The Fix was in From the Beginning

[madfranks]

The Constitution is not your savior, and it's sad how many people semi-worship this document. It's been said, that either we have the government the Constitution provides for, or the Constitution failed to keep the government from becoming what it is. Either way, the Constitution is a failed document.

http://ericpetersautos.com/2014/06/13/fix/

I threw the Constitution in the woods years ago, when I became aware of its true nature as a document empowering government rather than protecting the rights of the people. The historic fact is the Constitution was intended to gut the rights of the people; it was only as an afterthought that the Bill of Rights was tacked on, to placate those who were – rightly, as it turns out – suspicious of what Hamilton & Co. were up to.

The Constitution is all about “Congress shall have power…” and so on. Well, over whom shall it have power? By what authority?

The Bill of Rights, on the other hand, is all about “Congress shall make no law… and “shall not be infringed.” It is a roster of contras with regard to government. An assertion of the positive rights of the individual. It expressed the popular feeling behind the Revolution that was subverted by the Constitution. Read it – the Bill of Rights – and you will immediately notice how it comports with the Declaration of Independence, whereas the Constitution’s enumeration of state power sounds a discordant, reactionary note. Hamilton and Co. were appalled by the freedom briefly enjoyed by average Americans. By the weakness (i.e., its inability to forcibly coerce) of the central government; in particular, its inability to “raise revenue” and impose its will across the land. See, for instance, the so-called Whiskey Rebellion. And so the Hamiltonians wrote the Constitution – without the authorization or consent of “the people,” in secret conclave – for the express purpose of “correcting” the problem, as they saw it, of too much liberty . . . and not enough government.

Still, America remained a relatively free country for several generations after the Revolution due to inertia and the cultural legacy of the Revolution. The Hamiltonians could only go so far. But the passage of the Constitution assured the inevitability of what became explicit – at bayonet-point – in 1865 and subsequently: The central government’s authority is unlimited in principle and the individual has no rights it is bound to respect.

Think about it: Can anyone name even one individual right that the government has not rescinded and turned into a conditional privilege?

We no longer enjoy freedom of speech. Is it necessary to elaborate? At a time when a person must ask permission to be allowed to publicly (and peacefully) express dissatisfaction with the government? When the expression of certain views is sufficient legal warrant to provoke a “visit” – or worse – by armed men who are empowered to kidnap the speaker or writer? When the mere wearing of a T-shirt with “objectionable” slogans or images upon it is regarded by the law as sufficient warrant to “detain” (that is, forcibly assault) a person? What happened to “Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting … the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”?

We are not at liberty to choose with whom we associate, even in private. Or do business with. We are subject to arrest and imprisonment if we decline to associate with persons the government decrees we must associate with, or do business without the requisite permissions (such as licenses) and according to the rules laid down by the state. If you are 17 years old, you must attend a government school. You are not at liberty to go to work and support yourself, if that is your wish. It is “against the law.”

Everything – just about – is either “against the law” or requires the state’s permission first.

Our right to be “secure in our persons and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures” is a nullity. There is no place – not even in our homes – that we are not subject to grotesquely unreasonable searches and seizures. Is it necessary to elaborate? At a time when people are being violated in the most degrading way (roadside digital inspection of their body cavities) under color of law? When what would be considered sexual assault if done by any Mere Mundane is sanctified as “reasonable” by the courts? At a time when every single phone call, every single e-mail, is recorded and analyzed by the government? This is “reasonable”? According to the government, which interprets its own powers to suit, it certainly is.

Once, we were free to possess and carry arms. The Second Amendment formally acknowledged this absolute right: “. . .shall not be infringed.” Is it necessary to catalog the infringements we suffer? “Infringe” has become as meaningless as “reasonable.” Or rather, they have both come to mean their opposites in practice. It is a crime in most states merely to carry a firearm not obviously visible (i.e., “concealed,” for which one must posses a permission slip). In some states – and the federal capital itself – it is a felony to possess a firearm, period. So much for “shall not be infringed."

