So now socialism is no longer socialism? Is THAT how you resolve your own socialistic embrace? Simply REDEFINE terms?
As noted, socialism interferes with the free use of one's own private property.
I remain curious why 10% of the GNP is *magically* optimum.
Regard$,
--MJ
Every citizen who has produced or acquired a product, should have the option of applying it immediately to his own use or of transferring it to whoever on the face of the earth agrees to give him in exchange the object of his desires. To deprive him of this option . . . solely to satisfy the convenience of another citizen, is to legitimize an act of plunder and to violate the law of justice. -- Frédéric Bastiat
At 04:38 PM 5/16/2011, you wrote:
MJ: You prove nothing by arguing that another way of characterizing
socialism is to claim such interferes with the free use of one's
property. I say the same thing: Socialism STEALS from those who
actually WORK for a living to give to the good-for-nothings who are
unwilling to lift a finger, other than to vote in the most leftist
Democrats around. You will never best me at anything, MJ, because you
simply don't measure up. — NE —
On May 16, 2:05 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> At 07:36 PM 5/12/2011, you wrote:Dear MJ: When the cost of running our government(s) starts
> approaching the optimum 10% of the GNP, there will be such a huge
> What makes 10% GNP 'optimum'?amount of cash available to purchase desired goods and services, the
> many more people should be willing to be charitable. Socialism is
> FORCED charity that robs from the rich to give to the lazy and good-
> Nonsense.
> Socialism is INTERFERING in the free use of one's private property.
> Regard$,
> --MJAll States are governed by a ruling class that is a minority of the population, and which subsists as a parasitic and exploitative burden upon the rest of society. Since its rule is exploitative and parasitic, the State must purchase the alliance of a group of Court Intellectuals, whose task is to bamboozle the public into accepting and celebrating the rule of its particular State. The Court Intellectuals have their work cut out for them. In exchange for their continuing work of apologetics and bamboozlement, the Court Intellectuals win their place as junior partners in the power, prestige, and loot extracted by the State apparatus from the deluded public. -- Murray Rothbard
--
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.
<sigh>
Again, you imagine toiling away for hours is somehow synonymous with quality. Shit is shit whether it took you 10 minutes or 15 years.
Regard$,
--MJ
"Any man can make mistakes, but only an idiot persists in his error. " -- Marcus Tullius Cicero
At 04:41 PM 5/16/2011, you wrote:
Do this MJ: Spend nearly 15 years of your life pinning and polishing
a New Constitution. On the day of the referendum, the voters will get
to decide whose has the most appeal to them. Your ideas of the worth
of my document don't matter. — J. A. A. —
>
On May 16, 2:11 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> Again you attempt to change the subject.
> Whether I read or have read Atlas Shrugged is irrelevant ... just like the remainder of your response.
> Regard$,
> --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! — J. A. A. —
> >
> 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$,
> > --MJ"Daily experience proves clearly to everybody but the most bigoted fanatics of socialism that governmental management is inefficient and wasteful" -- Ludwig von Mises in "Economic Freedom and Interventionism," 1990.
> --
> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
> * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Maybe your problem is that you are too close to grasp the simply realities so many are attempting to point to for you.
I realize you imagine that your socialist embrace will somehow be good for everyone, but reality simply demonstrates otherwise. Sorry.
Regard$,
--MJ
You can't reason somebody out of something they weren't reasoned into. -- L. Neil Smith
At 04:46 PM 5/16/2011, you wrote:
MJ:, you are like someone dying of hydrophobia: You deny the
substance (water) that could make your final hours better. And you
deny that my New Constitution will accomplish what you and your lame
quotations haven't accomplished in a decade. — J. A. Armistead —
Patriot
>
On May 16, 2:37 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> You can continue to INSIST that this constitution of yours does all sorts of
> things, but the REALITY is that it simply does not. THAT was the point made
> for you here ... a pity you constantly try to obfuscate and change the subject.
>
> Regard$,
> --MJ
>
> The authority of government can have no pure
> right over my person or property but what I concede to it. -- Thoreau, 1849
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >MJ: My New Constitution RESTORES the maximum property rights to the
> >people! I force our (was) police state to be deferential to any and
> >all law-abiding citizens. You, like J. Ashley, need to learn to
> >read. Socialism, or getting without giving, is banned by my document.
> >That's because socialism would be government sanctioned theft from the
> >rich to give to the lazy and good for nothings. Stealing isn't
> >'fair', now is it? — J. A. A. —
>
> >On May 12, 1:38 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > At 11:16 AM 5/11/2011, you wrote:a
> > job. Trust me that my New Constitution will hang for TREASON any
> > > elected official who proposes anything "social" like SS, Medicare,
> > > Medicaid, and unemployment insurance. All of those must be privatized
> > > EXCEPT for those too old or too sick to survive otherwise.
> > > And we AGAIN see an endorsement for socialism.
> > > Pssst, Armistead, the Government doing
> > *anything* other than securing EVERYONE's right
> > to life; their own life; self-ownership serves
> > to provide advantage to some at the expense of
> > others AND necessarily interferes with the use
> > of one's private property -- you know, socialism.
> > > How does one privatize THEFT and DISTRIBUTION of ill-gotten gains?
> > > Regard$,
> > > --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, 1772
>
> >--
> >Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> >For options & help see http://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 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.
So you are going to CONTINUE to avoid the critique of your socialist embracing wet dream? I suppose I would too, were I you.
Regard$,
--MJ
"In politics stupidity is not a handicap", -- Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821.)
At 04:49 PM 5/16/2011, you wrote:
Folks, MJ is a jealous misfit. He's never liked anything in his
life. Negativity is the closest he comes to experiencing joy. Sad,
very sad. — J. A. A. —
>
On May 16, 2:35 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> Your constant efforts to avoid reality do nothing for your cause.
> Why is it you continue to AVOID the words, concepts and ideas presented?
> Regard$,
> --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 05:06 PM 5/13/2011, you wrote:MJ: You are just a gadfly. I swat you down, but you can't believe
> you are dead. — J. A. A. —
> >
> 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$,
> > --MJ"Daily experience proves clearly to everybody but the most bigoted fanatics of socialism that governmental management is inefficient and wasteful" -- Ludwig von Mises in "Economic Freedom and Interventionism," 1990.
> --
> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
> * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
I have replied to a number of your "cut and pastes"; and as EVERYONE in this group can attest, you never, ever respond!
Don't even go there Michael. You're beginning to piss me off.
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 10:04 PM, MJ
<michaelj@america.net> wrote:
And you CONTINUE with your meaningless drivel about nonsensical nothingness.
Several People in THIS forum forward/provide 'discussion starters' ... articles, quotes, cartoons, etc.
In the instances I have called you on your wanting responses, instead of addressing these words, concepts and ideas that are presented, you make meaningless proclamations that could be appended to *any* effort provided by *anyone* with similar results OR (your favorite) you simply chant "poopeyhead" as though THAT -- in itself -- has some meaningful refutation of those words, concepts and ideas.
