# Concepts for Liberty: Rights and Responsibilities as it applies to gun ownership



## GCBHM

I'm a firm believer in individual accountability and self control. I believe the mark of a mature man is the ability to exercise restraint in the face of adversity. Many of us have discussed various things with regard to liberty, but mainly regarding our right to bear arms. While many truly do not understand that the 2nd Amendment was put in place to protect our rights by restricting the federal government from trying to infringe them, most Americans do support the right to bear arms. But let's discuss the matter further. Why do we seem to have such a struggle with the state and those who oppose liberty? 

As a younger man I subscribed to the ideals of freedom and democracy by force. I joined the military at a ripe old age of 19 and soon became steeped in the rich traditions of our Armed Forces, and God bless those who choose to serve! But as I began to grow, develop and mature through life, as we all do, my points of view began to change as well. My political views evolved as did my outlook on how our society has evolved as a whole. 

This nation was founded on the principle of individual liberty above all; however, over the time of our young country's growth our society has become less independent favoring dependency on the state. How does this effect our right to bear arms, one might ask. Well, I'm glad you asked! With the loss of independence, so too goes our rights. The more dependent we become on the state to do our policing, our bidding, our choosing, the more the state will begin to choose for us, and that, my friends, is where the fight for the 2nd Amendment comes in. 

Our country was meant to be free and independent of a tyrannical government, but that is not what we are today. We have gone from individial liberty to the likes of Michael Bloomberg outlawing 20oz soft drinks in NYC, and that is just to illustrate my point. I have gone from being a diehard GOPer to what I have learned is most commonly called the "anarcho-capitalist". The concept, in a nutshell, is seen below:

Anarcho-capitalism (also referred to as free-market anarchism, market anarchism, private-property anarchism, libertarian anarchism) is a political philosophy which advocates the elimination of the state in favor of individual sovereignty, private property, and open markets. Anarcho-capitalists believe that in the absence of statute (law by decree or legislation), society would improve itself through the discipline of the free market (or what its proponents describe as a "voluntary society"). In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be operated by privately funded competitors rather than centrally through compulsory taxation. Money, along with all other goods and services, would be privately and competitively provided in an open market. Therefore, personal and economic activities under anarcho-capitalism would be regulated by victim-based dispute resolution organizations under tort and contract law, rather than by statute through centrally determined punishment under political monopolies.

Various theorists have espoused legal philosophies similar to anarcho-capitalism. The first person to use the term, however, was Murray Rothbard, who in the mid-20th century synthesized elements from the Austrian School of economics, classical liberalism, and 19th-century American individualist anarchists Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker (while rejecting their labor theory of value and the norms they derived from it). A Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist society would operate under a mutually agreed-upon libertarian "legal code which would be generally accepted, and which the courts would pledge themselves to follow." This pact would recognize self-ownership and the non-aggression principle (NAP), although methods of enforcement vary.

Anarcho-capitalists are distinguished from minarchists, who advocate a small night-watchman state limited to the function of individual protection, and other anarchists who often seek to prohibit or regulate the accumulation of property and the flow of capital.

While I do not believe there is only one way to live in such a society, I do believe that such a life is possible; however, it requires a firm commitment of all to become educated in the ways of true liberty and the determination to support that as a real way of life. I believe that if we all come together in the name of liberty, being willing to defend this liberty and support its concepts entirely, we would have far less issues to deal with as it relates to criminal behavior and perosnal inaccountability, and the idea of government control would begin to diminish until it fades completely away. Thoughts?


----------



## Steve M1911A1

I don't subscribe to the thought that we should "eliminate the state."
I believe that the state serves a useful social purpose, when it operates as it was originally meant to.

The state is supposed to exist in order to smooth the intercourse among its citizens. No more than that.
Thus, the state should provide a minimal police and criminal-courts service, a minimal civil-courts service, a defense establishment, and a minimal lawmaking process consisting of part-time, unpaid legislators.

But to leave the entire mechanism of the state up to free-market anarchism would subject the people of the state to social mechanisms in which only the wealthiest get properly served. That is an abrogation of the definition of a free society, because in such a scheme, only some of the citizens are truly free.

As originally conceived, our republican democracy was intended to provide as much individual freedom as possible, while still guaranteeing the rights of the minority viewpoint, and smoothing out the conflicts among the many competing positions within the society.
While not completely successful, still our state historically did a better job of it all than any other state of its time. It seems to still be doing a very good job, relatively speaking, compared to all the other republics, democracies, and democratic republics in the world today.

We must remember that history comes in sine waves. Sometimes, one side is at the peak of power. Other times, another side is "winning." But in the long run, and viewing the whole as an average, it all evens out, and everybody is relatively comfortable, both socially and financially, just about all of the time.


----------



## GCBHM

I don't disagree entirely, but to establish a system like the "victim-based" dispute resolution organizations under tort and contract law, rather than by statute through centrally determined punishment under political monopolies not only serves to uphold fairness across the board, but also limit any such monopoly from running over the little guy, per se. 

Let's face it, even under the "state" system, the wealthy get served over the poor, and while I do agree that over the long run nothing really seems to change much (partly what opened my eyes to the fact that the GOP and Dems are not separated by much), one can't deny the state of affairs is incrementally worsening. The "state" as it were grows larger and larger by the year, the people become more and more dependent upon it, and our rights are threatened more and more. 

I believe eventually this system will collapse under its own weight and we will be forced to start over. I just don't know when that will be! Hopefully after the rapture of the church, but that is another story for another day. As it relates to our rights, and more specifically our right to bear arms, the state is working to secure the control it needs to guarantee it's safety and success, which will mean taking guns away from the people. We've seen it too many times to dismiss it as poppycock and fairytales. 

My goal is to help get people thinking about this subject in the hopes that we, as a people, will wake up and begin the process of taking control away from government. It was never intended to have control over the people, and we have to admit...when you have to explain to the government why you NEED something before they LET you have it, we are not free.


----------



## GCBHM

Also, the services provided by the state would still be provided, just funded by private competitors rather than by a centrally controlled body of government. Where's the objective fairness in that? Surely we don't believe the "state" is impartial and fair? 

No, of course not! Open markets and competition by privately owned businesses will drive the economy. Heck, let the government also compete in some segments of the market as is done in Switzerland, but the point is to take monopoly-control away from government. Let government function and provide the serves you mentioned. Let them be funded by private business rather than from taking tax money away from the people. Tax money that is misused and pocketed.


----------



## SailDesign

GCBHM said:


> Also, the services provided by the state would still be provided, just funded by private competitors rather than by a centrally controlled body of government. Where's the objective fairness in that? Surely we don't believe the "state" is impartial and fair?
> 
> No, of course not! Open markets and competition by privately owned businesses will drive the economy. Heck, let the government also compete in some segments of the market as is done in Switzerland, but the point is to take monopoly-control away from government. Let government function and provide the serves you mentioned. Let them be funded by private business rather than from taking tax money away from the people. Tax money that is misused and pocketed.


To fully do that second part, you're going to have to force corporations to PAY taxes... Something our Republican party seemingly refuse to believe they need to do.

As you don't quite point out, letting a private company take care of anything governmental would simply allow the owner of that company to do whatever the heck he wanted, in the long run. Politicians CAN be replaced (and should be after 2 terms regardless of level)


----------



## GCBHM

No you're not, actually. Private businesses/corporations compete for the contract to provide those services, and if there were someone to fall victim of a rogue owner, you employ the arbitration contract and hammer it out. It is all designed to promote individual accountability and control, not to oppress anyone. The individual is sovereign. It is actual liberty, which I contend most Americans really don't want b/c it means they have to be personally accountable for their own success rather than depending on the hand of government to give it to them.

But under the capitalist market, private business owners/corporations provide the jobs that government simply cannot. The market will thrive, and no tyrannical governing body is trying to take our guns away. Politicians are always replaced, but not by the people. The political machine manages all that. Otherwise, Pelosi, Reid and Beohner would have been replaced a long time ago. The vote does little if anything at all to change the landscape here in this country.


----------



## SailDesign

GCBHM said:


> No you're not, actually. Private businesses/corporations compete for the contract to provide those services, and if there were someone to fall victim of a rogue owner, you employ the arbitration contract and hammer it out. It is all designed to promote individual accountability and control, not to oppress anyone. The individual is sovereign. It is actual liberty, which I contend most Americans really don't want b/c it means they have to be personally accountable for their own success rather than depending on the hand of government to give it to them.
> 
> But under the capitalist market, private business owners/corporations provide the jobs that government simply cannot. The market will thrive, and no tyrannical governing body is trying to take our guns away. Politicians are always replaced, but not by the people. The political machine manages all that. Otherwise, Pelosi, Reid and Beohner would have been replaced a long time ago. The vote does little if anything at all to change the landscape here in this country.


You pre-suppose that a corporation (which is ipso facto profit-based) can and will perform the service for less $$ than the government can. That is the first fallacy, and has ALWAYS been shown to be false...

And no-one is trying to take your guns away - even Obama.....

https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfa1/v/t1.0-9/10387226_10153566185749896_6613009050276592042_n.jpg?oh=7e65fd40c90f8f0bf129cc46953a1c82&oe=552DE93E&__gda__=1430260691_316d0a487d420912915c184b69699c37


----------



## GCBHM

SailDesign said:


> You pre-suppose that a corporation (which is ipso facto profit-based) can and will perform the service for less $$ than the government can. That is the first fallacy, and has ALWAYS been shown to be false...
> 
> And no-one is trying to take your guns away - even Obama.....
> 
> https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfa1/v/t1.0-9/10387226_10153566185749896_6613009050276592042_n.jpg?oh=7e65fd40c90f8f0bf129cc46953a1c82&oe=552DE93E&__gda__=1430260691_316d0a487d420912915c184b69699c37


Actually, yeah...Obama and the government is trying to take the guns away, incrementally, little by little, a chip at a time they are working to erase the right to bear arms. For example. Can anyone just go out and buy a fully automatic weapon? And why are guns at the root of the 2nd Amendment? The right to defend myself by any means possible, be it by a knife, stick, spoon or gun, against any aggressor whether it be my government or an intruder, is the root of the right recognized by the 2A. Yet, we don't see the government trying to regulate anything other than guns, really.

The pre-supposition that any organization, government or otherwise, will perform services for less than another is a fallacy in and of itself. So what, b/c the government does it it's done to the best and highest standard, better than what a private organization would do it? Anytime you have the human element involved you're opening the door to corruption. We deal with that now and always will. The government is no more righteous and fair than any private company can or would be, and to think they are is laughable.

But even still, you're arguing over peanuts, Sail. The point is not to end corruption. It is to promote liberty, and what we have now ain't it. Now I'm not saying it has to be anarcho-capitalism or nothing. What I'm saying is that the power of governing needs to be as close to the individual as humanly possible, and not a tyrannical governing body. Corruption exists now and will exist as long as humans live, but when you consider the countries who have a system more like this than ours you can't deny its legitimacy. The best example I can think of is Switzerland. Everything isn't privatized, but most of it is, and the government competes in certain market segments with private business, and they have one of the highest income ratios and most sophisticated demographic in the world. It is worth consideration.