Americans are subject to being dragooned into the night, held without charge – for years – at the whim of the government. The fact that is has not (yet) been done on a large scale is not relevant. That fact is it could be, at any time – because the authority has been asserted and formalized into “the law” by executive fiat and court sanction (or refusal to not sanction). There is no appeal, no mechanism in law to protect the individual. Merely the hazy recollection that it didn’t used to be that way. Once that fades, the results will be predictable.

We are forced – under threat of lengthy incarceration - to provide evidence the government can and will use to prosecute us as “criminals.” Doubt it? Decline to provide the government with information regarding your business dealings, your assets, your salary – and see what happens.

The onetime right to a trial by jury has been end-run by “administrative” law. Pay up – or else.

So much for the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

We are allowed to own nothing of substance. Our homes and land are functionally owned by the state, which assess us rent in the form of property tax. Fail to pay the rent and you will quickly discover who owns “your” land.

Not even your physical person is your own property. The state owns you. It decrees you may not consume certain substance as this might harm its property. You may not mate or partner with another without permission – or only in certain “approved” ways. The children you produce are not yours to raise. They must be raised as the state decrees, properly “educated” in ways the state approves.

And the Ninth and Tenth Amendments? A sick joke.

What “rights” has the federal government not arrogated unto itself? It forcibly injects itself into the most mundane and minute affairs of individuals; most recently, it has asserted that each of us must purchase health insurance – or else – and will shortly assert its “right” to micromanage our actual “health,” to include our personal habits and recreations – very probably, the opinions we hold.

So much for our rights.

They may continue to exist, of course. But they are not respected.

Just as was intended by the men who wrote the Constitution.

Throw it in the Woods?

[osoab]

Others claim the B.o.R. as a ruse too. Government is the one originating the "rights".

[Uncle Salty]

Yeah it sucks, but it sure beats any other constitution.

Either that or anarchy. Take your pick.

[madfranks]

Yeah it sucks, but it sure beats any other constitution.

Either that or anarchy. Take your pick.

Anarchy. :)

[EE_]

Yeah it sucks, but it sure beats any other constitution.

Agreed. It still exists if you're willing to die to defend your Constitutional rights.

[jimswift]

Agreed. It still exists if you're willing to die to defend your Constitutional rights.

I read once: "Rights are purchased on the battlefield"

[osoab]

I read once: "Rights are purchased on the battlefield"

Then you come home and take it lying down.

[Ares]

Agreed. It still exists if you're willing to die to defend your Constitutional rights.

But its existence is temporary. The author points out quite correctly that the moment the Constitution was signed even with the Bill of Rights in place the government still violated those rights.

Having a revolution every 20-30 years because the government gets out of line and forces our hand to have it follow its written document means it failed. We failed, and the country as it was intended failed.

[Libertytree]

It was a dark day a long while ago when the OP's thoughts came to me and I still believe in many of it's most basic tenets but, and there's always a but....It has failed, by design or defect. I would still die for many of those tenets but it would not be blindly and not to restore the same thing again. I do believe I've turned into an anarchist.

[Ares]

It was a dark day a long while ago when the OP's thoughts came to me and I still believe in many of it's most basic tenets but, and there's always a but....It has failed, by design or defect. I would still die for many of those tenets but it would not be blindly and not to restore the same thing again. I do believe I've turned into an anarchist.

For me it's a logical conclusion when you step back and really study the problem. The problem is men cannot be trusted to rule over others without abusing the power they've been given. It's happened all through out history. Call it anarchy, call volunteerism, call it whatever you'd like. But a society without government is not ruled, abused, or have its rights constantly violated or at risk of being violated by someone calling themselves the state.

Is it perfect? No. It's is pretty? No. Is it the most effective form of societal cooperation? Unknown as it's theoretical model is untested on a large scale. But we know what doesn't work. Monarchy, Democracy, Republic, Dictatorship, Communism, etc. It doesn't work and only benefits a few at the expense of the many.

[iOWNme]

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3312/3499746205_8f5660d56e_o.gif

[iOWNme]

Agreed. It still exists if you're willing to die to defend your Constitutional rights.

There are no 'Rights' laid out in the CONstitution. The CONStitution is nothing more than the 'guidelines' for a parasitic ruling class. The article points out that even the simple minded people of those days wouldnt 'agree' to it without some sort of 'guarantee' that their 'Rights' would not be violated.

