anarchy? Ha, ha, HA! — J. A. A. —
On May 16, 5:42 pm, Jonathan <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com> wrote:
> I find it extremely interesting that the only comments on John's New
> Constitution come from those who are able to poke holes in it. I have
> yet to see anyone post any comments in support of his diatribe.
> On 05/16/2011 01:41 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
> > Do this MJ: Spend nearly 15 years of your life pinning and polishing
> > a New Constitution. On the day of the referendum, the voters will get
> > to decide whose has the most appeal to them. Your ideas of the worth
> > of my document don't matter. ï¿½ J. A. A. ï¿½
> > On May 16, 2:11 pm, MJ<micha...@america.net> wrote:
> >> Again you attempt to change the subject.
> >> Whether I read or have read Atlas Shrugged is irrelevant ... just like the remainder of your response.
> >> Regard$,
> >> --MJ "It is not the business of government to make men virtuous or religious or to preserve the fool from the consequences of his own folly. Government should be repressive no further than is necessary to secure liberty by protecting the equal rights of each from aggression...[when] governmental prohibitions extend beyond this line they are in danger of defeating the very ends they are intended to serve" --Henry GeorgeAt 07:44 PM 5/12/2011, you wrote:MJ: You should read 'Atlas Shrugged.' Government could NEVER
> >> orchestrate an entire economy, the way "the law of supply and demand"
> >> can. Our biggest problem with government is that those out-of-touch,
> >> career politicians have zero real-world experience. They actually
> >> BELIEVE that they are necessary to determine how everything on Earth
> >> gets done. Within four total years of the ratification my New
> >> Constitution there won't be a single "career path" politician in
> >> Washington! ï¿½ J. A. A. ï¿½
> >> On May 12, 1:47 pm, MJ<micha...@america.net> wrote:
> >>> At 08:18 PM 5/11/2011, you wrote:Dear Jonathan: No! Only "schemes" that have the strings being pulled
> >>> by government would be socialist. My New Constitution includes these
> >>> and other protections to require "fairness" (not... equality) from
> >>> businesses:
> >>> Government REQUIRING any business, individual, collection of individuals that serves ANYTHING other than securing EVERYONE's right to life; their own life; self-ownership serves to provide advantage to some at the expense of others AND necessarily interferes with the use of one's private property -- you know, socialism.
> >>> You STILL do not see how you are endorsing and promoting what you claim to be eliminating."Businesses and professions shall be fair to their employees and to
> >>> their customers. The wages, benefits and perks, as well as the
> >>> charges that are made for goods and services, shall not be
> >>> discriminatory nor exploitive of any person, group nor class, nor
> >>> shall such be overly influenced by the profit motive of those who
> >>> perform no actual work on an ongoing basis. Fair and honest business
> >>> practices require that management be forthright with employees and
> >>> customers without coercion."
> >>> This is socialism in any of its many forms.
> >>> Take 'discriminatory' -- which necessarily occurs whenever more than one person seeks an available position ...
> >>> What about the discrimination against the Business Owner that occurs when people choose NOT to work for him?And... "Only laws, rules, regulations and procedures that are in the
> >>> best interest of the People and the world environment shall be passed,
> >>> enacted or enforced, and no business contrary to such shall be allowed
> >>> to prosper."
> >>> MORE Socialism in any of its many forms.
> >>> Regard$,
> >>> --MJ"Daily experience proves clearly to everybody but the most bigoted fanatics of socialism that governmental management is inefficient and wasteful" -- Ludwig von Mises in "Economic Freedom and Interventionism," 1990.
> >> --
> >> 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.
> Freedom is always illegal!
> When we ask for freedom, we have already failed. It is only when we
> declare freedom for ourselves and refuse to accept any less, that we
> have any possibility of being free.
> "Why should we bother with 'realities' when we have the psychological
> refuge of unthinking patriotism?"
> Gary Leupp - Professor of History, Tufts University
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.