----------



## GCBHM

BTW, wrt to Obama not trying to take our guns...the fact that they talk about having guns for recreation and hunting, and that the 2nd Amendment gives us the right to have guns for that purpose, and that the constitution gives us our rights is rather indicative of the fact they're all either really, really stupid, or they have ulterior motives. I don't think they are stupid. 

The fact is our right to defense predates time. The constitution is not, nor is the bill of rights, a right giving document. It, along with the BOR, exists ONLY to define the role of and restrict the federal government from trying to dictate what our rights are. And the 2nd Amendment does not say one thing about recreational use of guns for sport or hunting. It is to defend liberty, period. Any other interpretation is an attempt to dictate what our rights are, and the federal government simply does not have that right, place or authority in any capacity. Anyone who thinks our rights come from that document simply is ignorant of the truth, and to fight for the constitution as a right giving document only empowers the government to determine exactly what those rights are. If you want to talk about fallacy, that is it.


----------



## Steve M1911A1

SailDesign said:


> You pre-suppose that a corporation (which is ipso facto profit-based) can and will perform the service for less $$ than the government can...


Worse, he pre-supposes that a for-profit corporation will perform services even-handedly, without the oversight of an elected supervisory body, directly answerable to the people.
Even our current federal government is directly answerable to the people, whether or not the people choose to enforce their needs and desires upon it. (Currently, they don't.)


----------



## GCBHM

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Worse, he pre-supposes that a for-profit corporation will perform services even-handedly, without the oversight of an elected supervisory body, directly answerable to the people.
> Even our current federal government is directly answerable to the people, whether or not the people choose to enforce their needs and desires upon it. (Currently, they don't.)


Steve, do you honestly believe the government does anything even-handedly without oversight of an elected supervisory body?

Does Obama answer to the people, or does he just executive memo his way through whatever he wants to do? Seriously. If they currently don't, then there is your answer.


----------



## GCBHM

I think you will find the geo-political system in Switzerland rather interesting. Note, they have one of the highest gun ownership ratios, highest household income, and one of most robust economies in the world to date. I think their privatized system is administered very "even-handedly".

Switzerland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## SailDesign

GCBHM said:


> <snip-de-dip!>
> Does Obama answer to the people, or does he just executive memo his way through whatever he wants to do? Seriously. <more snip>


Do you seriously have to ask that question? Did he get elected - twice - by no-one? At least 50% of the US not only LIKES what he does, but asked him to do it again.

Case closed.


----------



## Steve M1911A1

GCBHM said:


> I think you will find the geo-political system in Switzerland rather interesting. Note, they have one of the highest gun ownership ratios, highest household income, and one of most robust economies in the world to date. I think their privatized system is administered very "even-handedly".


Try living there, before you promote the Swiss system.
It's best to be at least well-to-do. In Switzerland, money rules.
Also, the Swiss have more democracy and less republicanism in their government than we do. They can do it that way because the nation is small, and because it's organized into smaller political entities than our government is. The "town meeting" is a very important function, in Switzerland.

And even the Swiss are now plagued by "peacenik" Progressives. There is a growing, ongoing movement to take the guns away.

And, yes, I have friends who are Swiss citizens.


----------



## GCBHM

SailDesign said:


> Do you seriously have to ask that question? Did he get elected - twice - by no-one? At least 50% of the US not only LIKES what he does, but asked him to do it again.
> 
> Case closed.


Not really. The electoral college isn't quite the perfect popular system, and they don't want him to do it again having gave the congress to the GOP. Let's keep things in perspective.


----------



## GCBHM

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Try living there, before you promote the Swiss system.
> It's best to be at least well-to-do. In Switzerland, money rules.
> Also, the Swiss have more democracy and less republicanism in their government than we do. They can do it that way because the nation is small, and because it's organized into smaller political entities than our government is. The "town meeting" is a very important function, in Switzerland.
> 
> And even the Swiss are now plagued by "peacenik" Progressives. There is a growing, ongoing movement to take the guns away.
> 
> And, yes, I have friends who are Swiss citizens.


I didn't say I want to live there, I said they have a similar system that has generated positive economic results, which is better that what we can say here. Also, it is foolish to think any system is perfect, but theirs is a far cry better than our economic system. There is also a push to rid the world of guns as well, but the point is that the capitalist system is best for promoting prosperity and liberty. The main goal here is liberty, but without sound economics it's a moot point. Ours isn't a republic corrupted by big business and government. Why is it popular to think we need a governing body? This system has merit. Unfortunately, too many are sold on this current system that has only gotten more massive than ever envisioned, and it will soon collapse under its own weight.

Hopefully, enough people will wake up to the fact that the socialistic government doesn't work and do something about it. If not, our guns being taken away are the least of our concerns.


----------



## SouthernBoy

SailDesign said:


> Do you seriously have to ask that question? Did he get elected - twice - by no-one? *At least 50% of the US not only LIKES what he does, but asked him to do it again.*
> 
> Case closed.


This is not true. It would only be true if 100% of the voting age people went to the polls and that didn't happen. I don't think it has ever happened other than maybe the first time in 1788. However you said "50% of the US", which I assume means "50% of the U.S.". In that case we know this didn't happen because the population of the U.S. at that time was probably around 314 million, which would mean he would have been favored by over 157 million. Didn't happen.


----------



## Bisley

SailDesign said:


> Do you seriously have to ask that question? Did he get elected - twice - by no-one? At least 50% of the US not only LIKES what he does, but asked him to do it again.
> 
> *Case closed*.


Hardly.

Most of your assumptions about government control of essential services are based on the government being responsive to the will of the people, or in the case of an excessively liberal government, being better equipped intellectually to make decisions for us because we are child-like adults who aren't capable of making good decisions for ourselves. We haven't had good government for decades, and the actual will of the people is largely unknown, in any practical sense, because both the government and the media 'cook the books' to present the will of the people to be whatever they want to ram through. That said, I have no belief that corporations could or would do better, but they would have to be particularly inept and dishonest to do worse.

As for 50% of the people wanting the government to take care of their every need (which describes Obama's appeal), this percentage fluctuates wildly throughout the 'non-campaign' parts of the year. Multi-million dollar advertising campaigns are quite effective when timed properly, because they don't allow for any rebuttal in the short amount of time between their air times and the actual election. Every time the light is permitted to shine on Obama, his popularity diminishes, and the people who sincerely believe in what they think he is all about are much less than 50%.

As for the electoral college, we should be thankful for it, even though it bites both sides occasionally. Otherwise, the largest population centers, which also contain the largest concentration of liberals, would be calling the tune for everybody in the country. In recent years, campaigns have maximized their capabilities to dump huge sums into areas with high enough populations to swing an entire state and capture its electoral college votes, but it's still fairer for the other states than a straight popular vote would be. A quick glance at a map of the red or blue states should make that clear to anyone.


----------



## GCBHM

Both good points, SouthernBoy and Bisley. My personal preference is for the individual to be in control of their own destiny, with the complete freedom to do as they please provided it does not infringe the rights of another. No system is going to be picture perfect simply b/c of the fact that people are involved, but do any of us really think private businesses would do worse than government agencies? I should hope not! It used to be done mainly by private businesses/individuals until government was galvanized by Lincoln, and the "state" began to grow in get into "business" for profit. 

The point of it all, however, is to re-create the atmosphere and ideal of liberty within the populace again. To stop the spread of the state, and put the power back into the hands of the people so that we don't have to contend with powerful lobbies of liberals who are working feverishly to take our guns, and yes...they are doing exactly that. I'm sorry Sail, but to think otherwise is simply foolish. It is the goal of every state who wants to expand its power, and the US Government is no different. It has built an empire on the backs of the people and has been working to spread its influence around the globe to dominate business. Part of that plan is to take guns from the people. Just ask all those who lived through it over the years. 

Nevertheless, my goal is to get others to think about these things outside the box. What we're doing now does't work. The majority of the country doesn't vote simply b/c they see no point. There is little use b/c the machine has such a tight grip on the system that generally only the approved people even get to run for office. It's a hack! And it hasn't worked for years. Vote if you want to, but you're playing right into the hands of the political class machine. Meanwhile, government becomes even more massive, and it is just a matter of time before it becomes a police state. Then they will just take the guns and absorb the losses from the miniscule fire fights those few offer to put up.


----------



## GCBHM

SailDesign said:


> Do you seriously have to ask that question? Did he get elected - twice - by no-one? At least 50% of the US not only LIKES what he does, but asked him to do it again.
> 
> Case closed.


BTW, this is a look into the typical mind of a liberal. Making such broad assumptions like this without actual factual information and passing it off as if a real case was even made, let alone closed, is just pure nonsense. But it is what the majority of the American people live on. It isn't true, but it sounds good and makes a good sound bite, so yeah...let's run with it.

Come on, bruh...you're smarter than that.


----------



## SailDesign

GCBHM said:


> Not really. The electoral college isn't quite the perfect popular system, and they don't want him to do it again having gave the congress to the GOP. Let's keep things in perspective.


Really. They elected him twice. No, it's not perfect having an electoral college - after all, they elected GWB twice, too.

Is it so hard to understand that some people feel differently about things?


----------



## SailDesign

GCBHM said:


> BTW, this is a look into the typical mind of a liberal. Making such broad assumptions like this without actual factual information and passing it off as if a real case was even made, let alone closed, is just pure nonsense. But it is what the majority of the American people live on. It isn't true, but it sounds good and makes a good sound bite, so yeah...let's run with it.
> 
> Come on, bruh...you're smarter than that.


Which fact isn't true? "Bruh."


----------



## GCBHM

SailDesign said:


> Which fact isn't true? "Bruh."


LOL! First, "bruh" is a term of endearment, so consider your liberal self fortunate! ;-)

The part that isn't true...well...any of it. As SB and Bisley pointed out, what you said (which is really reflective of what I think the majority of us) about 50% of the country voting him in b/c they want his policies is not true. Less than half of the country votes anymore, and not all the registered voters take the time to vote. And most of the voting populace vote party line regardless of the candidate. The rest usually vote for the lesser of two evils, which really means they don't like the bastards running...they just vote for the one they consider to be less evil. In a lot of cases, the incumbent gets a second term b/c they are the one the people are used to, and the other guy just didn't WOW them enough.

This country has been deeply divided for years now, and make no mistake, there are plenty of people who DO NOT like Obama's policies. They just did not buy Romney. I know I didn't! Romney isn't the answer anymore than Obama was. It isn't hard at all to understand people feel differently about things. That is why I am such a proponent of individual liberty rather than a party system. Groups monopolize the people and often do not represent the will of the people. Do you want to be labelled a brainless liberal like all the rest just b/c you have some liberal social views? You also have some conservative points of view as well, and should be given credit for your individual thoughts, shouldn't you? I've taken you on an individual level b/c you have asked to be taken as such, and have proven to be quite a different kind of "liberal".


----------



## SailDesign

GCBHM said:


> LOL! First, "bruh" is a term of endearment, so consider your liberal self fortunate! ;-)
> 
> <snip>


 Good enough. Not a term of anything round here, so it's hard to tell when it is preceded by :



> BTW, this is a look into the typical mind of a liberal. Making such broad assumptions like this without actual factual information and passing it off as if a real case was even made, let alone closed, is just pure nonsense.