Many men have 'fought and died' for the Constitution. I still cant understand why slave would 'fight and die' for their Masters survival?

[iOWNme]

It was a dark day a long while ago when the OP's thoughts came to me and I still believe in many of it's most basic tenets but, and there's always a but....It has failed, by design or defect. I would still die for many of those tenets but it would not be blindly and not to restore the same thing again. I do believe I've turned into an anarchist.

You've ALWAYS been an Anarchist. You were born FREE. The lie of slavery ('Government') had to be trained into you.

[Carl]

Yes, let's just ditch the concept of rule of law and adopt prison yard rules and we can sit back and watch Darwin's theory in action, until it catches up to us.....yep, that will work.

[gunDriller]

It was a dark day a long while ago when the OP's thoughts came to me and I still believe in many of it's most basic tenets but, and there's always a but....It has failed, by design or defect. I would still die for many of those tenets but it would not be blindly and not to restore the same thing again. I do believe I've turned into an anarchist.


i've been watching Deadwood, the TV show.

it shows an interesting intersection of 'wild west' anarchy and intruding government.

[Ares]

Yes, let's just ditch the concept of rule of law and adopt prison yard rules and we can sit back and watch Darwin's theory in action, until it catches up to us.....yep, that will work.

The rule of law was ditched the moment a select few used it for their personal gain while enslaving the rest of us. There is no rule of law.

[Carl]

The rule of law was ditched the moment a select few used it for their personal gain while enslaving the rest of us. There is no rule of law. Why would say shit like that, you know that's not true at all.

[Libertytree]

i've been watching Deadwood, the TV show.

it shows an interesting intersection of 'wild west' anarchy and intruding government.

Excellent observation.

[EE_]

But its existence is temporary. The author points out quite correctly that the moment the Constitution was signed even with the Bill of Rights in place the government still violated those rights.

Having a revolution every 20-30 years because the government gets out of line and forces our hand to have it follow its written document means it failed. We failed, and the country as it was intended failed.

And what is wrong with having a revolution every 20-30 years? It's an inherent flaw in man/mankind to fail.
Yes we failed again, so let's get busy!
Should we the people write ourselves a new constitution?

I'm going to have you guys head over to the complaint Dept. and take a number.

http://areteinstitute.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/complaint_department_grenade.jpg

[madfranks]

Yes, let's just ditch the concept of rule of law and adopt prison yard rules and we can sit back and watch Darwin's theory in action, until it catches up to us.....yep, that will work.

A common misconception. Anarchy does not mean without law, it means without rulers. Private contract and private law would still exist, just as they existed before our constitution was written.

[Ares]

Why would say shit like that, you know that's not true at all.

But it is true. They exempt themselves from the laws they pass while holding us accountable. How is that rule of law?

[Dogman]

But unless I am mistaken, there was always a strong man hiding in the bushes that ruled over the others, except maybe in small isolated community's. Even in any tribe there was always the equivalent of a chief that word was law, or at least made the final decision.

Any half ass look at history can show there have never been any societies, except the early Greeks that invented democracy. That the common man had any say, as long as you were not a slave! Tho the romans did good if a slave could be freeded they had the same privileges as any other citizen.

Man has always dominated other men from the beginning of time. In one shape/form or fashion when living in any group.

Tho chasing after the dream, never hurts, to dream for something that will never happen, unless there is a major population reset. Like 99 or so % of the world gets wiped out and they that are left can start over. But probably will be a repeat from the past.

Humans are very good at not learning from the past and repeating the same mistakes their forefathers made.

[iOWNme]

A common misconception. Anarchy does not mean without law, it means without rulers. Private contract and private law would still exist, just as they existed before our constitution was written.

You are 100% correct.

'Government' is the monopoly on the initiation of violence. Somehow people IMAGINE that if we dont have a group who have the moral right to initiate violence (something no mortal man has) we will somehow devolve into wild animals. Statism is the belief that without 'Government', man cannot make it on his own. What species is in this thing called 'Government' again?