Here is your -- what, 4th? -- effort to CONTINUE to obfuscate and avoid the discussion as it progressed. Can we safely conclude by now that you are simply giving up on your defense of the statist Gingrich?
Regard$,
--MJ
It is hard to believe that a man is telling the truth when you know that you would lie if you were in his place. -- H. L. Mencken
At 03:56 PM 5/16/2011, you wrote:
What is it that you have provided to the Group Michael, besides cut and paste articles from Moonbats and Crackpots? I have at least come forward (recently) and shown why the "Fallacy Spew" from these Moonbats and Crackpots is exactly that, and you have yet to post a cognitive opinion from you, yourself......Come to think of it......Ever.
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 9:51 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:
- So your "solution" is to spew MORE fallacy?
- You apparently do not grasp the logical argument.
- So why is it you AVOIDED the words, concepts and ideas presented ... choosing instead to obfuscate and posit MORE fallacy?
- Regard$,
- --MJ
- News flash: Republican statists take control of the House over Democrat statists. Prepare for more socialism, interventionism & imperialism. -- Jacob Hornberger
- At 03:30 PM 5/16/2011, you wrote:
- Michael,
-
- So, once again, let's review:
-
- It's okay if the purported "Fallacy spew" comes from the likes of Justin Raimondo, Lew Rockwell, Laurence Moonbat, Bill Maher, or some other crackpot, but when a man who has in fact fought the battle for thirty years for limited government makes a speech that is out of line with what a majority Democratic Party Congress voted for, and that he was in fact a member of, and voted against, this somehow makes the man non-credible?
-
- I think I got it now.
--
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.
--
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.
--
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.
Gingrich Offers Healthcare Reform Advice
Written by Joe Wolverton, II
Saturday, 13 February 2010 11:00
Newt Gingrich, architect of the "Contract with America," and John C. Goodman, founding president of the National Center for Policy Analysis, wrote an op-ed column for the Wall Street Journal offering suggestions to President Barack Obama, who seems desperate to find ways to garner bipartisan support for his push for healthcare reform.
In their missive, Messrs. Gingrich and Goodman proceed to provide the president with 10 of the "best ideas out there" for overhauling the American healthcare system and doing so in a manner that would please his political rivals.
Despite being soi-disant conservatives, the advice given by these two eager counselors instructs the president to do this or that, none of which is at all provided for in Article II of the Constitution, the article that defines the powers granted to the president. That said, none of these pointers would be constitutionally possible for Congress either (see Article I of the Constitution).
Never one to allow the Constitution and its enumerated powers to get in the way of a good scheme, however, Gingrich and company offered the following slate of ideas, all of which do nothing but construct a stable around a Hobson's choice of broken down health care horses:
Make insurance affordable. The current taxation of health insurance is arbitrary and unfair, giving lavish subsidies to some, like those who get Cadillac coverage from their employers, and almost no relief to people who have to buy their own. More equitable tax treatment would lower costs for individuals and families. Many health economists conclude that tax relief for health insurance should be a fixed-dollar amount, independent of the amount of insurance purchased. A step in the right direction would be to give Americans the choice of a generous tax credit or the ability to deduct the value of their health insurance up to a certain amount.
This sounds fine at first blush and isn't so much a project for the President as a directive to Congress, but it nonetheless proposes changes to a tax scheme whose every mandate is another crime against the Constitution and the restrictions placed therein on the Congress's power to tax citizens. Gingrich and his fellows would be wise to recognize that no matter how much they love England and our shared history, in America we are citizens, not subjects and we will not be taxed whimsically.
Make health insurance portable. The first step toward genuine portability and the best way of solving the problems of pre-existing conditions is to change federal policy. Employers should be encouraged to provide employees with insurance that travels with them from job to job and in and out of the labor market. Also, individuals should have the ability to purchase health insurance across state lines. When insurers compete for consumers, prices will fall and quality will improve.
How do the authors of these tips justify such a step? Under what theory of constitutionality is this suggestion the bailiwick of Congress? The solution to cutting the tethers on health insurance is to restrain Congress by the shackles of the Constitution. That is to say, health insurance policies will become more portable in direct proportion to the limits placed on Congress's unchecked exercise of illegitimate taxing powers. If left free of stifling government red tape, the marketplace will respond to the needs and desires of workers. Under the current environment, however, employers are fearful of re-designing their models and offering enhanced benefits that might draw the attention of congressmen anxious to skim a few coins off the top of any new pot of gold.
Meet the needs of the chronically ill. Most individuals with chronic diseases want to be in charge of their own care. The mother of an asthmatic child, for example, should have a device at home that measures the child's peak airflow and should be taught when to change his medication, rather than going to the doctor each time.
Having the ability to obtain and manage more health dollars in Health Savings Accounts is a start. A good model for self-management is the Cash and Counseling program for the homebound disabled under Medicaid. Individuals in this program are able to manage their own budgets and hire and fire the people who provide them with custodial services and medical care. Satisfaction rates approach 100%, according to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
We should also encourage health plans to specialize in managing chronic diseases instead of demanding that every plan must be all things to all people. For example, special-needs plans in Medicare Advantage actively compete to enroll and cover the sickest Medicare beneficiaries, and stay in business by meeting their needs. This is the alternative to forcing insurers to take high-cost patients for cut-rate premiums, which guarantees that these patients will be unwanted.
Again, take the hands of government out of the pockets of Americans and you instantly alleviate the federally applied financial pressure that restricts the ability of working Americans to put aside money for their own healthcare. When insurance companies conspire with congress, then the consumer is stuck between the devil and the deep blue sea, drowning under wave after wave of constricting clauses and confusing conditions.
Allow doctors and patients to control costs. Doctors and patients are currently trapped by government-imposed payment rates. Under Medicare, doctors are not paid if they communicate with their patients by phone or e-mail. Medicare pays by taskthere is a list of about 7,500but doctors do not get paid to advise patients on how to lower their drug costs or how to comparison shop on the Web. In short, they get paid when people are sick, not to keep them healthy.
So long as total cost to the government does not rise and quality of care does not suffer, doctors should have the freedom to repackage and reprice their services. And payment should take into account the quality of the care that is delivered. Once physicians are liberated under Medicare, private insurers will follow.
Re-tooling Medicare is not the answer to controlling costs. The answer to controlling costs (as well as to controlling every other instance of government malfeasance) is to insist that those representatives already in office restrain themselves and legislate within the narrow and explicit boundaries drawn by the Constitution. Then, in state after state and district after district, elect only those candidates committed, genuinely, demonstrably committed, to serving according to the dictates of our founding document.
Don't cut Medicare. The reform bills passed by the House and Senate cut Medicare by approximately $500 billion. This is wrong. There is no question that Medicare is on an unsustainable course; the government has promised far more than it can deliver. But this problem will not be solved by cutting Medicare in order to create new unfunded liabilities for young people.