Please don't try to tell me that the "typical mind of a Conservative" is any different - it's just facing the other way. Don't make me quote Fox News at you.... 

Now, I'm tired of bickering over 50% of THE ENTIRE COUNTRY over 50% of THOSE WHO BOTHERED. I have better things to do.

So I'm backing out and wishing you good luck in this discussion.

Catch you around.


----------



## GCBHM

SailDesign said:


> Good enough. Not a term of anything round here, so it's hard to tell when it is preceded by :
> 
> Please don't try to tell me that the "typical mind of a Conservative" is any different - it's just facing the other way. Don't make me quote Fox News at you....
> 
> Now, I'm tired of bickering over 50% of THE ENTIRE COUNTRY over 50% of THOSE WHO BOTHERED. I have better things to do.
> 
> So I'm backing out and wishing you good luck in this discussion.
> 
> Catch you around.


Nope, I'm not trying to tell you that at all about the typical conservative. I think the majority of us do this about something unless we force ourselves not to. It's just human nature. I was just giving you a hard time, really. I have conservative views on some things...most things actually, but I would get thrown out of a good GOP rally b/c I don't dance to the party line. I quit school when they had recess...I just don't play.


----------



## Bisley

GCBHM said:


> ...I am such a proponent of individual liberty rather than a party system.


Forgive me for cherry-picking this phrase from all of your other comments, but I have a different opinion on this subject, if I get your meaning correctly.

Individual liberty is something that almost everybody will say they are for - they just don't always understand how to achieve it or protect it. Even the person who has lived off of government his entire life will say he is for freedom, despite the fact that he has become a ward of the state, and is dependent on the government for his daily bread.

The party system is what we have, and for all practical purposes, it has always been two parties that have been capable of the necessary organization to actually get someone elected in a country with 50 individual sovereign states. That may or may not be the best way to go, now, because we have gradually been evolving towards a single huge state, ruled by a gigantic centralized government. But it has worked in the past, and can work again, if the public does its own 'due diligence' when choosing candidates.

The states must always continue to fight for their individual sovereignty, in order to prevent a huge central government, which may be populated by people with completely different values, from making rules that they are not willing to abide by. That can be done within a two party system, easily, if the important arguments are understood and addressed on a local basis, and people are sent to Washington, D.C. to see that their state's interests are addressed. State sovereignty is the key to preserving individual freedom, so that the people in each state can move freely from one to the other to find the kind of government they are looking for.

As it is now, the so-called 'red states' are the states that are working to preserve that sovereignty, and the blue states are pretty much casting their lot with the federal government. It's really that simple, and if people would understand and accept that, and elect Congress people who understand it, the ills of the entire country could be addressed on a local basis, and the federal government could go back to it's constitutionally assigned duties and stop trying to force people 2000 miles away to conform to a Washington, D.C. solution.

Of all the solutions that people cast about trying to come up with to 'save the country' and preserve individual freedom, this is the one that is do-able. None other than that great liberal opponent of Ronald Reagan, Tip O'Neill, said, "All politics are local." That was true, then, and it is true, now...we have just forgotten how to use it and stopped participating in it, in some places.


----------



## GCBHM

Actually, it hasn't always been two parties, and I believe you're under the illusion that the red states are working to maintain their sovereignty, but nothing could be further from the truth by my estimation.

The GOP and Dems are not that far apart. While they do have slightly different platforms, both are working feverishly to establish their respective party as the dominant one, and why? Both want to make the choices, which really do not reflect the will of the people, for the people, and one is just as vicious as the other wrt fighting for and maintaining control. Let there be no doubt, neigher is fighting for the sovereignty of the state, but of their respective party. 

The problem with Washington is that Washington is its own little world, and it is so out of touch with the rest of the country that it doesn't know the people anymore. I submit they don't care to know the people! I think the federal government is so self-absorbed with its agenda, and is so busy trying to get more and more control that they just simply do not care what the people really want. But the majority of the people really do not want true liberty either. We have grown to be so depend on the hand of government to the point that we really don't know what real liberty is anymore, and when someone mentions it, they are cast off and glared upon with this look like "ARE YOU CRAZY". 

My personal idea of individual liberty/sovereignty is simply this. Each person is free to pursue the life they envision the way they want as long as it does not infrigne that same right of others. No governing body, local or otherwise, has the authority to tell anyone "you can't do that" or "you have to do this". As long as no one's right to individual liberty is violated, there is no problem. Let individuals resolve their own differences instead of running to a central government authority who determines that a gay couple's right to have a cake supercedes a straight baker's right to not bake it for them if he doesn't want to. 

The problem with having a federal constitution that "gives us our rights", aside from the fact that it is redundant, is that we have to depend on a federal government (that is as corrupt as any private business could ever hope to be) to tell us what those rights really mean. The fact is our rights predate time, so no man has the authority to tell another man that a gay man's rights are more important than yours. The right to bear arms doesn't come from the 2nd Amendment. And it really isn't about guns. What it really means is that we have the right to defend ourselves by any means necessary to survive, whether it is a bear, man or a governing body. It isn't about guns, but the means of defense! So why is a governing group pushing to ban guns? The same reason Hitler did...and every other dictator in history. B/c they don't want you to be able to fight back against their guns! And when we give that kind of group power to decide one set of rights, they tend to want to decide on ALL rights for everyone. 

Let man fend for himself. The human is going to live or die, but at least he has the right to choose one or the other. This notion that we need a governing body to function and give us what we need is just a lie. But then, it sure does make things easier. Hey...it's just the old trade off. I'll give up some of my choices and liberty if you will provide a decent living for me. Unfortunately, under that premise, we lose. A party system, regardless of whether it is conservative or liberal, only wants one thing. Control. What was the line from the old movie, Patriot? "Why would I trade one tyrant 3000 miles away for 3000 tyrants one mile away?" 

Well...


----------



## Steve M1911A1

GCBHM said:


> ...put the power back into the hands of the people...


Nobody can "put the power back into the hands of the people."
The people have to _take_ their power back.
We do that by electing better representatives, and by _changing them often_ so that none of them get entrenched in the job.

I suggest that we need to get with it now, before many more of the people become, willy-nilly, de-facto "wards of the state," on the government's teat for life.
The number of complacent dole-suckers is growing by the minute, and that includes every wage-earner who has signed-up for Obamacare.

Side Issue:
It has come to my attention that the faculty of Harvard University, the home of the designer of Obamacare and the most Progressive establishment in the US, is being required by law to accept Obamacare in lieu of their until-now fully-university-funded medical plan.
Not only will Obamacare's "Cadillac-level" medical insurance provide worse coverage then the university's own current plan, but also the faculty members will be required by law to pay income tax on it. ("Cadillac-level"-that is, "platinum"-coverage is taxable!)
Is it truly understandable that Harvard's faculty is outraged by this turn of events? Is it right and proper that Harvard's faculty is up in arms about it, and vow to "fight to the death" over it? Were they somewhat naïve to have believed that, somehow, they would be exempt from the plan that one of their number devised?
Stay tuned...


----------



## SailDesign

Steve M1911A1 said:


> <snip truth>
> 
> We do that by electing better representatives, and by _changing them often_ so that none of them get entrenched in the job.
> 
> <snip stuff I mostly (and unsurprisingly) don't much agree with  >


Yup - politicians and diapers should be changed regularly - for the same reason.


----------



## GCBHM

Not sure what the obsession is with taking fragments out to comment on, but my whole point has been the people taking their republic back. Splitting hairs over semantics. 

WRT to the Harvard issue...how fitting, and indicative.


----------



## SailDesign

GCBHM said:


> Splitting hairs over semantics.


Like the difference between "the whole country" and "that part of the country that voted" when the intentions were pretty clear? 

Any political argument WILL devolve into this. It is only when someone mentions the German who started WWII that the argument is considered over (and the person mentioning him has lost)


----------



## GCBHM

There is a difference in semantics and "the whole country" and "that part of the country that voted". The intentions were clear, but the entire foundation was entirely wrong. I really have no idea which thread item Steve cut that part of my statement out of, but put the power back in the hands of the people is exactly what the people need to do. Steve just likes to argue. I guess he couldn't think of anything better to point out. Anyway, who is this character in Germany you speak of? Also, you failed to end your sentence with a period.


----------



## SailDesign

GCBHM said:


> There is a difference in semantics and "the whole country" and "that part of the country that voted". The intentions were clear, but the entire foundation was entirely wrong. I really have no idea which thread item Steve cut that part of my statement out of, but put the power back in the hands of the people is exactly what the people need to do. Steve just likes to argue. I guess he couldn't think of anything better to point out. Anyway, who is this character in Germany you speak of? Also, you failed to end your sentence with a period.


I fart in your general direction.....


----------



## GCBHM

See...that's how it all gets started!


----------



## SouthernBoy

SailDesign said:


> Like the difference between "the whole country" and "that part of the country that voted" when the intentions were pretty clear?
> 
> Any political argument WILL devolve into this. It is only when someone mentions the German who started WWII that the argument is considered over (and the person mentioning him has lost)


So you didn't like my little factual correction, eh? Well here's another one for you. The German of whom you speak was... Austrian.


----------



## SouthernBoy

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Nobody can "put the power back into the hands of the people."
> The people have to _take_ their power back.
> *We do that by electing better representatives, and by changing them often so that none of them get entrenched in the job.*
> 
> I suggest that we need to get with it now, before many more of the people become, willy-nilly, de-facto "wards of the state," on the government's teat for life.
> The number of complacent dole-suckers is growing by the minute, and that includes every wage-earner who has signed-up for Obamacare.
> 
> Side Issue:
> It has come to my attention that the faculty of Harvard University, the home of the designer of Obamacare and the most Progressive establishment in the US, is being required by law to accept Obamacare in lieu of their until-now fully-university-funded medical plan.
> Not only will Obamacare's "Cadillac-level" medical insurance provide worse coverage then the university's own current plan, but also the faculty members will be required by law to pay income tax on it. ("Cadillac-level"-that is, "platinum"-coverage is taxable!)
> Is it truly understandable that Harvard's faculty is outraged by this turn of events? Is it right and proper that Harvard's faculty is up in arms about it, and vow to "fight to the death" over it? Were they somewhat naïve to have believed that, somehow, they would be exempt from the plan that one of their number devised?
> Stay tuned...


And in so doing, put the fear of God in them. Good post, Steve.

I heard about the Harvard debacle this morning. Had to chuckle a skosh when I did.


----------



## SouthernBoy

As for those who voted for Obama, there is one little thing that virtually never is talked about on news programs or in the papers, but is nevertheless, a fact.

They favor socialism, in government and in economics, over what was designed here by the Founders. Now they might wish to argue this point, but it can't be ignored. Obama's plans and programs are socialistic. So if there are people who approve of these plans and programs what do you think that makes them? Now I'm ignoring those who voted strictly for color or because they thought it would be cool to have the first black president or because they felt some sort of guilt and this was a way to assuage that guilt. Those voters were nothing more than ignorant fools.