The ONLY thing that would change in Anarchy is the removal of a group of criminals who initiate violence with impunity. We can all still cooperate. We can all still organize. We can all still voluntarily interact. We can still build a flat place. (Sometimes called a 'road').

[Carl]

A common misconception. Anarchy does not mean without law, it means without rulers. Private contract and private law would still exist, just as they existed before our constitution was written. No, anarchy means without the rule of law.

And yes, we had private contract and private law before the constitution, gifted to us by the BRITISH EMPIRE and MERCENARIES.

[Horn]

The only omissions to the bill of rights, were by those wielding it.

No fault lies with the Constitution, only with its misuse by complacaints that did not follow it, by only declaring to follow.

No piece of paper will guarantee, nor anarchy have any definition in real terms.

Anarchy is in original sin position for a wontoness of definition, without law it cannot even grasp its own definition.

[Ares]

The only omissions to the bill of rights, were by those wielding it.

No fault lies with the Constitution, only with its misuse by complacaints that did not follow it, by only declaring to follow.

No piece of paper will guarantee, nor anarchy have any definition in real terms.

The flaw is in the entire process of government. All governments have a written charter or constitution if you will that they are bound by law to follow. If they don't follow it, what are the repercussions? How do you correct a government that makes its own laws and completely ignores its own charter? How do you prevent being prosecuted for being an "enemy of the state" if you don't agree with your government?

The entire concept of giving power to others in the hopes that they don't abuse it has proven fruitless for over 2,000 years. Why do we keep going back and hoping "this time will be different?"

[Horn]

Why do we keep going back and hoping "this time will be different?"

You don't have anything better to do.

Where's that Edge of Tomorrow trailer?

[Carl]

But it is true. They exempt themselves from the laws they pass while holding us accountable. How is that rule of law? The rule of law still applies to them, we just haven't applied it yet.

[woodman]

We don't need a new constitution, we need a more explicit bill of rights.

[Carl]

The flaw is in the entire process of government. All governments have a written charter or constitution if you will that they are bound by law to follow. If they don't follow it, what are the repercussions?
That's the $56 Trillion dollar question and I posted an article that addresses this very point: "The West Needs Shorter Leaders"

[Horn]

That's the $56 Trillion dollar question and I posted an article that addresses this very point: "The West Needs Shorter Leaders"

Governance should not be tried by governance , it is not a pier unto itself.

Senate subcomitee hearings are fallen upon deafly incorporated ears.

[Carl]

Governance should not be tried by governance , it is not a pier unto itself.

Senate subcomitee hearings are fallen upon deafly incorporated ears.

The Senate is in the wrong, unconstitutional hands, which would indicate that every law passed under the 17th, is unconstitutional.

[Dogman]

Anything over two terms, should be banned!

Less time to corrupt the anointed, elected ones.

The longer they stay the more hidebound/corrupted they become and richer!

[osoab]

No, anarchy means without the rule of law.

And yes, we had private contract and private law before the constitution, gifted to us by the BRITISH EMPIRE and MERCENARIES.

Anarchy (http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Home?word=Anarchy)


AN'ARCHY, noun [Gr. rule.]

Want of government; a state of society, when there is no law or supreme power, or when the laws are not efficient, and individuals do what they please with impunity; political confusion.

[Dogman]

Somalia come to mind by that def, but they also have strong men/war lords.

And we all know what a paradise that place is for the common man, can happen what ever color the majority is.

[osoab]

Anything over two terms, should be banned!

Less time to corrupt the anointed, elected ones.

The longer they stay the more hidebound/corrupted they become and richer!

So if they do two terms as a mayor, state rep, state senator, fed rep, fed senator, maybe an appointment to some fed lackey job added in between. That is a lot of time.

They will make new levels of government to keep the chosen hands in charge.

[Dogman]

So if they do two terms as a mayor, state rep, state senator, fed rep, fed senator, maybe an appointment to some fed lackey job added in between. That is a lot of time.

They will make new levels of government to keep the chosen hands in charge.

Was thinking more on the national level/state levels.

Local level gov is local and watched like a hawk. And changes can be dam near immediate.

But for most being human , out of sight out of mind!

