "a group of people we elect to guarantee our rights," or the agency that "doesn't have to be morally correct - that's why it is government," the insane belief deserves to be smashed, and this book is dedicated to doing exactly that.

Keep it on your coffee table, in plain sight for all the state-worshipping control freaks to see, to be used as your answer when asked, "Who did you vote for?"

 

I had no confusion. Thanks, though.

 

Lol...How utterly ridiculous.
I think that trump turd polishers are the new useful idiots in a deluded, dangerous religion.

 

Oh gosh, 99.99 percent of the time you enjoy anarchy. When you encounter a cop who gives you a ticket, then you encounter state.

 

Take my city for instance. It transitioned from a farming area, then to communities in small home tracts and almost invisible government, later to more industry, planned by the early farmers and until now ask any citizen living here if we see the resentment handed to state or Federal Government and we do not.

Who complains incessantly over government on the forum. It is the Democrats.

 

You validated his claims by blaming Trump.

 

Democrats won't accept your advice. They hate Trump far too much.

 

Because say so. Correct?

Read Bill Malloy's book published with a fictitious name. Jackney Sneeb.

Bill communited on an AOL forum under the fictitious name of Xcobrajock. And if you think Ethereal is radical, he and Bill could be twin brothers. But the movement for freedom is much larger as word is spread on youtube until one of you snuffs out freedom, if you are able to. We know how hard you try to snuff out freedom.

Some of you may end up reading this awesome book. Bill used to argue with me and gave me credits in his book when i was called Frebob. I was a hard person to convert but after time, he reasoned with me and I agree with Ethereal.
I don't ask you to buy a book I do not own. I have owned it even prior to the actual date of being published.

There's No Government Like No Government celebrates the belief in the human spirit unmolested by state-worship. It extols the value of individual judgment, based on perceptions, experience, and reason, and in the process derisively mocks the mindless blind faith in the inherent righteousness of the law. It excoriates the belief that politicians ought to have, or even could have, the ability to alter morality simply by scribbling some words on a piece of paper.

It offers a systematic approach to debunking the myth of the state using a logical analysis of the concept of "government," in tandem with extracts of debates between the defenders of liberty and various authoritarians. The sheep themselves reveal the bogus nature of the supposed authority of all rulers, be they elected democratically or chosen otherwise, in their downright insane descriptions of "government." Variously described as "General Motors," or "a group of people we elect to guarantee our rights," or the agency that "doesn't have to be morally correct - that's why it is government," the insane belief deserves to be smashed, and this book is dedicated to doing exactly that.

Keep it on your coffee table, in plain sight for all the state-worshipping control freaks to see, to be used as your answer when asked, "Who did you vote for?"

 

There is an easy way to outlaw abortion. Create a law outlawing it. So long as the law is done in DC by the criminal class, aka your own government, it can be done. Why is abortion so called legal? Supposedly the act is private. If the woman aborts herself that is the only way the act is private.

 

Apparently you are having an enormous time trying to enjoy freedom and believe you will locate others who will restrain you.

 

Why do you believe that? (he believes government prints money?) Does the FAA invent airplanes or even build them?

 

Actually, "we" don't. Large-scale organization and cooperation between independent, democratic polities can be accomplished through treaties and confederacies. There is no need to consolidate them under a unitary government.

 

Philosophically, yes. I believe the ideal society is stateless.

Practically speaking, I'm a classical liberal.

I'm not sure I understand this sentence.

 

And what do you think that proves?

Not if the purpose of their organization is to coerce other individuals.

Again, a "society" cannot make laws. Only individuals can. And if it's immoral for one individual to appropriate another individual's property without consent, then it's immoral for multiple individuals acting under the auspices of some nominal social entity. The introduction of a group dynamic doesn't magically transform theft into a legitimate act.

 

Why is it ridiculous?

Can you name another institution that has caused more death and misery than the state?

 

Bill Malloy in his great book that must become a classic on this very topic would ask this question.

If I do not have the authority to take charge of your life, how can you or others appoint others to do the same thing?

I like Bill's way better than my paraphrase but you get the idea. Bill wrote There's no government like no government. This book belongs in every grade class from 6th grade forward. To a statist, it floors them but is so extremely true and completely logical nobody can dispute it.

A little about Bill. Bill flew Cobra helicopters in combat in Vietnam. Bill is no twenty year old know it all. Bill collected much from forums prior to writing his book. Bill sent to me a copy of his book for my checking and also he used many others for the same purpose.

Was I an easy convert to his ideas? Hell I said to him what just about any good Democrat or Republican could say to him. But my mind was and still is open.

This book is a must read for political junkies.

 

This is a major reason I fight those who love Lincoln and his massive war. There is no other president totally responsible for the loss of more Americans than Lincoln is. His bust does not belong on Mt. Rushmore. We should remove all symbols to the man.

 

Democracy simply means "rule of the people". For whatever reason, democracy has been connected almost inextricably to voting rituals and majoritarian rule. But the concept, at its most basic level, requires neither voting nor majority rule. Certainly, voting and majority decisions can be attributes of democracy, but they are not inherent to it. The only thing that democracy requires is that the people rule themselves in accordance with their own values and interests. However, it must be understood that genuine democracy is something that can only occur on a relatively small, localized scale. Once the scale passes a certain threshold, it becomes increasingly authoritarian and illegitimate.

The mistake the framers made was to assume that a territory as large as America could ever be a genuine republic. As one founder so astutely observed during the constitutional conventions...

In a republic, the manners, sentiments, and interests of the people should be similar. If this be not the case, there will be a constant clashing of opinions; and the representatives of one part will be continually striving against those of the other. This will retard the operations of government, and prevent such conclusions as will promote the public good. If we apply this remark to the condition of the United States, we shall be convinced that it forbids that we should be one government. The United States includes a variety of climates. The productions of the different parts of the union are very variant, and their interests, of consequence, diverse. Their manners and habits differ as much as their climates and productions; and their sentiments are by no means coincident. The laws and customs of the several states are, in many respects, very diverse, and in some opposite; each would be in favor of its own interests and customs, and, of consequence, a legislature, formed of representatives from the respective parts, would not only be too numerous to act with any care or decision, but would be composed of such heterogenous and discordant principles, as would constantly be contending with each other.

This statement has been attributed to Melancton Smith of New York, who, I'm convinced, is the most underappreciated founder.

 

I disagree. That would not be democracy. The mere presence of voting does not denote democracy. Before anything, a democracy requires people to come together and establish an identity in accordance with their common values and interests. That has never actually happened in the US. There is no coherent "the people" in the US.