The ones that concern me and are a very real threat to the future of this nation are those who embrace the tenets of socialism and on the more extreme end, communism. Make no mistake. When a political candidate says, "We are just five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America", that should be a real wake up call to what is about to take place. If you favor large more invasive central government, universal healthcare, single payer healthcare (as in paid by government), greater control over private business, wealth redistribution, and other similar programs, then you are a socialist. There's just no two ways about it.

And socialism and our form of government, and economic system, do not mix.


----------



## GCBHM

SouthernBoy, I'm afraid our form of government is already socialist in practice, and has been for years. And Steve's assertion that we elect better representatives hasn't worked for more than 100 years. Actually, it is by so doing that we have arrived at this socialist form of government. The greater majority of the American people are just too blind or willingly ignorant to see it.

I'll say it again. When you have to explain to the government why you NEED something before they LET you have it, you are not free.


----------



## SouthernBoy

GCBHM said:


> SouthernBoy, I'm afraid our form of government is already socialist in practice, and has been for years. And Steve's assertion that we elect better representatives hasn't worked for more than 100 years. Actually, it is by so doing that we have arrived at this socialist form of government. The greater majority of the American people are just too blind or willingly ignorant to see it.
> 
> I'll say it again. When you have to explain to the government why you NEED something before they LET you have it, you are not free.


Yes, this is all true. While we have not yet fully arrived at a socialist state, we are closer in that direction than the direction of the original design.


----------



## Steve M1911A1

GCBHM said:


> ...Steve's assertion that we elect better representatives hasn't worked for more than 100 years...


Ah, but that's the fault of the electorate. They're getting exactly what they've elected, which therefore is exactly what they deserve.
Not much you or I can do about it, unless we want to put some hard work where our mouths are.


----------



## Steve M1911A1

SailDesign said:


> ... It is only when someone mentions the German who started WWII that the argument is considered over (and the person mentioning him has lost)





SouthernBoy said:


> ...The German of whom you speak was... Austrian.


Actually, he was a Hollander. His name was Marinus van der Lubbe, and it was he who was supposed to have started the Reichstag fire.
The, er, Austrian of whom you speak was merely using him as an excuse, of course.

Did you know, by the way, that Mexico was the one and only country in the world of 1938, that opposed the German-Austrian _anschlüss_? There's a monument to Mexico's opposition in Vienna, today.

I'm working hard to remember a pertinent and funny quote. Something like: "Germany keeps trying to remind us that Hitler was Austrian, at the same time that they're trying to convince us that Mozart and Beethoven were Germans."



GCBHM said:


> ...Steve just likes to argue...


Quite the contrary. I merely disagree with your stated position on this political subject. Thus, we are all discussing it and its ramifications. Not just you and me, but all of us.
And, by the way, I quoted you from an earlier post in this very thread. Thus, my use of that quote was completely pertinent, and also appropriate to its context.

I suggest that, if you dislike reading positions which oppose your own, you merely need refrain from posting your opinions. Take a time-out, and go commune with Vulcan. :mrgreen:


----------



## Steve M1911A1

Ah! Got it!

"Germany keeps trying to remind us that Hitler wasn't German, while at the same time trying to convince us that Mozart and Beethoven were."


----------



## BigCityChief

Steve M1911A1 said:


> "Germany keeps trying to remind us that Hitler was Austrian, at the same time that they're trying to convince us that Mozart and Beethoven were Germans


Not surprising, sir.


----------



## SouthernBoy

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Actually, he was a Hollander. His name was Marinus van der Lubbe, and it was he who was supposed to have started the Reichstag fire.
> The, er, Austrian of whom you speak was merely using him as an excuse, of course.


I assumed by the inference that the German mentioned was Hitler, thus my response. Perhaps my assumption was in error.


----------



## SouthernBoy

Steve M1911A1 said:


> *Ah, but that's the fault of the electorate.* They're getting exactly what they've elected, which therefore is exactly what they deserve.
> Not much you or I can do about it, unless we want to put some hard work where our mouths are.


Yes it is. The Founders knew and feared this, Jefferson in particular. They feared what has actually taken place, that as each generation succeeded the previous one, some of the original intent would get lost in the passing of the reigns. This is a natural occurrence in virtually all societies and is accelerated and fostered by tremendous success, such as has been experienced here, or tremendous failures, as has taken place in so many third world countries (where this leads to revolution and overthrow).

Keeping the fire in the belly is difficult when prosperity is such that the concept of the fire gets lost in the smoke (metaphors can be trite at times). This allows more sinister movements to take root and begin their program of real change. Again, what has and is taking place here.


----------



## Bisley

GCBHM said:


> Not sure what the obsession is with taking fragments out to comment on, but my whole point has been the people taking their republic back. Splitting hairs over semantics.


If you want your political opinions to be taken seriously, you will have to master the semantics, otherwise the people who disagree with you will beat you over the head with them. They will either intentionally misunderstand, to excuse putting up a 'straw man,' or they will honestly not understand and make an argument that causes you to defend a position that you really don't want to defend. Throw-away comments have sunk professional politicians, much less amateurs like us, who don't even like politics.

In my case, I picked the one phrase out of your post that I understood well enough to make a comment on.


----------



## GCBHM

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Ah, but that's the fault of the electorate. They're getting exactly what they've elected, which therefore is exactly what they deserve.
> Not much you or I can do about it, unless we want to put some hard work where our mouths are.


Partly, on that I agree! I think there are changes that could be made to this system that would help, like term limits, officially appointing independent oversight (perhaps none elected private bodies), per diem based compensation which pays elected representatives only when Congress is in session and covers expenses, requiring these reps to live and work in their respective districts getting their retirement and benefits from their jobs or business ownership...however, the machine would not hear of such heinous and egregious changes to their believed political class system.

Yes, the voters have fallen. They have sold their liberty out for a handout from the government, but at this point the machine is so strong that it won't allow real, credible change. It will do whatever is necessary to preserve its existence, freedom and liberty be damned. And yes, we'll have to work really hard if we want to do something that really matters to change it. If we survive the attempt, that is.


----------



## SailDesign

SouthernBoy said:


> So you didn't like my little factual correction, eh? Well here's another one for you. The German of whom you speak was... Austrian.


True, but I would contest that while he was born Austrian, he was German when he started the war... (tough to be the leader of a country you don't belong to, that kind of thing)


----------



## GCBHM

Bisley said:


> If you want your political opinions to be taken seriously, you will have to master the semantics, otherwise the people who disagree with you will beat you over the head with them. They will either intentionally misunderstand, to excuse putting up a 'straw man,' or they will honestly not understand and make an argument that causes you to defend a position that you really don't want to defend. Throw-away comments have sunk professional politicians, much less amateurs like us, who don't even like politics.
> 
> In my case, I picked the one phrase out of your post that I understood well enough to make a comment on.


Bisley, I don't think it is the mastering of semantics as much as it is the idea. Frankly, the idea of real liberty has become so foreign to the majority today that their instinctive response is to argue, and they truly don't get it. I know I didn't upon first light of it. I was so engrained, so blind to liberty that I fought those who proposed it. My understanding of it all was so far outside what the framers intended that I simple did not know what I was talking about, but I thought I did. In essence, I was spouting the standard rhetoric promulgated by the machine about voting and all that, which, by the way, has done nothing to change anything other than drive us deeper into debt, further into conflict, divide us more completely and keep us so distracted that we just don't have a clue anymore.

Look at the landscape of this country. We are more divided and fight more with each other than we do the body that is controlling us like puppets on a string. A divided anything will not stand, and the only thing that isn't divided is this central government. They give the illusion that they are divided to us so that we will take sides, but none of them are suffering from a government shutdown. None of them go without healthcare. None of them miss any meals. All of them are protected by men with guns. Yet when you look at the state of the people...different story altogether. I suggest we all take a good long look around and realize that it isn't what our founders envisioned. It isn't me that isn't being taken serious, Bisley. It's liberty. Liberty is the one being scoffed and ridiculed, and all it wants to do is set people free.


----------



## GCBHM

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Actually, he was a Hollander. His name was Marinus van der Lubbe, and it was he who was supposed to have started the Reichstag fire.
> The, er, Austrian of whom you speak was merely using him as an excuse, of course.
> 
> Did you know, by the way, that Mexico was the one and only country in the world of 1938, that opposed the German-Austrian _anschlüss_? There's a monument to Mexico's opposition in Vienna, today.
> 
> I'm working hard to remember a pertinent and funny quote. Something like: "Germany keeps trying to remind us that Hitler was Austrian, at the same time that they're trying to convince us that Mozart and Beethoven were Germans."
> 
> Quite the contrary. I merely disagree with your stated position on this political subject. Thus, we are all discussing it and its ramifications. Not just you and me, but all of us.
> And, by the way, I quoted you from an earlier post in this very thread. Thus, my use of that quote was completely pertinent, and also appropriate to its context.
> 
> I suggest that, if you dislike reading positions which oppose your own, you merely need refrain from posting your opinions. Take a time-out, and go commune with Vulcan. :mrgreen:


Seriously? Now you know you and I have engaged in rather senseless arguments before, whether you disagree with my opinion is ancillary to my statement. That said, it isn't the opposition to my opinion I commented on. You took my statement out of the context it was used to make a point, and that was the objection. If you want to disagree, fine. Let's talk about it. I have no problem with that, but let's keep things in perspective and context. Isn't that fair enough?


----------



## GCBHM

SailDesign said:


> True, but I would contest that while he was born Austrian, he was German when he started the war... (tough to be the leader of a country you don't belong to, that kind of thing)


Um, actually...he was Austrian to the day he died. He may have become the leader of the German nation, and he may have even become a German citizen, but nothing changed the fact he was indeed Austrian.


----------



## GCBHM

Gentlemen, whether we all agree on the way we should be governed is not really the point. I think we all would agree that individual liberty is most important, and that we are all obligated to do something to preserve it. My intent is only to get folks thinking about this issue so that we can begin the process of waking up, per se.


----------



## SailDesign

SouthernBoy said:


> I assumed by the inference that the German mentioned was Hitler, thus my response. Perhaps my assumption was in error.


For a change, SouthernBoy - WE understood each other.. 

Steve's just stirring the pot coz he's old and ornery and has nothing much better to do,.

Yes, I'm jealous.


----------



## SouthernBoy

SailDesign said:


> True, but I would contest that while he was born Austrian, he was German when he started the war... (tough to be the leader of a country you don't belong to, that kind of thing)


Yes he did embrace Germany as his own, that is true. It's just too bad some really good shot didn't send a 170 grain projectile into his cranium before 1924. In WWI, a British soldier passed up a chance to kill him. Hitler was a runner and was caught out in the open by this Brit who when facing the little Hun, lowered his rifle and allowed him to continue on his way.


----------



## GCBHM

SouthernBoy, would it be possible to clean your inbox out so that we could correspond via PM?