Local the ones to blame are very obvious, state and national, not so much, the asshats blend together, tho who voted for what is plane, and the changes come from above with the fear of big or bigger gov.

Also make it that corporations are not people!

Get the big money out!

Imposable under the current system.

Two terms max! On any state/national levels!

And should not leave office richer than they went in. Other than what they make in salary's. Book deals and other crap comes only after they leave office. Not profiting by any shady dealings.

Major problem now is a complete lack of any

Morality anymore!

On the national and local levels!

;)

[EE_]

When The Elite showed its hand

by Jon Rappoport
June 16, 2014

In a minute, I’m going to print a stunning 1978 conversation between a US reporter and two members of the Trilateral Commission.

I discovered the conversation in the late 1980s, and ever since then, I’ve been looking at it from various angles, finding new implications. Here, I want to point out that the conversation was public knowledge at the time.

Anyone who was anyone in Washington politics, in media, in think-tanks, had access to it. Understood its meaning.

But no one shouted from the rooftops. No one used the conversation to force a scandal. No one protested loudly.

The conversation revealed that the entire basis of the Constitution had been torpedoed, that the people who were running US national policy were agents of an elite shadow group. No question about it.

And yet: official silence. Media silence. The Dept. of Justice made no moves, Congress undertook no serious inquiries, and the President, Jimmy Carter, issued no statements. Carter was himself a covert agent in the White House, a willing pawn, and despite his proclaimed religious values, was nothing more than a rank con artist, a hustler.

To boil down the 1978 conversation between the reporter and two Trilateral Commission members, and the follow-on response:

“The US has been taken over.”

“Yeah, so?”

By the way, the infamous Trilateral Commission still exists.

Many people think the TC, created in 1973 by David Rockefeller, is a relic of an older time.

Think again.

Patrick Wood, author of Trilaterals Over Washington, points out there are only 87 members of the Trilateral Commission who live in America. Obama appointed eleven of them to posts in his administration.

For example: Tim Geithner, Treasury Secretary;
James Jones, National Security Advisor;
Paul Volker, Chairman, Economic Recovery Committee;
Dennis Blair, Director of National Intelligence.

Several other noteworthy Trilateral members: George HW Bush; Bill Clinton; Dick Cheney; Al Gore.

Keep in mind that the original stated goal of the TC was to create “a new international economic order.”

In the run-up to his inauguration after the 2008 presidential election, Obama was tutored by the co-founder of the Trilateral Commission, Zbigniew Brzezinski.

Brzezinski wrote, four years before birthing the TC with his godfather, David Rockefeller: “[The] nation state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force. International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation state.”

Any doubt on the question of TC goals is answered by David Rockefeller himself, the founder of the TC, in his Memoirs (2003): “Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

Okay. Here is a close-up snap shot of a remarkable moment from out of the past. It’s through-the-looking-glass—a conversation between reporter, Jeremiah Novak, and two Trilateral Commission members, Karl Kaiser and Richard Cooper. The interview took place in 1978. It concerned the issue of who exactly, during President Carter’s administration, was formulating US economic and political policy.

The careless and off-hand attitude of Trilateralists Kaiser and Cooper is astonishing. It’s as if they’re saying, “What we’re revealing is already out in the open, it’s too late to do anything about it, why are you so worked up, we’ve already won…”

NOVAK (the reporter): Is it true that a private [Trilateral committee] led by Henry Owen of the US and made up of [Trilateral] representatives of the US, UK, West Germany, Japan, France and the EEC is coordinating the economic and political policies of the Trilateral countries [which would include the US]?

COOPER: Yes, they have met three times.

NOVAK: Yet, in your recent paper you state that this committee should remain informal because to formalize ‘this function might well prove offensive to some of the Trilateral and other countries which do not take part.’ Who are you afraid of?

KAISER: Many countries in Europe would resent the dominant role that West Germany plays at these [Trilateral] meetings.

COOPER: Many people still live in a world of separate nations, and they would resent such coordination [of policy].

NOVAK: But this [Trilateral] committee is essential to your whole policy. How can you keep it a secret or fail to try to get popular support [for its decisions on how Trilateral member nations will conduct their economic and political policies]?