For a conservative to suggest the continued care and maintenance of Medicare even while acknowledging it is on an unsustainable course is an insult to conservatism and the principles of good government it proclaims. Medicare should be no more well regarded than the thousands of other social programs draining the lifeblood of American might. Furthermore, it is laughable that Medicare be considered sacrosanct when its very existence violates our sacred Constitution.
Protect early retirees. More than 80% of the 78 million baby boomers will likely retire before they become eligible for Medicare. This is often the most difficult time for individuals and families to find affordable insurance. A viable bridge to Medicare can be built by allowing employers to obtain individually owned insurance for their retirees at group rates; allowing them to deposit some or all of the premium amount for post-retirement insurance into a retiree's Health Savings Account; and giving employers and younger employees the ability to save tax-free for post-retirement health.
Building a bridge to Medicare? Talk about your bridge to nowhere. This suggestion is merely a restatement of those before and susceptible to the same criticism. It is economically impossible and thus insulting to business to suggest that employers fund a deposit account from which health insurance policies for their retirees could be paid. Congress should not be asked to "allow" employers to make this change or that change in order to relieve the pressure on retirees, rather companies should insist that Congress comply with the Constitution's limits on its power and then all Americans would be the happy recipients of greater economic freedom.
Inform consumers. Patients need to have clear, reliable data about cost and quality before they make decisions about their care. But finding such information is virtually impossible. Sources like Medicare claims data (stripped of patient information) can help consumers answer important questions about their care. Government datapaid for by the taxpayerscan answer these questions and should be made public.
Once again it seems Messrs. Gingrich and Goodman are happy to let the tail wag the dog. Consumers would be abler to insist on clearer cost estimates if the greedy hands of lawmakers were restrained by the Constitution. Information will flow much freer and faster if the pipeline was clogged with viscous residue of Congressional overreaching.
Eliminate junk lawsuits. Last year the president pledged to consider civil justice reform. We do not need to study or test medical malpractice any longer: The current system is broken. States across the countryTexas in particularhave already implemented key reforms including liability protection for using health information technology or following clinical standards of care; caps on non-economic damages; loser pays laws; and new alternative dispute resolution where patients get compensated for unexpected, adverse medical outcomes without lawyers, courtrooms, judges and juries.
This recommendation actually contains a nugget of good sense. The authors cite the reforms made in Texas as an example of how the president and Congress could enact tort reform vis a vis medical malpractice. Perhaps if the authors read the 10th Amendment to the Constitution they would realize that the Lone Star lawmakers are doing precisely what they should do: legislate in areas lying outside the exclusive, explicit, and enumerated arena of the national government. It is duplicitous to highlight Texas's success in changing the law within a wider call for federal interference in a matter clearly outside its restricted province of power.
Stop health-care fraud. Every year up to $120 billion is stolen by criminals who defraud public programs like Medicare and Medicaid, according to the National Health Care Anti-Fraud Association. We can help prevent this by using responsible approaches such as enhanced coordination of benefits, third-party liability verification, and electronic payment.
There's a great way to prevent the defrauding of Medicare: abolish it. You can't steal from an agency that doesn't exist and the same Congress that gave it life can refuse to fund a behemoth that is begging for euthanasia. If the states want to establish and fund health care systems, then so be it. The constitutionality of such a policy would be up to the citizens of those states to decide. On the federal level, however, there is no constitutional authority for the creation of a nationalized medical insurance provider.
Make medical breakthroughs accessible to patients. Breakthrough drugs, innovative devices and new therapies to treat rare, complex diseases as well as chronic conditions should be sped to the market. We can do this by cutting red tape before and during review by the Food and Drug Administration and by deploying information technology to monitor the quality of drugs and devices once they reach the marketplace.
This final proposition is the least constitutionally offensive of the lot. The elimination of red tape, especially the brand manufactured in D.C., is a worthy goal and should be pursued by all those whose aim is the retreat of the federal government back within its constitutional borders.
There is little wonder that men so inextricably bound to the Republican Establishment as Gingrich and Goodman would offer such predictable suggestions for altering the American health care infrastructure. Neither man is a conservative in the true sense. Both are "conservative," however, in the way that both are determined to conserve the status quo and perpetuate policies and partisanship that will eventually enervate the American middle class. There is hope, though, that by illuminating the unconstitutionality of these proposals, a fire may ignite under a soporific electorate and both branches of elective government (and, by extension, the judicial branch) may soon be populated by men and women zealous not for the accumulation of power, but for the ennobling re-enshrinement of our glorious Constitution and all its confining checks and delicate balances.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/health-care/2931-gingrich-offers-health-care-reform-advice
And what part of that is it that you disagree with? Don't tell us what Bill O'Reilly thinks, tell us why you disagree with Newt Gingrich. I agree with Newt, (which is what he just said), I think we have a right to demand that folks in this Nation obey the law.
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 10:20 PM, MJ
<michaelj@america.net> wrote:
You want the MEANINGLESS response?
the O'Reilly Factor
So ... what does that do for you? Anything?
So ... do you want something MEANINGFUL like the actual exchange and endorsement?
- Bill: "Now, they have no drug problem in Singapore at all, number one, because they hang drug dealers -- they execute them. And number two, the market is very thin, because when they catch you using, you go away with a mandatory rehab. You go to some rehab center, which they have, which the government has built. The United States does not have the stomach for that. We don't have the stomach for that, Mr. Speaker."
- Newt: "Well, I think it's time we get the stomach for that, Bill. And I think we need a program -- I would dramatically expand testing. I think we have -- and I agree with you. I would try to use rehabilitation, I'd make it mandatory. And I think we have every right as a country to demand of our citizens that they quit doing illegal things which are funding, both in Afghanistan and in Mexico and in Colombia, people who are destroying civilization."
Regard$,
--MJ
Vices are those acts by which a man harms himself or his property.
Crimes are those acts by which one man harms the person or property of another.
Vices are simply the errors which a man makes in his search after his own happiness. Unlike crimes, they imply no malice toward others, and no interference with their persons or property.
In vices, the very essence of crime that is, the design to injure the person or property of another is wanting. It is a maxim of the law that there can be no crime without criminal intent; that is, without the intent to invade the person or property of another....
Unless this clear distinction between vices and crimes be made and recognized by the laws, there can be on earth no such thing as individual right, liberty, or property.... For a government to declare a vice to be a crime, and to punish it as such, is an attempt to falsify the very nature of things. It is as absurd as it would be to declare truth to be a falsehood, or falsehood truth. -- Lysander Spooner, Vices Are Not Crimes: A Vindication Of Moral Liberty < http://www.lysanderspooner.org/VicesAreNotCrimes.htm>
At 04:10 PM 5/16/2011, you wrote:
In fact, point out, (in your own words) where you think Newt Gingrich has advocated for "big government". Exclude any reference to Gingrich's desire to see all Americans mandated to carry health insurance.
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 9:59 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:
- <sigh>
- Person A states, "X"
- Your response? Person A is a poopeyhead and his writing is so bad (how bad is it) ....
- INSTEAD try ...
- Person A is wrong when he claims X because of a, b and C.