----------



## GCBHM

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Quite the contrary. I merely disagree with your stated position on this political subject. Thus, we are all discussing it and its ramifications. Not just you and me, but all of us.
> And, by the way, I quoted you from an earlier post in this very thread. Thus, my use of that quote was completely pertinent, and also appropriate to its context.
> 
> I suggest that, if you dislike reading positions which oppose your own, you merely need refrain from posting your opinions. Take a time-out, and go commune with Vulcan. :mrgreen:


Steve, to further address your taking my statement out of the context it was meant for, below is the entire text in which I used the partial statement "put the power back into the hands of the people". When one considers the entire scope of the context it is clear that my intent was for the people to wake up and take back their republic, hence THEY are the ones who would be putting the power back into their hands.

It wasn't quite fair for you to pull that one statement fragment out to argue a point I never made. This is what my objection was, not your disagreeing with me, which, btw, the ideas of anarcho-capitalism aren't mine. I didn't come up with the concept. It is just something I agree with. That is to say it is my preference. It is not to say that I have supposed corruption would not be possible; however, when considering the current state of affairs one would have to agree it couldn't get much worse on that front. As I stated in the thread, we will never end corruption, but we can strive to make all men free. Today, we are not entirely free.

Text for context below:

Both good points, SouthernBoy and Bisley. My personal preference is for the individual to be in control of their own destiny, with the complete freedom to do as they please provided it does not infringe the rights of another. No system is going to be picture perfect simply b/c of the fact that people are involved, but do any of us really think private businesses would do worse than government agencies? I should hope not! It used to be done mainly by private businesses/individuals until government was galvanized by Lincoln, and the "state" began to grow in get into "business" for profit.

The point of it all, however, is to re-create the atmosphere and ideal of liberty within the populace again. To stop the spread of the state, and *put the power back into the hands of the people* so that we don't have to contend with powerful lobbies of liberals who are working feverishly to take our guns, and yes...they are doing exactly that. I'm sorry Sail, but to think otherwise is simply foolish. It is the goal of every state who wants to expand its power, and the US Government is no different. It has built an empire on the backs of the people and has been working to spread its influence around the globe to dominate business. Part of that plan is to take guns from the people. Just ask all those who lived through it over the years.

Nevertheless, my goal is to get others to think about these things outside the box. What we're doing now does't work. The majority of the country doesn't vote simply b/c they see no point. There is little use b/c the machine has such a tight grip on the system that generally only the approved people even get to run for office. It's a hack! And it hasn't worked for years. Vote if you want to, but you're playing right into the hands of the political class machine. Meanwhile, government becomes even more massive, and it is just a matter of time before it becomes a police state. Then they will just take the guns and absorb the losses from the miniscule fire fights those few offer to put up.


----------



## Bisley

GCBHM said:


> Bisley, I don't think it is the mastering of semantics as much as it is the idea.


Ideas are great, but everybody has them and most of them are fraught with unexpected consequences that make them fail in the real world. That is the reason that the more conservative among us want to road-test an idea before we jump on board for it, and even then we are not too surprised if, down the road, something no one could have predicted causes it to fail. Witness this enough times, and a thoughtful person will learn to predict some of these failures before betting the ranch on an idea.

Semantics is what we use to get other people to listen to our ideas. It isn't about grammar, or even the definitions of words, for the most part. It's about making a point in a way that causes somebody who disagrees to keep listening, anyway. People are not convinced by volume, but actual content, and if you say too many controversial things in one session, you give them the excuse they need to stop listening.

It's like shooting - you can shoot 20 rounds in 5 seconds and hit the X five times, or you can shot 5 times in 5 seconds and hit the X five times. Do onlookers give you any credit for the 15 rounds that missed, and do they really even notice the ones that didn't?


----------



## GCBHM

Bisley, the idea of Liberty is not new. It is what this country was founded on. That idea isn't the unproven theory, but it is a proven foundation. The problem is the corruption of mankind. In every society, man has messed it up, and that goes back to the children of Israel. God led them out of captivity, and they complained the entire time. Even after getting into the promise land, they cried and cried for a king until the Lord finally gave them a king, and then they complained about being oppressed by evil kings. Our society is no different. We had freedom, but we just had to have a central government. Now all we do is complain about the federal government, yet we continue to keep it in power. 

Like I said, it isn't the semantics people object to. I'm well trained in the art of persuasive communication, so I'm fully aware of how we use these semantics. That's not to say I'm a genius by any means. Just that I'm aware of how to lead and inspire. I've done it for years now. The issue is this, as I see it. When an animal is born into captivity, it will not run free. I am afraid our generations are like this having been born into captivity for so long that the idea of liberty isn't only foreign to them. It just does not compute at all. They have no real concept of it b/c they've never experienced it. It isn't that they don't want it. They are afraid to even look at anything else. It's the same reason Christ was rejected by his own people. It isn't what they think it should be, so they reject it without even taking the time to look at it. 

This idea of the anarcho-capitalism isn't mine. Just a year or so ago, I rejected it vehemently, and why? B/c I was so engrained and steeped in the rhetorical ideals of conservatism and the accepted version of politics that the idea of a world without a "state" representing ("controlling") us was just stupid. However, as I began to study and look into the real concept of liberty my ideals and thought process began to change. My entire outlook changed, and when you view things from an entirely different perspective, the landscape changes and you see things you never knew existed. I was as diehard GOP as one could be. Then I realized it's all a lie. But it took initiative to look beyond the facade of truth to see the actual truth. Some folks will never do this. Some will always be followers of the crowd no matter what. The leaders aren't the smartest in the group. They are just the ones out front. 

Capitalism works. That is proven. Unfortunately, so does greed and control. That has been proven. We started out a free capitalistic society, and over time man has found a way to take power and fool the people into believing they control the course of the country by voting. What the people don't realize is that the central government has completely circumvented the system and now use it against them to maintain control. It's actually pretty sad.


----------



## Bisley

OK, but you are preaching to the choir on liberty and capitalism, on any gun forum that I know of. You have one liberal, here, and he is no longer listening. If you want to be constructive, explain to everyone what mechanisms they can use to restore lost liberty. 

The founding fathers were liberals, preaching revolution, because all political entreaties toward the King of England fell on deaf ears, for decades. We are not that far down the road, yet, so we need political solutions, not rousing speeches about how great liberty is to people who already believe in it.


----------



## SouthernBoy

GCBHM said:


> SouthernBoy, would it be possible to clean your inbox out so that we could correspond via PM?


Done. That storage space is not very big.


----------



## GCBHM

Do we all really believe in it? If we did, don't you think we'd all be doing something more about it? I contend that the majority of us here aren't as concerned with the political landscape as much as we are our rights to bear arms, but having said that, before we can actually talk about the mechanics of restoring liberty, we have to agree to at least come together to discuss the ideas. For example. Just b/c I favor the idea of an anarcho-capitalist society does not mean I think it would work for everyone for an extended time. It is just an idea that I think is worth looking at. The main component of it that I desire is individual sovereignty, but I am open to other ways of making that work. 

So instead of everyone trying to work to prove how that specific system just won't work (which is only human nature) why not endeavor to discuss ways and ideas that would perhaps combine ideas from several different methods that could work? I submit many intelligent people are often more interested in proving how smart they are rather than looking to get along with others to bring something better into existence. All the ideas mentioned here have merit, so instead of completely discounting them to further self-indulgence, why not at least embrace them to at least see how it could work? I mean, haven't you ever eaten something that you avoided for years b/c you thought it wasn't good only to find out you like the hell out of it?


----------



## Bisley

GCBHM said:


> I submit many intelligent people are often more interested in proving how smart they are rather than looking to get along with others to bring something better into existence


I completely agree.


----------



## SailDesign

Bisley said:


> OK, but you are preaching to the choir on liberty and capitalism, on any gun forum that I know of.


Then you need to look around more .... 



Bisley said:


> You have one liberal, here, and he is no longer listening.
> <snip>


Still listening - just haven't been talking much here.


----------



## GCBHM

Bisley said:


> I completely agree.


I'm glad you do, but I hope at the least I have proven that I'm willing to get along in order to go along. Most often reject change just b/c they are comfortable with where they are, but if we don't do something to get out of this situation, it's only a matter of time before the push for guns gains momentum, and once they have the guns, just wait and see how quickly the rest falls into place.

One thing is clear. The founders never envisioned a system in which the people pay nearly half of what they earn to a government.


----------



## GCBHM

SailDesign said:


> Then you need to look around more ....
> 
> Still listening - just haven't been talking much here.


I'm glad you're listening, Sail. See, I'm not trying to tell you that you can't live how you want. I don't agree with all your ideas, and you don't agree with all mine, but if I had my way we'd all be free to do as we please. As it is, we really can't. I believe most of us in this country truly just want to live and let live, but there is a definite segment that wants to control the rest b/c they truly believe they know better. In most cases, these individuals don't want to live by the choices they make for the rest of us. They just want to keep the rest of us in a box so they can do as they please, and that just won't do.


----------



## SailDesign

GCBHM said:


> I'm glad you're listening, Sail. See, I'm not trying to tell you that you can't live how you want. I don't agree with all your ideas, and you don't agree with all mine, but if I had my way we'd all be free to do as we please. As it is, we really can't. I believe most of us in this country truly just want to live and let live, but there is a definite segment that wants to control the rest b/c they truly believe they know better. In most cases, these individuals don't want to live by the choices they make for the rest of us. They just want to keep the rest of us in a box so they can do as they please, and that just won't do.


Yeah, but... 

If we awere all free to do as we please, no-one (believe me, no-one) wold want to pay taxes. Therefore there would be no free road systems, no utilities commissions to keep prices sane, there would be no courts, no jails to control those who feel they are better than the rest and just take what they want. It's called anarchy - and I prefer a little government out there to take care of "all that" for me. And I'm happy to pay a little for it.


----------



## BigCityChief

SailDesign said:


> Yeah, but...
> 
> If we awere all free to do as we please, no-one (believe me, no-one) wold want to pay taxes. Therefore there would be no free road systems, no utilities commissions to keep prices sane, there would be no courts, no jails to control those who feel they are better than the rest and just take what they want. It's called anarchy - and I prefer a little government out there to take care of "all that" for me. And I'm happy to pay a little for it.


Sounds fairly reasonable to me.


----------



## GCBHM

Gentlemen, truly, thank you for all your comments. I appreciate everyone contributing and making it an exceptionally good discussion. My hope and desire is that we all endeavor to do something to make a difference b/c at the end of the day, we all agree on one thing for sure; the right to bear arms. I think it behooves us all to be productive in our beliefs, and it seems we may agree on more than we disagree in the long run. 

Thanks again! 
GC


----------



## Steve M1911A1

SouthernBoy said:


> I assumed by the inference that the German mentioned was Hitler, thus my response. Perhaps my assumption was in error.


Of course it was Hitler.
I was just having some fun with history.

Hitler became _Reichskanzler und Führer_ because of a "Red scare" the Nazi Party engineered.
Marinus van der Lubbe, Dutch, supposedly a socialist or Communist, was either convinced to set the _Reichstag_ on fire, or was duped into being present during the fire (perhaps set by the Nazis).
His supposed involvement was trumpeted by the Nazis as an attack upon Germany by the Communists, the German people bought it, and then Hitler and the Nazis were elected into power to oppose the supposed takeover.