COOPER: Well, I guess it’s the press’ job to publicize it.

NOVAK: Yes, but why doesn’t President Carter come out with it and tell the American people that [US] economic and political power is being coordinated by a [Trilateral] committee made up of Henry Owen and six others? After all, if [US] policy is being made on a multinational level, the people should know.

COOPER: President Carter and Secretary of State Vance have constantly alluded to this in their speeches.

KAISER: It just hasn’t become an issue.

Source: “Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management,” ed. by Holly Sklar, 1980. South End Press, Boston. Pages 192-3.

This interview slipped under the mainstream media radar, which is to say, it was ignored and buried.

US economic and political policy run by a committee of the Trilateral Commission—the Commission had been been created in 1973 as an “informal discussion group” by David Rockefeller and his sidekick, Zbigniew Brzezinski.

When Carter won the presidential election, his aide, Hamilton Jordan, said that if after the inauguration, Cy Vance and Brzezinski came on board as secretary of state and national security adviser, “We’ve lost. And I’ll quit.” Lost—because both men were powerful members of the Trilateral Commission and their appointment to key positions would signal a surrender of White House control to the Commission.

Vance and Brzezinski were appointed secretary of state and national security adviser, as Jordan feared. But he didn’t quit. He became Carter’s chief of staff.

Now consider the vast propaganda efforts of the past 40 years, on so many levels, to install the idea that all nations and peoples of the world are a single Collective.

From a very high level of political and economic power, this propaganda op has had the objective of grooming the population for a planet that is one coagulated mass, run and managed by one force. A central engine of that force is the Trilateral Commission.

http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2014/06/16/when-the-elite-showed-its-hand/

[Horn]

term limits at the standard 8 would be fine. reducing any pensions to 0 would fix them going for the full 8.

a lifetime pursuit as politician has some sort of foul unhuman stench about it anyways, like a sales position.

[aeondaze]

But unless I am mistaken, there was always a strong man hiding in the bushes that ruled over the others, except maybe in small isolated community's. Even in any tribe there was always the equivalent of a chief that word was law, or at least made the final decision.

Humans are very good at not learning from the past and repeating the same mistakes their forefathers made.

Its called a big man society, not strong man and yes this is how tribal societies are viewed. There are two views to how we lived, the modern way with social often hereditry stratification which evolved out of the neolithic and was reinforced with the bronze age in the middle east, before that was a tribal culture with a big man at the top.

A big man is not very big if he falls out of favour with his clan and will be disposed of in quick measure, despotism is not kindly looked upon and can get you killed. Ultimately he exists on pretty much the same level as all the other tribesman. Being a big man is not necessarily hereditry, but it can be.


Unknown as it's theoretical model is untested on a large scale.

Not true, think past what you know. Before the neolithic, the mesolithic in Europe and Paleolithic in the middle East is this so called untested time. The neolithic, agriculture and settle life was the beginning of social stratification and a hereditry elite, before that was well, anarchy.

We spent most of our time evolving in truely egalitarian and archarchistic social settings, I believer its out natural state. Elite hereditry leaders is a much much later ill fitting adaptation.

[Dogman]

Its called a big man society, not strong man and yes this is how tribal societies are viewed. There are two views to how we lived, the modern way with social often hereditry stratification which evolved out of the neolithic and was reinforced with the bronze age in the middle east, before that was a tribal culture with a big man at the top.

A big man is not very big if he falls out of favour with his clan and will be disposed of in quick measure, despotism is not kindly looked upon and can get you killed. Ultimately he exists on pretty much the same level as all the other tribesman. Being a big man is not necessarily hereditry, but it can be.



Not true, think past what you know. Before the neolithic, the mesolithic in Europe and Paleolithic in the middle East is this so called untested time. The neolithic, agriculture and settle life was the beginning of social stratification and a hereditry elite, before that was well, anarchy.

We spent most of our time evolving in truely egalitarian and archarchistic social settings, I believer its out natural state. Elite hereditry leaders is a much much later ill fitting adaptation.

Agree in principle!

What we call the top can be because of cultural backgrounds, but the end result is the same.