- Chanting Poopeyhead or Moonbat or leftist or Republitard does NOTHING to refute *anything*. Similarly, making empty, meaningless proclamations has the same results.
- Regard$,
- --MJ
- "The man who in times of popular excitement boldly and unflinchingly resists hot-tempered clamor for an unnecessary war, and thus exposes himself to the opprobrious imputation of a lack of patriotism or of courage, to the end of saving his country from a great calamity, is, as to 'loving and faithfully serving his country,' at least as good a patriot as the hero of the most daring feat of arms, and a far better one than those who, with an ostentatious pretense of superior patriotism, cry for war before it is needed, especially if then they let others do the fighting." -- Carl Schurz, April 1898
- At 03:53 PM 5/16/2011, you wrote:
- No Michael, I am able to think cognitively, and not just rely on cut and paste posts from Crackpots and Moonbats.
-
- Again, "Let's Review":
-
- Do a little research, and you will find that the first paragraph is very much misleading, and the sentence from the fourth paragraph is an outright lie:
-
- Even leaving aside the obvious responses that his Al Qaeda sympathizers would make, even patriotic Americans might have differing opinions, depending upon the time period of one's assessment. When the Reagan administration found bin Laden and Al Qaeda useful agents to help rid Afghanistan of Soviet military forces, American politicians took turns posing with these "freedom fighters" for self-serving photo-ops. Their combined efforts drove the Soviets from that country, and helped bring about the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. For his part in all of this, did bin Laden "deserve" having a statue built to him in Washington, D.C., or a boulevard named for him?
- But when his usefulness to American interests terminated – or even became hostile – he was quickly relegated to the character of "villain." This is a tactic long predating Machiavelli, having been useful, in recent years, to transform Saddam Hussein from Donald Rumsfeld's smiling photo-op "friend" to a linch-pin in the axis of evil;
-
-
- On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 8:49 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:
- Translation: I am not actually refuting anything, but pretty please accept my fallacy spew as though it did.
- At 02:02 PM 5/16/2011, you wrote:
- There are so many mistruths, and prevaricate misleading statements in this article, that I couldn't get past the second sentence in the fourth paragraph. Not worth responding to any more Moonbats who don't have a friggin' clue about what they are talking about!!
-
-
- On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 6:13 PM, Jonathan < jonathanashleyII@lavabit.com> wrote:
- What Did bin Laden 'Deserve'?
- by Butler Shaffer
- Gabriela: And you believe everything the authorities tell you?
- Franz Kafka: Well, I have no reason to doubt.
- Gabriela: They're authorities! That's reason enough.
- ~ From the movie Kafka
- My recent article on the U.S. government's assassination of Osama bin Laden elicited many favorable responses, along with a negative one that advised me that this man "got what he deserved." The reader went on to ask "how dare you imply that we owed him the 'right' to be captured and brought to justice." How effortlessly we make our judgments when our minds are in the default mode, and we need only parrot the words of those in authority!
- The media has long been an echo chamber for the avoidance of independent thought and judgment. It is easy to repeat the party line that the state's enemy du jour "got what he deserved" when one refuses to ask the question "what does any of us 'deserve'?" What do I "deserve?" Do you know what you "deserve," and for what actions? From what set of facts do we draw when we make such judgments about the conduct of others? I am neither a fan nor a defender of bin Laden, but those who are so anxious to invoke "closure" as an excuse for evading inquiries into the nature of governmental policies, might ask themselves why they are so willing to embrace his murder.
- An answer to the question "what did bin Laden deserve?" depends upon one's perspective. Even leaving aside the obvious responses that his Al Qaeda sympathizers would make, even patriotic Americans might have differing opinions, depending upon the time period of one's assessment. When the Reagan administration found bin Laden and Al Qaeda useful agents to help rid Afghanistan of Soviet military forces, American politicians took turns posing with these "freedom fighters" for self-serving photo-ops. Their combined efforts drove the Soviets from that country, and helped bring about the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. For his part in all of this, did bin Laden "deserve" having a statue built to him in Washington, D.C., or a boulevard named for him?
- But when his usefulness to American interests terminated – or even became hostile – he was quickly relegated to the character of "villain." This is a tactic long predating Machiavelli, having been useful, in recent years, to transform Saddam Hussein from Donald Rumsfeld's smiling photo-op "friend" to a linch-pin in the axis of evil; to Muammar Gaddafi's mercurial foe/friend/foe role of convenience in American foreign policy. That most Americans insist on remaining so dupable – if not outright stupid – as the state plays out its games of "endless enemies" at their expense, is remarkable.
- What did bin Laden "deserve" in all of this? What do any of us "deserve" in our dealings with one another? Is there any principle to which we can turn to help us answer such questions? Do we "deserve" to be coerced, robbed, or killed whenever someone with superior strength is able to do these things to us? Is this the highest social standard to which we can repair? Have the playground bully and the brutalizing parent become the "founding fathers" of our "New World Order?"
- If the defenders of state assassinations believe they have found a defensible tactic for resolving disputes – or just promoting their own preferences – should it become more widely available for all of us to employ? If two neighbors have a long-standing dispute as to the ownership of rose bushes along their property boundaries, should they resort to murder to settle the matter? Do we not understand that the problem of urban street-gangs is but politics on a different scale; that Obama's drive-by shooting in a house in Abbottabad differs from such a killing in south-central Los Angeles more in terms of geography than substance? If the political establishment is willing to embrace such methods as a way of eliminating political enemies in foreign countries, should the same practices be acknowledged as appropriate within America? Might we want to rethink the "lone-nut-with-a-gun" explanations most of us eagerly swallowed to explain the deaths of the Kennedy brothers, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, et. al. as well as the failed attempts on the lives of Ronald Reagan and George Wallace?
- For decades, I have tried to discover whether there is some principle upon which all people can agree to define the propriety of our actions; a proposition that rises above arbitrary subjective preferences. Politically-defined laws will not suffice, since the state – being defined by its use of violence – exists to promote and enforce conflicts among people. Neither have I found so-called "natural law" principles much help, as their content seems to vary from one advocate to another.
- The one standard to which I am able to find a virtual consensus is this: no one wants to be victimized. No one accepts that their life or other property interest should be subject to trespass by another. Sadly, most of us have internalized our regular victimization by the state, sanctioning such predations provided (a) we believe everyone else to be so bound – the vicious doctrine of "equality," and (b) if we are to be singled out for maltreatment, that we be accorded "due process of law."
- The idea that the military and/or the police – the enforcement arms of the state – could undertake arbitrary and deadly force against any person, finds support among most conservatives. This is why the market for flags and "support the troops" decals blossoms whenever the emperor finds a new "enemy" to attack. It is also why so many conservatives – and even a number of so-called "liberals" – can get their diapers so knotted over the suggestion that Osama bin Laden should have been brought to trial rather than murdered. It is the same mindset that allows police officers to gun down "suspects" without, themselves, being held to account in a court of law.