Actually, the real culprit, guilty for having made WW2 possible, was Neville Chamberlain. He fearfully kowtowed to Hitler over Czechoslovakia, signalling Hitler that his aggression upon France and Eastern Europe would not be opposed.


----------



## GCBHM

Chamberlain was an idiot. I can't imagine what he thought he accomplished with that treaty signed by Hitler, but I suspect he knew exactly what Hitler's intentions were.


----------



## Goldwing

Maybe he was just trying to postpone the inevitable.
GW


----------



## Steve M1911A1

GCBHM said:


> Chamberlain was an idiot...


I thought that I'd already said that. :yawinkle:



goldwing said:


> Maybe he was just trying to postpone the inevitable.


...At least until he was safely out of office.


----------



## Bisley

goldwing said:


> Maybe he was just trying to postpone the inevitable.
> GW


Historians supposedly have eyewitness testimony that Hitler was ridiculing Chamberlain to Ribbentrop, as he was leaving the final negotiations, and his plans to subjugate Czechoslovakia continued, on schedule. So, I think it can be concluded that he simply made a fool of Chamberlain, who was either extremely naïve, or he had that ever-present tendency of liberal politicians to take ineffectual measures and then expect the peons to be thrilled, because he had at least tried. (Think Obama and Iran, here.)


----------



## SailDesign

Bisley said:


> Historians supposedly have eyewitness testimony that Hitler was ridiculing Chamberlain to Ribbentrop, as he was leaving the final negotiations, and his plans to subjugate Czechoslovakia continued, on schedule. So, I think it can be concluded that he simply made a fool of Chamberlain, who was either extremely naïve, or he had that ever-present tendency of liberal politicians to take ineffectual measures and then expect the peons to be thrilled, because he had at least tried. (Think Obama and Iran, here.)


Cherry-picking again, but what the heck... I'm curious as to your use of "liberal" for Chamberlain. He was a Conservative, which would make him a Republican over here. At that point in the UK the Liberal Party existed, and ran for election in most constituencies, but he wasn't one of them. On what are you basing your "liberal" tag?


----------



## SouthernBoy

Chamberlain was a fool and evil men do not suffer fools. Six months later, German troops cross the borders of Czechoslovakia and moved on her government. So much for words on paper.

The idea that you can bargain, can appease evil people is not only ludicrous, it is dangerous in the extreme. There is only one thing these people know and that is naked force of arms.

A nation can only live in peace when the thought of going to war against her by other nations is so repugnant and so dangerous that they would never risk this because doing so would surely result in their utter and complete destruction.


----------



## Bisley

SailDesign said:


> Cherry-picking again, but what the heck... I'm curious as to your use of "liberal" for Chamberlain. He was a Conservative, which would make him a Republican over here. At that point in the UK the Liberal Party existed, and ran for election in most constituencies, but he wasn't one of them. On what are you basing your "liberal" tag?


Habit, I guess. I don't pretend to be an expert on British politics, and I forget the differences between how the parties distinguish themselves from each other over there. Feel free to enlighten me.

By American standards, his policy of appeasement, when it was only a very recent and controversial idea that was completely unproven, would be enough to qualify him as a liberal, in the American sense. Likewise, his successor would be looked upon as a conservative, for his more realistic approach. It has nothing to do with the name of the parties that each were a member of.

You may have the same problem, if you think being a conservative automatically makes a person a Republican. Don't forget that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, or that most of the social liberals were in the Republican Party for decades before conservative Democrats began bolting the party around 1980, to vote for Ronald Reagan.


----------



## SailDesign

Bisley said:


> Habit, I guess. I don't pretend to be an expert on British politics, and I forget the differences between how the parties distinguish themselves from each other over there. Feel free to enlighten me.
> 
> By American standards, his policy of appeasement, when it was only a very recent and controversial idea that was completely unproven, would be enough to qualify him as a liberal, in the American sense. Likewise, his successor would be looked upon as a conservative, for his more realistic approach. It has nothing to do with the name of the parties that each were a member of.
> 
> You may have the same problem, if you think being a conservative automatically makes a person a Republican. Don't forget that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, or that most of the social liberals were in the Republican Party for decades before conservative Democrats began bolting the party around 1980, to vote for Ronald Reagan.


Good enough. I reckon usually Conservative/Tory (Bluebloods) = Republican, and Labour/Socialist = Democrat. Liberals, as a party, are somewhere between the two. They espouse the more traditional outlook of government while adding the "safety net" of Labour's thinking. BTW, Labour went too far with that - a safety net is one thing, the lack of ever needing to work is another....

Was just curious as to what your criteria were. (I think you were right, by today's standards.)


----------



## Bisley

Sounds like over there, liberal=moderate. Moderate, over here used to be a good thing, when Democrats and Republicans were both still loyal to the Constitution, and therefore still able to compromise. As Democrats moved further to the left, politics became much more radicalized. Conservatives (maybe or maybe not loyal Republicans) came to view the moderates as the guys who were willing to compromise with liberals on unconstitutional legislation. 

Now, conservatives mostly view liberals as socialists (still a dirty word over here because it links them to Soviet and Maoist style socialism), and liberals mostly view conservatives as ******** in overalls who are married to their first cousins and burn crosses in their back yards). 

I tend to think that conservatives are more realistic in their assessments of their opponents, but I'm still listening, anyway.


----------



## GCBHM

The government in the US hasn't been loyal to the constitution since Lincoln shredded it. Since then, the federal government has grown incrementally until Bush took office. Then it exploded on 9/11! Then when Obama took the reigns, the wheels just fell completely off, and the rest, as we know...is history.


----------



## Goldwing

As $hi++y as the U.S.A. is in your opinion, it is still a better place to live than any other place on earth that I have been. That fantasy of Anarcho-capitalism might work on paper for you, but I think that human nature would certainly turn it into straight up ANARCHY. 
GW


----------



## SailDesign

goldwing said:


> As $hi++y as the U.S.A. is in your opinion, it is still a better place to live than any other place on earth that I have been. <snip conjecture that I probably agree with>
> GW


This. I was born here, grew up in the UK (to the age of 30) and moved back here then (1984, as it happens  )

I love the UK, but would not wabnt to live there again. Australia? Apart from having to sell my handguns (which is not the end of the world, although i could see it from there) it is a lovely country. Saipan, if I have to choose an island, is also great, and you are allowed to buy land there now (weren't 5 years ago when we were there)

Celebrating my 39th anniversary today - and not even dreaming of moving. Hone is where the heart is, and she's here in RI.


----------



## pic

GCBHM said:


> The government in the US hasn't been loyal to the constitution since Lincoln shredded it. Since then, the federal government has grown incrementally until Bush took office. Then it exploded on 9/11! Then when Obama took the reigns, the wheels just fell completely off, and the rest, as we know...is history.


Lincoln was just finishing the unfinished business the founding fathers could not resolve.

We blame Lincoln while referring to the "constitution "?

Why shouldn't we credit Lincoln For defending the "the bill of rights"


----------



## SailDesign

GCBHM said:


> <snip> Then when Obama took the reigns, the wheels just fell completely off, and the rest, as we know...is history.


I beg to differ (you knew I would...) Some of us don't think the wheels fell off at all, and since it is still going on, it isn't history yet.

History will judge whether the wheels were well attached or not, but we must wait a few decades to really find out. Answer honestly - is your life and financial situation better now than it was 6 years ago?


----------



## GCBHM

goldwing said:


> As $hi++y as the U.S.A. is in your opinion, it is still a better place to live than any other place on earth that I have been. That fantasy of Anarcho-capitalism might work on paper for you, but I think that human nature would certainly turn it into straight up ANARCHY.
> GW


Well thanks for your opinion. However, your assumptions are childish, and your lashing out is indicative of your character, not mine.

I spoke the truth, but I never said I want to live anywhere else, so please spare me the theatrics of false patriotism. Speaking out against a tyrannical government is patriotism. Real patriotism is a willingness to challenge the government when it's wrong. -Ron Paul

When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different: Liberty, sir, was the primary object. -Patrick Henry

Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty. -Thomas Jefferson

"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official, save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth, whether about the president or anyone else." 
― Theodore Roosevelt

I can go on, but surely you get the point by now. If not, there is little hope for you.


----------



## GCBHM

SailDesign said:


> I beg to differ (you knew I would...) Some of us don't think the wheels fell off at all, and since it is still going on, it isn't history yet.
> 
> History will judge whether the wheels were well attached or not, but we must wait a few decades to really find out. Answer honestly - is your life and financial situation better now than it was 6 years ago?


I don't know how anyone could think Obama has done a good job. He is a train wreck walking. He has continued the Bush administration's mess and created a wider divide than any president in history. He is a fool.


----------



## GCBHM

pic said:


> Lincoln was just finishing the unfinished business the founding fathers could not resolve.
> 
> We blame Lincoln while referring to the "constitution "?
> 
> Why shouldn't we credit Lincoln For defending the "the bill of rights"


How did Lincoln defend the bill of rights? He invaded the South for tax revenue. I completely ignored legal secession, against the advice of many of his Northern representatives. Lincoln singlehandedly destroyed the constitution, and was effectively the first terrorist on American soil with the blood of over 600,000 on his hands. Why? Do not tell me to preserve the "union".


----------



## Steve M1911A1

SailDesign said:


> ...Answer honestly - is your life and financial situation better now than it was 6 years ago?


I gotta say that this is a red herring or a straw man.
The problem with the Obama administration has very little to do with our standard of living, earning, or spending.
The problem with Obama and his minions is a continuing loss of liberty in the names of Political Correctness, "inclusiveness," equality of outcome, and "safety."
"He's gonna take away our guns!" is just a symbol-a symptom of the disease, if you will-although it's no less real for that.

Someone, elsewhere, quoted Diane Feinstein stating that if us law-abiders would just give up all of our guns, than the criminal element would too.
That statement, if really a true quote, depicts someone with such an attachment to unreality in her mind that she might just qualify as insane.
And she is not the only unreality-thinking Obama supporter in the US government.

Yet this sort of primitive magical thinking seems to me to be endemic to the Progressive philosophy. To wit: "If we just make the one more, more perfect law, all of our problems would be solved."
Like those who believe that Communism really could work ("from each according to his ability; to each according to his need"-don't you wish), there is a stunning denial of the true nature of humanity here, and a shift into Cloud-Coo-Coo Land.

And that, in a nutshell, is the real problem with the Obama administration.

So, yes, my financial outlook is better now than it was six years ago. But money is not all there is to life.
To paraphrase The Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers: Liberty will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no liberty.


----------



## GCBHM

I had rather hoped that the conversation would remain above board and civil, and I think for the most part it has, save a few. Again, the point is not to fight amongst ourselves, but to look for a way to get along. If you can't do that, at the least, then there is really little hope of maintaining any sense of togetherness to combat an intrusive government. 

I would think man can put his preferences down long enough to support the common thread of liberty. Who in their right mind ever defends a government? All governments are anti-liberty and pro government. One works against the other. It's as simple as that.


----------



## Goldwing

GCBHM said:


> Well thanks for your opinion. However, your assumptions are childish, and your lashing out is indicative of your character, not mine.
> 
> I spoke the truth, but I never said I want to live anywhere else, so please spare me the theatrics of false patriotism.