[BrewTech]

Yeah it sucks, but it sure beats any other constitution.

Either that or anarchy. Take your pick.

I would LOVE to hear your interpretation of "Anarchy". Please, explain!

[Shami-Amourae]

How does anarchy work when all these people flood into your homeland?
http://www.davidduke.com/images/culturally-enriched-diversity.jpg

[aeondaze]

Agree in principle!

What we call the top can be because of cultural backgrounds, but the end result is the same.

In principle? There is no 'in principle' bullshit.

Thats the way it ACTUALLY was. The end result is NOT the same by any measure. You just don't like admitting leaders in big man societies were far more accountable to other tribesman, ultimately with their very life.

It doesn't fit in your preconceived and incorrect assumptions about what 'anarchy' is.

[Dogman]

In principle? There is no 'in principle' bullshit.

Thats the way it ACTUALLY was. The end result is NOT the same by any measure. You just don't like admitting leaders in big man societies were far more accountable to other tribesman, ultimately with their very life.

It doesn't fit in your preconceived and incorrect assumptions about what 'anarchy' is.

You miss read my post,

No Cooky's for you!

Zoom right over your frigging head!

Android Forum Runner

[aeondaze]

You miss read my post,

No Cooky's for you!

Zoom right over your frigging head!

Android Forum Runner

Pay tell, what went over my head then. Your post was nothing more than your usual classic fence sit/defend the status quo BS.

[Dogman]

Pay tell, what went over my head then. Your post was nothing more than your usual classic fence sit/defend the status quo BS.
Nope!

But I will say I was agreeing with you!

Now go peddle your bike, and play in heavy traffic!

Or with a big salty!


;)

Edited!

Nuff of this thread, when the choice of a word meaning the the same thing, causes dingleheads to go wonky!

Shee!

Have a nice life!

Android Forum Runner

[aeondaze]

Nope!

But I will say I was agreeing with you!

Now go peddle your bike in heavy traffic!


;)

Android Forum Runner

and still nothing....

[mick silver]

I have seen this show for too many years and it stay the same one's with paper money never go to jail for there crimes
The rule of law still applies to them, we just haven't applied it yet.

[singular_me]

it can only be either or... anarchy is salvation. Govs will NEVER get better that what we have seen in the last 4000 years.

the only choices:
asking others to be in charge by means of coercion or being fully responsible

any gov structure is a faulty premise to start with.


Yeah it sucks, but it sure beats any other constitution.

Either that or anarchy. Take your pick.

[singular_me]

why seeking to go through the same over and over? That is this very thinking that projects the same failure. while between each revolution, wars are killing millions?



And what is wrong with having a revolution every 20-30 years? It's an inherent flaw in man/mankind to fail.
Yes we failed again, so let's get busy!
Should we the people write ourselves a new constitution?

I'm going to have you guys head over to the complaint Dept. and take a number.

http://areteinstitute.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/complaint_department_grenade.jpg

[singular_me]

this is a government consequence, shami... when an economy is stable, immigration cannot be threatening.


How does anarchy work when all these people flood into your homeland?
http://www.davidduke.com/images/culturally-enriched-diversity.jpg

[Carl]

I have seen this show for too many years and it stay the same one's with paper money never go to jail for there crimes Jail is not the justice that is coming due....But that's just a assumptive guess on my part...

[govcheetos]

Get a new constitution.

This one gets honorable mention with me. Adjust as you see necessary.

Things are tightening up. Decide what you truly believe and stick to it. History will not honor the fence sitters.

http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?65797-Carpe-Libertas&highlight=carpe+libertas

[Horn]

I doubt the world could come to terms with a new constitution these days, even our small group with similar interest can agree completely on any one thing.

A natural anarchy would come firstly, and everything that once was forgotten possibly. Anarchists state that repeating the same mistakes over and over again (any structure to begin with) is the problem. When anarchy was the U.S. before the constitution, and a drift into it would be the repeat.

I say enforce the one you've been handed, as its never been done.

[FreeEnergy]

Yeah it sucks, but it sure beats any other constitution.

Either that or anarchy. Take your pick.


That's false dichotomy.