- Suppose a man is "suspected" of having committed a heinous crime (e.g., sexually assaulting and then murdering a small child)? Suppose this man is found and arrested by the police, who then take him into a back alley and kill him? Did he "get what he deserved?" Would you raise any objection to this – unless, of course, you were the suspect – or would you regard demands for a public trial to be only a "loophole" that might allow him to "escape" his punishment? Is a jury determination of "innocence" to be regarded as a "legal technicality?" Is "suspicion" or "accusation" the equivalent of "guilt?" Should "criminal procedure" classes in law school be required to address such matters as "how to organize a lynch mob?" Should a Ku Klux Klan Grand Dragon square off with an ACLU activist to debate the question "is justice delayed, justice denied?"
- Given the grisly history of lynching in this country – in which the race of the victim was often all that mattered – President Obama who, regardless of where he was born, has more melanin in his system than most Americans, ought to have resisted the self-righteous impulse that has led some people to respond to fear by pulling sheets over their heads!
- Don't you understand that if the bin Ladens of the world can be "brought to justice" by government hit-men who, like their Mafia counterparts, then dump the bodies into the ocean, so can you? Insistence upon state-defined "due process of law" is no guarantee that the innocent shall not be punished, but it's an improvement over assassinations, torture, trips to hidden prisons around the world, and the denial of habeas corpus. Jury trials often result in wrongful convictions, but I'd rather take my chances with twelve men and women with no sinister agendas of their own, than with decisions made behind closed doors by the politically unscrupulous. Bin Laden "deserved" a public trial for the same reasons you and I would.
- With each passing month, it becomes increasingly evident that the United States of America – as a formal system – is about finished. The Constitution has become virtually meaningless as a means of conducting the business of the state. The "separation of powers" of the various branches of government – which we used to pretend would limit the ambitions of each – has given way to notions of "empire," with the president playing the role of "emperor," able to start wars on his own motion (and without congressional approval); to torture or imprison without trial, or order the assassination of any persona non grata of his designation; to give away hundreds of billions of dollars to his corporate friends; ad nauseum. Over many decades, the powers granted to government in the Constitution – which, far from being limited, speak of "general welfare," "necessary and proper," and "reasonable" – have been given very expansive definitions by the courts. By contrast, the rights reserved to individuals have been accorded very restrictive meanings. In the treatment of bin Laden – as well as the continuing incarcerations at Guantanamo – we see further confirmation that what we once thought of as an inalienable right to a public trial is another illusion sacrificed to the empty rhetoric of "national security."
- Though the "United States of America" is in a terminal condition, "America" – as a social system – may yet survive. America preceded the nation-state and, if we can revisit the basic assumptions that underlay the "founding fathers" efforts, we may discover why conditions in which peace, liberty, and respect for life must take precedence over edicts offered by rulers who smirk and strut as they demand obedience to their every whim.
- In the course of such inquiries, we may discover why bin Laden – along with every one of us – deserved to not be dealt with in such an arbitrary, coercive manner. Institutionalized violence is the essence of every political system, and is in the process of destroying Western Civilization. But as secession and nullification enjoy an increasing interest among thoughtful people, members of the establishment power structure may find themselves regarded as the new "Red Coats." Like their predecessors – and in the words of Lysander Spooner – they may then be urged "to go home and content themselves with the exercise of only such rights and powers as nature has given to them in common with the rest of mankind."
- May 14, 2011
- Butler Shaffer teaches at the Southwestern University School of Law. He is the author of the newly-released In Restraint of Trade: The Business Campaign Against Competition, 1918–1938 and of Calculated Chaos: Institutional Threats to Peace and Human Survival. His latest book is Boundaries of Order.
- http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer236.html
- --
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.
--
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.
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
* 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.
* 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.
* 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 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.
You want the MEANINGLESS response?
the O'Reilly Factor
So ... what does that do for you? Anything?
So ... do you want something MEANINGFUL like the actual exchange and endorsement?
- Bill: "Now, they have no drug problem in Singapore at all, number one, because they hang drug dealers -- they execute them. And number two, the market is very thin, because when they catch you using, you go away with a mandatory rehab. You go to some rehab center, which they have, which the government has built. The United States does not have the stomach for that. We don't have the stomach for that, Mr. Speaker."
- Newt: "Well, I think it's time we get the stomach for that, Bill. And I think we need a program -- I would dramatically expand testing. I think we have -- and I agree with you. I would try to use rehabilitation, I'd make it mandatory. And I think we have every right as a country to demand of our citizens that they quit doing illegal things which are funding, both in Afghanistan and in Mexico and in Colombia, people who are destroying civilization."
Regard$,
--MJ
Vices are those acts by which a man harms himself or his property.
Crimes are those acts by which one man harms the person or property of another.
Vices are simply the errors which a man makes in his search after his own happiness. Unlike crimes, they imply no malice toward others, and no interference with their persons or property.
In vices, the very essence of crime that is, the design to injure the person or property of another is wanting. It is a maxim of the law that there can be no crime without criminal intent; that is, without the intent to invade the person or property of another....
Unless this clear distinction between vices and crimes be made and recognized by the laws, there can be on earth no such thing as individual right, liberty, or property.... For a government to declare a vice to be a crime, and to punish it as such, is an attempt to falsify the very nature of things. It is as absurd as it would be to declare truth to be a falsehood, or falsehood truth. -- Lysander Spooner, Vices Are Not Crimes: A Vindication Of Moral Liberty < http://www.lysanderspooner.org/VicesAreNotCrimes.htm>
At 04:10 PM 5/16/2011, you wrote:
In fact, point out, (in your own words) where you think Newt Gingrich has advocated for "big government". Exclude any reference to Gingrich's desire to see all Americans mandated to carry health insurance.
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 9:59 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:
- <sigh>
- Person A states, "X"
- Your response? Person A is a poopeyhead and his writing is so bad (how bad is it) ....
- INSTEAD try ...
- Person A is wrong when he claims X because of a, b and C.
- Chanting Poopeyhead or Moonbat or leftist or Republitard does NOTHING to refute *anything*. Similarly, making empty, meaningless proclamations has the same results.
- Regard$,
- --MJ
- "The man who in times of popular excitement boldly and unflinchingly resists hot-tempered clamor for an unnecessary war, and thus exposes himself to the opprobrious imputation of a lack of patriotism or of courage, to the end of saving his country from a great calamity, is, as to 'loving and faithfully serving his country,' at least as good a patriot as the hero of the most daring feat of arms, and a far better one than those who, with an ostentatious pretense of superior patriotism, cry for war before it is needed, especially if then they let others do the fighting." -- Carl Schurz, April 1898
- At 03:53 PM 5/16/2011, you wrote:
- No Michael, I am able to think cognitively, and not just rely on cut and paste posts from Crackpots and Moonbats.