You pompous ass. I am not making assumptions, and I am certainly not childish. If you were in the same room as I, you would not question my character so easily. As far as my false patriotism goes, you can go a long way towards making an enemy by doubting it.
Gw


----------



## Steve M1911A1

*GCBHM*, go take a time out. _Now._
Go commune with Vulcan, as I suggested before. Admire his shapely butt. :smt083



GCBHM said:


> ...I would think man can put his preferences down long enough to support the common thread of liberty. Who in their right mind ever defends a government? All governments are anti-liberty and pro government. One works against the other. It's as simple as that.


"One man's Mede is another man's Persian." :yawinkle:
We can all live together in freedom and with liberty, and still have very differing views, even about government.

But you gotta be nice!


----------



## GCBHM

Steve M1911A1 said:


> *GCBHM*, go take a time out. _Now._
> Go commune with Vulcan, as I suggested before. Admire his shapely butt. :smt083
> 
> "One man's Mede is another man's Persian." :yawinkle:
> We can all live together in freedom and with liberty, and still have very differing views, even about government.
> 
> But you gotta be nice!


What is it that I have not been nice about? Am I not allowed to speak with the same passion as others? And please explain how I gotta be nice, but others don't. Goldwing gets to lash out like a child, but I have to sit back and accept it like a good little school boy?

So I showed some passion. Couldn't we all just make an attempt to look for something to agree on rather than try to call someone down and crash their wagon? I mean, what kind of nonsense is that? I have not attempted to force anything on anyone, yet some don't seem to respond so well when they disagree with concepts they are either too daft to see or just too divisive to at least just consider it. So why must I be called down while others are able to speak their minds?

I appreciate your insight, Steve, on all things, and I also defer to your wisdom. But...let us all accept the same standard of acceptance. We don't have to agree on everything, but we also don't have to be so disagreeable. So Goldwing took exception to my comment. Why? I don't know, but it was the truth. I suggest you take a chill pill, Goldwing. Nowhere did I say America was not the best country in which to live. Sir, I'll remind you that I have served this country with distinction. I have sailed the seven seas, travelled to more than 20 different countries, and most of those more than once. I've lived abroad in foreign land, so the last thing I need you to tell me is how great this country is, sir. I've paid my dues. I've given more than the average man ever will, so I think I am entitled to speak my mind about this government.

At the end of the day, if the cat don't like the way I pet it, then let the cat turn around. I recommend that you take a moment, Goldwing, and perhaps Steve, and think about the sacrifices I, and others like me, have made for this country before you take the notion to lecture. That's really all I have to say on the matter. Good night, gentlemen.


----------



## pic

GCBHM said:


> How did Lincoln defend the bill of rights? He invaded the South for tax revenue. I completely ignored legal secession, against the advice of many of his Northern representatives. Lincoln singlehandedly destroyed the constitution, and was effectively the first terrorist on American soil with the blood of over 600,000 on his hands. Why? Do not tell me to preserve the "union".


I know you don't like Lincoln, that's ok.

History tells many versions about what actually happened.

The south lost, we know that.

Was it all about slavery? Probably not. The slavery issue has been debated since the first slave arrived.

There might be an argument to compare the early south with the nazi regime, the KKK And we are the superior race attitude.

I think we have some major issues happening today , Domestically and internationally that needs more focus.
:smt033


----------



## Goldwing

Windbag, I think I won the bet about if you could ever let anyone else get the last word. If your "good night, gentlemen." is as true as I expect, you are up. I'm probably gonna get banned and I am sorry for that.
GW
P.S. The civil war is over by the way. Yankees 1 Rebels 0
P.P.S If this is my last post here, nice chatting with most of you.


----------



## Bisley

pic said:


> Lincoln was just finishing the unfinished business the founding fathers could not resolve.
> 
> We blame Lincoln while referring to the "constitution "?
> 
> Why shouldn't we credit Lincoln For defending the "the bill of rights"


Lincoln was attempting to correct the one major flaw in the Constitution, in my opinion.

But the fact that he was willing to assume certain powers that were not granted to him by the Constitution, rather than letting the issue of secession be decided by the Congress and the courts is what led to revolution. He was an intelligent man, and he knew this, but apparently believed in his cause enough to skirt the Constitution, when necessary.

You can argue that the war settled an 80 plus year impasse regarding the question of secession and slavery, but I think you have to accept that in doing that, Lincoln set precedents for future politicians to skirt the Constitution and justify it by claiming 'expediency.'


----------



## pic

J


Bisley said:


> Lincoln was attempting to correct the one major flaw in the Constitution, in my opinion.
> 
> But the fact that he was willing to assume certain powers that were not granted to him by the Constitution, rather than letting the issue of secession be decided by the Congress and the courts is what led to revolution. He was an intelligent man, and he knew this, but apparently believed in his cause enough to skirt the Constitution, when necessary.
> 
> You can argue that the war settled an 80 plus year impasse regarding the question of secession and slavery, but I think you have to accept that in doing that, Lincoln set precedents for future politicians to skirt the Constitution and justify it by claiming 'expediency.'


Sounds very likely, as you stated much better then I.

I might have to think precedence was learned, started when we separated from England.

There were many here that were loyal to the Crown.

History would have been written differently if the revolt did not succeed,lol.

:smt1099


----------



## Bisley

pic said:


> History would have been written differently if the revolt did not succeed,lol.


It might have been written differently, had Lincoln survived and finished his term, too. He was almost alone in insisting that the South not be punished for seceding, and had he succeeded in enforcing that idea, the influx of carpetbaggers into the south might have been prevented, and some of the attitudes toward the Union might have softened.


----------



## SailDesign

Steve M1911A1 said:


> <snip>
> 
> "One man's Mede is another man's Persian." :yawinkle:
> We can all live together in freedom and with liberty, and still have very differing views, even about government.
> 
> But you gotta be nice!


Yup! Look how Steve here harshed my mellow above about our current Prez. I don't agree with him at all, as he well knows, but I'll kid him back later...


----------



## GCBHM

pic said:


> I know you don't like Lincoln, that's ok.
> 
> History tells many versions about what actually happened.
> 
> The south lost, we know that.
> 
> Was it all about slavery? Probably not. The slavery issue has been debated since the first slave arrived.
> 
> There might be an argument to compare the early south with the nazi regime, the KKK And we are the superior race attitude.
> 
> I think we have some major issues happening today , Domestically and internationally that needs more focus.
> :smt033


Pic, you're right, history tells many stories, on that I don't disagree. And wrt to the KKK, I also agree. It was a most heinous organization, indeed. Major issues...I agree. At least we can agree that liberty is most important?


----------



## pic

GCBHM said:


> Pic, you're right, history tells many stories, on that I don't disagree. And wrt to the KKK, I also agree. It was a most heinous organization, indeed. Major issues...I agree. At least we can agree that liberty is most important?


One could argue , "what was the motive of the American Revolution"?

Was it greed ?

The landowners were making money and did not want to pay their tax share. Was it a fair tax share? 
We don't know for sure.

Our founding fathers as history wants to portrait as heroes of a cause, is a false interpretation of their real intentions in my opinion.

The founding fathers used the writings and or beliefs of , but not exclusive to , England's own John Locke's work.

There are a few more great words , from other men prior to Thomas Jefferson's use of these words.

They based their own advancement of wealth n greed on the words n beliefs of others (john Locke n co. ) to encourage the rebellion. They sold or brainwashed the public in this fight for freedom. Isn't this still happening today?

Thomas Jefferson borrowed these words of wisdom.

Jefferson and the GANG had to modify these borrowed "great wordings" to their interpretation which had to allow slavery to exist.

Life. Liberty , and freedom for the elitists . Equals more profit.

The floundering fathers.

:smt1099


----------



## GCBHM

Well, I guess at the end of the day one can question whatever they like. I don't think there is anything wrong with being free to make your own profit, and there certainly isn't anything wrong with being free. Of course, today, we don't enjoy complete freedom although many still think so. At the end of the day, to each his own.


----------



## Goldwing

Last word, again?


----------



## TurboHonda

goldwing said:


> Last word, again?


Ha Ha! I hear you. You're not the first person to point that out. Oddly enough, I agree with a lot of what he says...and says. But, jeez, it can get irritating sometimes.


----------



## GCBHM

TurboHonda said:


> Ha Ha! I hear you. You're not the first person to point that out. Oddly enough, I agree with a lot of what he says...and says. But, jeez, it can get irritating sometimes.


Turbo, I have nothing against you. Nothing at all. We've agreed on more than we've disagreed on, you and I. I don't understand this concept of having the last word, especially when you're in the middle of a conversation. It seems foreign to me as I don't even think of having a last word. We all have our "issue" per se. It seems to me there is more to get along with than not, but clearly some just look for something to get offended over.

At any rate, it would be interesting to know what your thoughts are on the OP. What do you think?


----------



## TurboHonda

GCBHM said:


> Turbo, I have nothing against you. Nothing at all. We've agreed on more than we've disagreed on, you and I. I don't understand this concept of having the last word, especially when you're in the middle of a conversation. It seems foreign to me as I don't even think of having a last word. We all have our "issue" per se. It seems to me there is more to get along with than not, but clearly some just look for something to get offended over.
> 
> At any rate, it would be interesting to know what your thoughts are on the OP. What do you think?


My thoughts on the OP? I thought it was too long for the average person to stay interested in, but I went back and read it just for you. I, personally, am suspicious of any change or "improvement" in our original form of government. Especially when it includes words like Anarcho, Socio, Communal, etc. (not that I saw all of them in the OP) I believe that before masses of followers start changing stuff, they should have a clear understanding of how stuff works to begin with.

I didn't comment on the thread until now because I thought a lot of smart and well meaning patriots, including yourself, were doing just fine without me.

Best Regards, T.H.


----------



## GCBHM

Ah, you should know that your thoughts are as valid if not more so. Thanks for your feedback. I really don't disagree about making changes. I mean, I know we need to, but like you said, some pretty screwy things can happen when you go to meddlin. 

I like the concept of the anarcho-capitalism, and I think it could work if enough people were committed to Liberty, but I do think it would fail ultimately simply bc we'd just mess it up like we always do.


----------



## Steve M1911A1

pic said:


> ...The floundering fathers.


Nice turn of phrase! If you don't mind, I'd like to borrow and use it (with attribution, of course).

Although it's a nice turn of phrase, it isn't really all that true.
We were given our Constitution only after a large amount of heated debate had spread hot air over the entirety of the Philadelphia metropolitan area. But that heated debate included the input of the most thoughtful political philosophers, and of the most able thinkers, of both all previous times and the current time. Many of those most able thinkers were present in the room in Philadephia where the debate was taking place.
Our Constitution was also preceded by a quite different form of American government that had failed miserably: The Articles of Confederation. The lessons learned from that failure certainly informed the constitutional debate as well.

By the time of the Constitutional Convention, our Founders were no longer floundering.