-
- Again, "Let's Review":
-
- Do a little research, and you will find that the first paragraph is very much misleading, and the sentence from the fourth paragraph is an outright lie:
-
- Even leaving aside the obvious responses that his Al Qaeda sympathizers would make, even patriotic Americans might have differing opinions, depending upon the time period of one's assessment. When the Reagan administration found bin Laden and Al Qaeda useful agents to help rid Afghanistan of Soviet military forces, American politicians took turns posing with these "freedom fighters" for self-serving photo-ops. Their combined efforts drove the Soviets from that country, and helped bring about the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. For his part in all of this, did bin Laden "deserve" having a statue built to him in Washington, D.C., or a boulevard named for him?
- But when his usefulness to American interests terminated – or even became hostile – he was quickly relegated to the character of "villain." This is a tactic long predating Machiavelli, having been useful, in recent years, to transform Saddam Hussein from Donald Rumsfeld's smiling photo-op "friend" to a linch-pin in the axis of evil;
-
-
- On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 8:49 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:
- Translation: I am not actually refuting anything, but pretty please accept my fallacy spew as though it did.
- At 02:02 PM 5/16/2011, you wrote:
- There are so many mistruths, and prevaricate misleading statements in this article, that I couldn't get past the second sentence in the fourth paragraph. Not worth responding to any more Moonbats who don't have a friggin' clue about what they are talking about!!
-
-
- On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 6:13 PM, Jonathan < jonathanashleyII@lavabit.com> wrote:
- What Did bin Laden 'Deserve'?
- by Butler Shaffer
- Gabriela: And you believe everything the authorities tell you?
- Franz Kafka: Well, I have no reason to doubt.
- Gabriela: They're authorities! That's reason enough.
- ~ From the movie Kafka
- My recent article on the U.S. government's assassination of Osama bin Laden elicited many favorable responses, along with a negative one that advised me that this man "got what he deserved." The reader went on to ask "how dare you imply that we owed him the 'right' to be captured and brought to justice." How effortlessly we make our judgments when our minds are in the default mode, and we need only parrot the words of those in authority!
- The media has long been an echo chamber for the avoidance of independent thought and judgment. It is easy to repeat the party line that the state's enemy du jour "got what he deserved" when one refuses to ask the question "what does any of us 'deserve'?" What do I "deserve?" Do you know what you "deserve," and for what actions? From what set of facts do we draw when we make such judgments about the conduct of others? I am neither a fan nor a defender of bin Laden, but those who are so anxious to invoke "closure" as an excuse for evading inquiries into the nature of governmental policies, might ask themselves why they are so willing to embrace his murder.
- An answer to the question "what did bin Laden deserve?" depends upon one's perspective. Even leaving aside the obvious responses that his Al Qaeda sympathizers would make, even patriotic Americans might have differing opinions, depending upon the time period of one's assessment. When the Reagan administration found bin Laden and Al Qaeda useful agents to help rid Afghanistan of Soviet military forces, American politicians took turns posing with these "freedom fighters" for self-serving photo-ops. Their combined efforts drove the Soviets from that country, and helped bring about the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. For his part in all of this, did bin Laden "deserve" having a statue built to him in Washington, D.C., or a boulevard named for him?
- But when his usefulness to American interests terminated – or even became hostile – he was quickly relegated to the character of "villain." This is a tactic long predating Machiavelli, having been useful, in recent years, to transform Saddam Hussein from Donald Rumsfeld's smiling photo-op "friend" to a linch-pin in the axis of evil; to Muammar Gaddafi's mercurial foe/friend/foe role of convenience in American foreign policy. That most Americans insist on remaining so dupable – if not outright stupid – as the state plays out its games of "endless enemies" at their expense, is remarkable.
- What did bin Laden "deserve" in all of this? What do any of us "deserve" in our dealings with one another? Is there any principle to which we can turn to help us answer such questions? Do we "deserve" to be coerced, robbed, or killed whenever someone with superior strength is able to do these things to us? Is this the highest social standard to which we can repair? Have the playground bully and the brutalizing parent become the "founding fathers" of our "New World Order?"
- If the defenders of state assassinations believe they have found a defensible tactic for resolving disputes – or just promoting their own preferences – should it become more widely available for all of us to employ? If two neighbors have a long-standing dispute as to the ownership of rose bushes along their property boundaries, should they resort to murder to settle the matter? Do we not understand that the problem of urban street-gangs is but politics on a different scale; that Obama's drive-by shooting in a house in Abbottabad differs from such a killing in south-central Los Angeles more in terms of geography than substance? If the political establishment is willing to embrace such methods as a way of eliminating political enemies in foreign countries, should the same practices be acknowledged as appropriate within America? Might we want to rethink the "lone-nut-with-a-gun" explanations most of us eagerly swallowed to explain the deaths of the Kennedy brothers, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, et. al. as well as the failed attempts on the lives of Ronald Reagan and George Wallace?
- For decades, I have tried to discover whether there is some principle upon which all people can agree to define the propriety of our actions; a proposition that rises above arbitrary subjective preferences. Politically-defined laws will not suffice, since the state – being defined by its use of violence – exists to promote and enforce conflicts among people. Neither have I found so-called "natural law" principles much help, as their content seems to vary from one advocate to another.
- The one standard to which I am able to find a virtual consensus is this: no one wants to be victimized. No one accepts that their life or other property interest should be subject to trespass by another. Sadly, most of us have internalized our regular victimization by the state, sanctioning such predations provided (a) we believe everyone else to be so bound – the vicious doctrine of "equality," and (b) if we are to be singled out for maltreatment, that we be accorded "due process of law."
- The idea that the military and/or the police – the enforcement arms of the state – could undertake arbitrary and deadly force against any person, finds support among most conservatives. This is why the market for flags and "support the troops" decals blossoms whenever the emperor finds a new "enemy" to attack. It is also why so many conservatives – and even a number of so-called "liberals" – can get their diapers so knotted over the suggestion that Osama bin Laden should have been brought to trial rather than murdered. It is the same mindset that allows police officers to gun down "suspects" without, themselves, being held to account in a court of law.
- Suppose a man is "suspected" of having committed a heinous crime (e.g., sexually assaulting and then murdering a small child)? Suppose this man is found and arrested by the police, who then take him into a back alley and kill him? Did he "get what he deserved?" Would you raise any objection to this – unless, of course, you were the suspect – or would you regard demands for a public trial to be only a "loophole" that might allow him to "escape" his punishment? Is a jury determination of "innocence" to be regarded as a "legal technicality?" Is "suspicion" or "accusation" the equivalent of "guilt?" Should "criminal procedure" classes in law school be required to address such matters as "how to organize a lynch mob?" Should a Ku Klux Klan Grand Dragon square off with an ACLU activist to debate the question "is justice delayed, justice denied?"
- Given the grisly history of lynching in this country – in which the race of the victim was often all that mattered – President Obama who, regardless of where he was born, has more melanin in his system than most Americans, ought to have resisted the self-righteous impulse that has led some people to respond to fear by pulling sheets over their heads!
- Don't you understand that if the bin Ladens of the world can be "brought to justice" by government hit-men who, like their Mafia counterparts, then dump the bodies into the ocean, so can you? Insistence upon state-defined "due process of law" is no guarantee that the innocent shall not be punished, but it's an improvement over assassinations, torture, trips to hidden prisons around the world, and the denial of habeas corpus. Jury trials often result in wrongful convictions, but I'd rather take my chances with twelve men and women with no sinister agendas of their own, than with decisions made behind closed doors by the politically unscrupulous. Bin Laden "deserved" a public trial for the same reasons you and I would.
- With each passing month, it becomes increasingly evident that the United States of America – as a formal system – is about finished. The Constitution has become virtually meaningless as a means of conducting the business of the state. The "separation of powers" of the various branches of government – which we used to pretend would limit the ambitions of each – has given way to notions of "empire," with the president playing the role of "emperor," able to start wars on his own motion (and without congressional approval); to torture or imprison without trial, or order the assassination of any persona non grata of his designation; to give away hundreds of billions of dollars to his corporate friends; ad nauseum. Over many decades, the powers granted to government in the Constitution – which, far from being limited, speak of "general welfare," "necessary and proper," and "reasonable" – have been given very expansive definitions by the courts. By contrast, the rights reserved to individuals have been accorded very restrictive meanings. In the treatment of bin Laden – as well as the continuing incarcerations at Guantanamo – we see further confirmation that what we once thought of as an inalienable right to a public trial is another illusion sacrificed to the empty rhetoric of "national security."
- Though the "United States of America" is in a terminal condition, "America" – as a social system – may yet survive. America preceded the nation-state and, if we can revisit the basic assumptions that underlay the "founding fathers" efforts, we may discover why conditions in which peace, liberty, and respect for life must take precedence over edicts offered by rulers who smirk and strut as they demand obedience to their every whim.
- In the course of such inquiries, we may discover why bin Laden – along with every one of us – deserved to not be dealt with in such an arbitrary, coercive manner. Institutionalized violence is the essence of every political system, and is in the process of destroying Western Civilization. But as secession and nullification enjoy an increasing interest among thoughtful people, members of the establishment power structure may find themselves regarded as the new "Red Coats." Like their predecessors – and in the words of Lysander Spooner – they may then be urged "to go home and content themselves with the exercise of only such rights and powers as nature has given to them in common with the rest of mankind."
- May 14, 2011
- Butler Shaffer teaches at the Southwestern University School of Law. He is the author of the newly-released In Restraint of Trade: The Business Campaign Against Competition, 1918–1938 and of Calculated Chaos: Institutional Threats to Peace and Human Survival. His latest book is Boundaries of Order.
- http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer236.html
- --
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.
--
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.
--
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.
--
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.
--
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.
--
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.
All of the sudden, (when Michael is asked to provide some poignant opinion based on fact....."Michael Has Left The Building"
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 10:10 PM, MJ
<michaelj@america.net> wrote:
ROTFLMAO!
Enjoy spewing your fallacy AND maintaining that pleasing vision of yours.
Regard$,
--MJ
It is inaccurate to say that I hate everything. I am strongly in favor of common sense, common honesty, and common decency. This makes me forever ineligible for public office. -- H. L. Mencken
At 04:08 PM 5/16/2011, you wrote:
Oh, so now you are gonna try and use some Socratic horse hockey on me?
Give it a break Michael, I expect more out of you than that.
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 9:59 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:
- <sigh>
- Person A states, "X"
- Your response? Person A is a poopeyhead and his writing is so bad (how bad is it) ....
- INSTEAD try ...
- Person A is wrong when he claims X because of a, b and C.
- Chanting Poopeyhead or Moonbat or leftist or Republitard does NOTHING to refute *anything*. Similarly, making empty, meaningless proclamations has the same results.
- Regard$,
- --MJ
- "The man who in times of popular excitement boldly and unflinchingly resists hot-tempered clamor for an unnecessary war, and thus exposes himself to the opprobrious imputation of a lack of patriotism or of courage, to the end of saving his country from a great calamity, is, as to 'loving and faithfully serving his country,' at least as good a patriot as the hero of the most daring feat of arms, and a far better one than those who, with an ostentatious pretense of superior patriotism, cry for war before it is needed, especially if then they let others do the fighting." -- Carl Schurz, April 1898
- At 03:53 PM 5/16/2011, you wrote:
- No Michael, I am able to think cognitively, and not just rely on cut and paste posts from Crackpots and Moonbats.
-
- Again, "Let's Review":
-
- Do a little research, and you will find that the first paragraph is very much misleading, and the sentence from the fourth paragraph is an outright lie:
-
- Even leaving aside the obvious responses that his Al Qaeda sympathizers would make, even patriotic Americans might have differing opinions, depending upon the time period of one's assessment. When the Reagan administration found bin Laden and Al Qaeda useful agents to help rid Afghanistan of Soviet military forces, American politicians took turns posing with these "freedom fighters" for self-serving photo-ops. Their combined efforts drove the Soviets from that country, and helped bring about the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. For his part in all of this, did bin Laden "deserve" having a statue built to him in Washington, D.C., or a boulevard named for him?
- But when his usefulness to American interests terminated – or even became hostile – he was quickly relegated to the character of "villain." This is a tactic long predating Machiavelli, having been useful, in recent years, to transform Saddam Hussein from Donald Rumsfeld's smiling photo-op "friend" to a linch-pin in the axis of evil;
-
-
- On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 8:49 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:
- Translation: I am not actually refuting anything, but pretty please accept my fallacy spew as though it did.
- At 02:02 PM 5/16/2011, you wrote:
- There are so many mistruths, and prevaricate misleading statements in this article, that I couldn't get past the second sentence in the fourth paragraph. Not worth responding to any more Moonbats who don't have a friggin' clue about what they are talking about!!
-
-
- On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 6:13 PM, Jonathan < jonathanashleyII@lavabit.com> wrote:
- What Did bin Laden 'Deserve'?
- by Butler Shaffer
- Gabriela: And you believe everything the authorities tell you?
- Franz Kafka: Well, I have no reason to doubt.
- Gabriela: They're authorities! That's reason enough.
- ~ From the movie Kafka
- My recent article on the U.S. government's assassination of Osama bin Laden elicited many favorable responses, along with a negative one that advised me that this man "got what he deserved." The reader went on to ask "how dare you imply that we owed him the 'right' to be captured and brought to justice." How effortlessly we make our judgments when our minds are in the default mode, and we need only parrot the words of those in authority!
- The media has long been an echo chamber for the avoidance of independent thought and judgment. It is easy to repeat the party line that the state's enemy du jour "got what he deserved" when one refuses to ask the question "what does any of us 'deserve'?" What do I "deserve?" Do you know what you "deserve," and for what actions? From what set of facts do we draw when we make such judgments about the conduct of others? I am neither a fan nor a defender of bin Laden, but those who are so anxious to invoke "closure" as an excuse for evading inquiries into the nature of governmental policies, might ask themselves why they are so willing to embrace his murder.