----------



## GCBHM

goldwing said:


> As $hi++y as the U.S.A. is in your opinion, it is still a better place to live than any other place on earth that I have been. That fantasy of Anarcho-capitalism might work on paper for you, but I think that human nature would certainly turn it into straight up ANARCHY.
> GW


Goldwing, I would like to offer you an apology for the way I responded to you on this. It honestly was not my intention to offend you, but clearly I did, and for that I am truly sorry. I could have, and therefore should have, done better.


----------



## Goldwing

GCBHM said:


> Goldwing, I would like to offer you an apology for the way I responded to you on this. It honestly was not my intention to offend you, but clearly I did, and for that I am truly sorry. I could have, and therefore should have, done better.


Thanks GCBHM,
Sorry if the spirited debate got personal. Might have a touch of latent street fighter left in these old bones. Anyway, Bygones and all that stuff.
GW


----------



## Bisley

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Our Constitution was also preceded by a quite different form of American government that had failed miserably: The Articles of Confederation. The lessons learned from that failure certainly informed the constitutional debate as well.


Exactly.

The Articles of Confederation actually failed to bring all the states together _because_ it did not allow for secession. The Constitution was barely ratified by enough states to succeed, and one of the reasons that it did was that it did not prevent secession, in the eyes of those who had a problem with the Articles, for that very reason. In later years, those with the same view as Lincoln argued that because the Constitution did not address secession, one had to revert back to the Articles of Confederation. The opposition argued that the Constitution superseded the Articles, and that saying otherwise was a political trick being perpetrated by Lincoln to renege on agreements made at the Constitutional Convention.


----------



## GCBHM

goldwing said:


> Thanks GCBHM,
> Sorry if the spirited debate got personal. Might have a touch of latent street fighter left in these old bones. Anyway, Bygones and all that stuff.
> GW


Indeed, bygones.

If I may clarify what I meant to convey initially, rather than my trumped up rant, is that it isn't our great country I oppose, but the way the government has bent the system our founders established. Of course you're right wrt to no other country coming close to ours, and I truly believe we all, here at least, would die in her defense, without hesitation.

Also, this concept of anarcho-capitalism, as it were, is new to me, and although it is something I agree with conceptually, I don't know how it would work in a society such as ours. I do think it has merit, but seeing how things have evolved on the political front, I don't see it lasting long at all. To be honest, I believe something like it is what the founders established in the beginning; however, as we've seen, the greed of man has turned it into something altogether different.

Of course, gentlemen, my intent with this thread was merely to start the conversation of change. What change? I really don't know, but perhaps just a stir to rile the heart of us all to think about these things and determine how we can make a difference at home. We all come from different parts of the country with different beliefs and cultures, but at the core I think we're all patriots who love this country. I think it has gone really well, actually. Even the most heated berate btwn latent street fighters and young kids have come out with a better understanding. At least, that is to say, cooler heads were able to prevail with a healthier respect for others.

So with that, I'll pose this question. Steve and Bisley have made some pretty good points here above, in my opinion, but the question is this. I think it is safe to say the majority of us have grown cold to the status quo, and in the interest of our common stance to defend our right to bear arms, how do we, as individuals, make a positive change that will make an effective difference in the political landscape?


----------



## Steve M1911A1

GCBHM said:


> ...[H]ow do we, as individuals, make a positive change that will make an effective difference in the political landscape?


Well, to answer a question with another question: How did we do it the first time?

Hint (courtesy of Mel Brooks):
Courtier-"Sire, the peasants are revolting!"
King-"You're telling me!"


----------



## GCBHM

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Well, to answer a question with another question: How did we do it the first time?
> 
> Hint (courtesy of Mel Brooks):
> Courtier-"Sire, the peasants are revolting!"
> King-"You're telling me!"


Has it really come to that?


----------



## SailDesign

GCBHM said:


> Has it really come to that?


No - unless we stop voting BACK ionto power the same idiots that got us into this mess in the first place.

Of course, I realise we will differ on who those "Idiots" are, but the solution remains.  Term limits for ALL politicians.


----------



## GCBHM

SailDesign said:


> No - unless we stop voting BACK ionto power the same idiots that got us into this mess in the first place.
> 
> Of course, I realise we will differ on who those "Idiots" are, but the solution remains.  Term limits for ALL politicians.


Well, I certainly do agree that term limits are good, but what about the grip of the political machine on the system? At this point, it really matters little who is voted into office. First, the machine picks the candidates they want running, hence the lesser of two evils, and then once these candidates are elected, they are either assimilated or turned out.


----------



## Bisley

If the 'system' can be fixed without another revolution, it will be because the public forces the government to reduce its size and spending habits, and drastically reduces the scope of the government's involvement in local affairs. It seems unlikely, as long as the government can operate on borrowed funds (from the distant future) and increase taxes on the few to support the many. This government is corrupt to the core, and won't give up it's elite status easily.

But, it isn't impossible, and a lot of folks are doing what they can to stop the slide, in hopes of turning things around, eventually.


----------



## Steve M1911A1

I see "term limits" as another attempt to sell us Progressive Flooby Dust.
Term limits won't assure the election of better legislators, but it may "throw the baby out with the bathwater": It may force the untimely end of the career of a very useful statesman, whom we would otherwise prefer to keep.
Also, term limits won't make the electorate any smarter, or require them to use critical-thinking skills when choosing a representative.
The real problem is an electorate who continually asks, "What's in it for me, personally?"


...And "the lesser of two evils" is still an evil.


----------



## Goldwing

Steve M1911A1 said:


> I see "term limits" as another attempt to sell us Progressive Flooby Dust.
> Term limits won't assure the election of better legislators, but it may "throw the baby out with the bathwater": It may force the untimely end of the career of a very useful statesman, whom we would otherwise prefer to keep.
> Also, term limits won't make the electorate any smarter, or require them to use critical-thinking skills when choosing a representative.
> The real problem is an electorate who continually asks, "What's in it for me, personally?"...And "the lesser of two evils" is still an evil.


The good part of term limits is that the politician doesn't make every decision based on whether he can buy votes with it. That might make it easier to do the right thing.
GW


----------



## GCBHM

Yeah, I'm not sure what we can do to entice better people to run for office, but term limits is a start. I would like to see not only term limits, but a per diem based compensation where the elected officials are paid only when congress is in session, and they are there working. Expenses paid for lodging and food, but no one would be elected to a full-time job in DC where they get benefits, retirement, housing allowance, etc. 

They would live and work in their respective districts, and that is where their retirement/benefits compensation would come from. As it is the elected official has become the most lucrative career in the world. Change that, and you might see a lot of these clowns want to start leaving office after one or two terms.


----------



## SailDesign

Steve M1911A1 said:


> I see "term limits" as another attempt to sell us Progressive Flooby Dust.
> Term limits won't assure the election of better legislators, but it may "throw the baby out with the bathwater": It may force the untimely end of the career of a very useful statesman, whom we would otherwise prefer to keep.
> Also, term limits won't make the electorate any smarter, or require them to use critical-thinking skills when choosing a representative.
> The real problem is an electorate who continually asks, "What's in it for me, personally?"
> 
> ...And "the lesser of two evils" is still an evil.


You have some good points there (not trying to patronise, just sayin';...)

My remark about term limits was really only 50% of the solution - but we do need to somehow get rid of the useless ones, and stop voting them back in. "My" side has as many as "your" side in this - hidebound chumps who just do what the Party wants, not their constituents. It's time the politicos listened to those who elect them, and the electors watch what their "guys" are actually doing and hold them to account for their votes.

Edit: Typos.....


----------



## Steve M1911A1

goldwing said:


> The good part of term limits is that the politician doesn't make every decision based on whether he can buy votes with it...


Um, except that he has to work to get reëlected at least once more.
You're not going to term-limit anybody to one single term, are you?

Hmmm...
Upon reflection, a limit of one single term would eliminate those outrageously expensive congressional pensions, which kick-in as soon as one is elected to one's second term.


----------



## Bisley

I was finished with this thread, but was still thinking about how hard it would be to restore sanity and turn around the sad state of affairs that the voting public and our career politicians have let us sink into. It took decades for us to get here, so will it take decades to repair what is broken in the system?

Maybe, but I think we could get to a much better place, in a hurry, if anything ever happens that can shock us back to reality. It seems that the political infighting has just become a drone in the ears of most folks. That is to say that the public is so desensitized to the most outrageous acts and comments of politicians and their spin masters that it has just become background noise. They see it all as just another annoying buzz that can be ignored because it's happening to someone else and addressing it isn't urgent.

There are areas of the country that are starting to make more realistic choices in the people they elect and the local laws they enact, particularly in regard to handgun laws and other rights of self defense. I think we can assume that what used to be called 'inner city strife' has been a factor in that, as well as open borders and an increase in the sophistication of terrorist acts, worldwide. There is still a long way to go before some people start to pay attention, though, and it may actually take an event that strikes genuine fear into the hearts of everyone, before people wake up and start weighing their options for the future in a genuinely realistic way.

Seeing the people take to the streets in Paris is actually encouraging, to me. No government can ignore a million people in the street - it says, "do something now and do it right," to politicians everywhere. It means that the normal spin that they regularly put on every issue is not going to work, this time. 

I just hope it also means that the public is not going to lose interest, and quickly return to the same old fatalistic cynicism about politics and the people who practice it, like we did after 911.


----------



## GCBHM

I agree with what you're saying, but wrt a government ignoring a million person march in the streets, this one did. Not long after Obama took office, over a million marched in a demonstration in Chicago to tell Obama "too much too fast", yet it went relatively ignored. I also contend that the politicians didn't let us slip into this hole, but actually very cunningly took us there with a very clever plan to convince the people that we still had control with the vote. Nothing could be further from the truth. We don't. 

We could do something, though. If enough states would nullify more federal orders, start telling the federal government no, in essence, ignoring unlawful orders, etc., it would send the message that they (the FG) no longer has the "control" we, the people, handed them. I'm afraid it will take something drastic, however, to open the eyes of the people, and I don't mean a revolt. I mean something more drastic than that, which is to say a total collapse of the system. It's just a matter of time before it happens. I wonder what then.


----------



## SailDesign

GCBHM said:


> I agree with what you're saying, but wrt a government ignoring a million person march in the streets, this one did. <snip>


And all of the western media pretty much ignored a 2,000-victim massacre that happened that day in Nigeria....


----------



## GCBHM

Actually, I'm told that massacre is fake.

http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/10/fake-nigerian-christians-burnt-alive-photo-resurfaces-on-facebook/

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http://www.afrik.com/article20308.html


----------



## SailDesign

GCBHM said:


> Actually, I'm told that massacre is fake.
> 
> Fake Nigerian Christians Burnt Alive Photo Resurfaces on Facebook | loonwatch.com
> 
> Google Translate


You may want to check your sources, GC - both of those links are to stories at least 4 years old....

The Telegraph says:
Boko Haram raze Nigerian towns in 'most destructive' attack yet, says Amnesty - Telegraph

Shoot, even Fox News reported it 
Boko Haram increases attacks as Nigeria elections loom | Fox News


----------



## GCBHM

Yeah, it's making its rounds again. It isn't true.


----------



## SailDesign

GCBHM said:


> Yeah, it's making its rounds again. It isn't true.


The burnt people story is not true. The atrocities in Baga are true.


----------