- An answer to the question "what did bin Laden deserve?" depends upon one's perspective. Even leaving aside the obvious responses that his Al Qaeda sympathizers would make, even patriotic Americans might have differing opinions, depending upon the time period of one's assessment. When the Reagan administration found bin Laden and Al Qaeda useful agents to help rid Afghanistan of Soviet military forces, American politicians took turns posing with these "freedom fighters" for self-serving photo-ops. Their combined efforts drove the Soviets from that country, and helped bring about the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. For his part in all of this, did bin Laden "deserve" having a statue built to him in Washington, D.C., or a boulevard named for him?
- But when his usefulness to American interests terminated – or even became hostile – he was quickly relegated to the character of "villain." This is a tactic long predating Machiavelli, having been useful, in recent years, to transform Saddam Hussein from Donald Rumsfeld's smiling photo-op "friend" to a linch-pin in the axis of evil; to Muammar Gaddafi's mercurial foe/friend/foe role of convenience in American foreign policy. That most Americans insist on remaining so dupable – if not outright stupid – as the state plays out its games of "endless enemies" at their expense, is remarkable.
- What did bin Laden "deserve" in all of this? What do any of us "deserve" in our dealings with one another? Is there any principle to which we can turn to help us answer such questions? Do we "deserve" to be coerced, robbed, or killed whenever someone with superior strength is able to do these things to us? Is this the highest social standard to which we can repair? Have the playground bully and the brutalizing parent become the "founding fathers" of our "New World Order?"
- If the defenders of state assassinations believe they have found a defensible tactic for resolving disputes – or just promoting their own preferences – should it become more widely available for all of us to employ? If two neighbors have a long-standing dispute as to the ownership of rose bushes along their property boundaries, should they resort to murder to settle the matter? Do we not understand that the problem of urban street-gangs is but politics on a different scale; that Obama's drive-by shooting in a house in Abbottabad differs from such a killing in south-central Los Angeles more in terms of geography than substance? If the political establishment is willing to embrace such methods as a way of eliminating political enemies in foreign countries, should the same practices be acknowledged as appropriate within America? Might we want to rethink the "lone-nut-with-a-gun" explanations most of us eagerly swallowed to explain the deaths of the Kennedy brothers, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, et. al. as well as the failed attempts on the lives of Ronald Reagan and George Wallace?
- For decades, I have tried to discover whether there is some principle upon which all people can agree to define the propriety of our actions; a proposition that rises above arbitrary subjective preferences. Politically-defined laws will not suffice, since the state – being defined by its use of violence – exists to promote and enforce conflicts among people. Neither have I found so-called "natural law" principles much help, as their content seems to vary from one advocate to another.
- The one standard to which I am able to find a virtual consensus is this: no one wants to be victimized. No one accepts that their life or other property interest should be subject to trespass by another. Sadly, most of us have internalized our regular victimization by the state, sanctioning such predations provided (a) we believe everyone else to be so bound – the vicious doctrine of "equality," and (b) if we are to be singled out for maltreatment, that we be accorded "due process of law."
- The idea that the military and/or the police – the enforcement arms of the state – could undertake arbitrary and deadly force against any person, finds support among most conservatives. This is why the market for flags and "support the troops" decals blossoms whenever the emperor finds a new "enemy" to attack. It is also why so many conservatives – and even a number of so-called "liberals" – can get their diapers so knotted over the suggestion that Osama bin Laden should have been brought to trial rather than murdered. It is the same mindset that allows police officers to gun down "suspects" without, themselves, being held to account in a court of law.
- Suppose a man is "suspected" of having committed a heinous crime (e.g., sexually assaulting and then murdering a small child)? Suppose this man is found and arrested by the police, who then take him into a back alley and kill him? Did he "get what he deserved?" Would you raise any objection to this – unless, of course, you were the suspect – or would you regard demands for a public trial to be only a "loophole" that might allow him to "escape" his punishment? Is a jury determination of "innocence" to be regarded as a "legal technicality?" Is "suspicion" or "accusation" the equivalent of "guilt?" Should "criminal procedure" classes in law school be required to address such matters as "how to organize a lynch mob?" Should a Ku Klux Klan Grand Dragon square off with an ACLU activist to debate the question "is justice delayed, justice denied?"
- Given the grisly history of lynching in this country – in which the race of the victim was often all that mattered – President Obama who, regardless of where he was born, has more melanin in his system than most Americans, ought to have resisted the self-righteous impulse that has led some people to respond to fear by pulling sheets over their heads!
- Don't you understand that if the bin Ladens of the world can be "brought to justice" by government hit-men who, like their Mafia counterparts, then dump the bodies into the ocean, so can you? Insistence upon state-defined "due process of law" is no guarantee that the innocent shall not be punished, but it's an improvement over assassinations, torture, trips to hidden prisons around the world, and the denial of habeas corpus. Jury trials often result in wrongful convictions, but I'd rather take my chances with twelve men and women with no sinister agendas of their own, than with decisions made behind closed doors by the politically unscrupulous. Bin Laden "deserved" a public trial for the same reasons you and I would.
- With each passing month, it becomes increasingly evident that the United States of America – as a formal system – is about finished. The Constitution has become virtually meaningless as a means of conducting the business of the state. The "separation of powers" of the various branches of government – which we used to pretend would limit the ambitions of each – has given way to notions of "empire," with the president playing the role of "emperor," able to start wars on his own motion (and without congressional approval); to torture or imprison without trial, or order the assassination of any persona non grata of his designation; to give away hundreds of billions of dollars to his corporate friends; ad nauseum. Over many decades, the powers granted to government in the Constitution – which, far from being limited, speak of "general welfare," "necessary and proper," and "reasonable" – have been given very expansive definitions by the courts. By contrast, the rights reserved to individuals have been accorded very restrictive meanings. In the treatment of bin Laden – as well as the continuing incarcerations at Guantanamo – we see further confirmation that what we once thought of as an inalienable right to a public trial is another illusion sacrificed to the empty rhetoric of "national security."
- Though the "United States of America" is in a terminal condition, "America" – as a social system – may yet survive. America preceded the nation-state and, if we can revisit the basic assumptions that underlay the "founding fathers" efforts, we may discover why conditions in which peace, liberty, and respect for life must take precedence over edicts offered by rulers who smirk and strut as they demand obedience to their every whim.
- In the course of such inquiries, we may discover why bin Laden – along with every one of us – deserved to not be dealt with in such an arbitrary, coercive manner. Institutionalized violence is the essence of every political system, and is in the process of destroying Western Civilization. But as secession and nullification enjoy an increasing interest among thoughtful people, members of the establishment power structure may find themselves regarded as the new "Red Coats." Like their predecessors – and in the words of Lysander Spooner – they may then be urged "to go home and content themselves with the exercise of only such rights and powers as nature has given to them in common with the rest of mankind."
- May 14, 2011
- Butler Shaffer teaches at the Southwestern University School of Law. He is the author of the newly-released In Restraint of Trade: The Business Campaign Against Competition, 1918–1938 and of Calculated Chaos: Institutional Threats to Peace and Human Survival. His latest book is Boundaries of Order.
- http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer236.html
- --
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.
--
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.
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
* 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.
* 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.
* 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 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.
