Uechi-Ryu.com

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Originally posted by Norm Abrahamson: How about giving some specifics?

Very well. Let's start with property rights. More specifically (for the moment), the progressive income tax. I'll leave the arguably more volatile proposition that their should be no income tax whatsoever aside for the moment.

By the way, do you agree that economic freedom is indispensible to political freedom?

Assuming (for the sake of argument only) that a federal income tax is not inherently evil, it should be obvious that a flat tax is infinitely more fair than our current "progressive" income tax system.

I would wager that most people would agree. So why do we have a progressive income tax?

Personal income taxes are inherently unAmerican. If 100% of someone's income is taken by the government by force, we would likely agree that such a person would be effectively 100% enslaved (ie. tyrannized). If only 33% is taken, then we are 67% free, and so on.

And remember, even in a democracy, that might easily mean that 49.9% of the population (that might produce 90% of the goods and services of the nation) could be forced (under penalty of law - ie. at the point of a gun) by the unproductive 50.1% to turn over most or all of the fruits of their labor.

Yosselle
"...The Utopian schemes of levelling, and a community of goods, are as visionary and impracticable, as those which vest all property in the Crown, are arbitrary, despotic, and in our government unconstitional"
--House of Representatives of Massachusetts (1768, to agent in London for the Colonies)
(Note: the word "unconstitutional" pertains to the British "Constitution").


[This message has been edited by Yosselle (edited May 31, 2001).]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Panther,

Please excuse my ignorance, but what is "FLIR"?


When I wrote: "Incidents like these are going to happen as long as flawed human beings are making decisions."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You replied:
"Not if we start punishing them for violating the Rights of the citizenry."

Who is we? Who is the citizenry? Are we going to be a cohesive nation bound by law, or are we going to co-exist as millions of individuals making our own law? Is there going to be any form or government or not? I think you wnat things both ways. No government or taxes, but still rights and a way to police those rights.

If you live in a suburb, and your neighbor decides to turn his quarter acre lot into a pig farm, is that okay with you or do you want to enforce zoning regs? Zoning regulations amount to the government (municipality) telling you what you can or cannot do with your own property. Is that a loss of freedom you can't live with?

You mentioned the proposed voting rights act as evidence that government is attempting to curtail free speech. I admit I haven't read the text of the legislation. Does this mean you equate spending with speech? You obviously feel that the government has legislated away far too many personal liberties. What is your solution? Can we work within the framework of the government we have now, or do we blow it up and start over?

Norm Abrahamson

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Norm asks Panther: Can we work within the framework of the government we have now, or do we blow it up and start over?

Claire Wolfe answers: "America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." See http://www.curleywolfe.net/cw/Books101.shtml for a peek at the book whence the quote derives.

Yosselle


[This message has been edited by Yosselle (edited June 01, 2001).]

I think that much of the disagreement on this issue comes down to fundamental issues about what the purpose of society is.

One such disagreement might be along the lines of whether society should actively seek the betterment of its citizens, or should act only to give its citizens unfettered ability to persue their betterment individually.

This disagreement concerns both more and tangible issues.

Another disagreement might about to what extent society has a duty to care for citizens who cannot care for themselves. Anarchy on the extreme of less intervention, and complete proscription the extreme of more intervention. By this I don't mean the results of these things, such as the weak getting trampled in an Anarchy or loss of freedoms under oppression, but rather the general state.

If you care about the general state of other people, then it comes down to deciding whether you think The People will be happier left alone, or with intervention.

Almost nobody is completely on one side or the other. Anybody who believes in laws believes that there should be some intervention. And I have yet to hear anybody who would like to see everybody's lives micro-managed by the government with absolutely zero choices.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Originally posted by Valkenar: I think that much of the disagreement on this issue comes down to fundamental issues about what the purpose of society is.

I think you are largely correct.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Originally posted by Valkenar: One such disagreement might be along the lines of whether society should actively seek the betterment of its citizens, or should act only to give its citizens unfettered ability to persue their betterment individually.

I think this statement contains two hidden assumptions:
<OL TYPE=1>
<LI>That while unfettered individual betterment might be adequate, "active" societal betterment would result in the greatest good for the greatest number.
<LI>That "active" societal betterment efforts always involves social programs and prior-restraint type laws a la today's modern democratic socialist states the world over (including the U.S.).
</OL>

I disagree with both assumptions. First, I believe that active societal betterment efforts (in the spirit of today's modern liberalism) can only result in the decrease in the aggregate happiness and well-being of the population with (more often than not) narry an increase in such happiness and well-being even among the sub-populations targeted for "assistance".

Second, instead of governmental interventionist activism, I would argue that an "active" societal betterment effort might very well consist of a continuous, determined effort by people at all levels of society (and consequently government) to retain individual liberty and responsibility as our highest national ideal. Such an effort would be a never-ending "active" battle to keep the flame of freedom alive from one generation to the next in the face of Man's natural tendency to allow himself to become lazy, dependent, and finally enslaved. This active effort would continuously educate each and every citizen of the dangers of socialism. Just imagine all forms of news and entertainment throughout the mainstream media and in hollywood saturated with pro-freedom messages instead of the current socialist propaganda

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Originally posted by Valkenar: Another disagreement might (be) about to what extent society has a duty to care for citizens who cannot care for themselves.

If, by society, you mean government, then the answer is none. If, by society, you mean individual human beings who see suffering, then the answer is total.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Originally posted by Valkenar: Anarchy on the extreme of less intervention, and complete proscription the extreme of more intervention. By this I don't mean the results of these things, such as the weak getting trampled in an Anarchy or loss of freedoms under oppression, but rather the general state.

The scale is actually this:
<UL TYPE=SQUARE>
<LI>When there is no law and no government, there is anarchy.
<LI>When there is just enough law and government to protect people's natural rights, there is peace, contentment and prosperity.
<LI>When there is more law and government than is necessary to protect natural rights, there is tyranny - the degree of which is determined by what the people will tolerate.
</UL>

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Valkenar: If you care about the general state of other people, then it comes down to deciding whether you think The People will be happier left alone, or with intervention.

Almost nobody is completely on one side or the other. Anybody who believes in laws believes that there should be some intervention.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No. No. No. Absolutely incorrect. I believe in laws. I do not believe in intervention. This view is called the traditional American Philosophy.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Originally posted by Valkenar: And I have yet to hear anybody who would like to see everybody's lives micro-managed by the government with absolutely zero choices.

Those that do (and there are many) just won't admit it.

Yosselle
"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."
John Philpot Curran: Speech upon the Right of Election, 1790.

[This message has been edited by Yosselle (edited June 01, 2001).]

FLIR: Forward Looking Infra-Red technology which sees things in the infrared spectrum showing higher temperatures as lighter (FLIR is black&white) and cooler items as darker. There was a FLIR camera recording the raid from one of the military helicopters that was used during the final assault on the Davidian church.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Norm Abrahamson:

When I wrote: "Incidents like these are going to happen as long as flawed human beings are making decisions."
<hr>
You replied: "Not if we start punishing them for violating the Rights of the citizenry."

Who is we?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We, the People

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Who is the citizenry?

We, the People

But your questions suggest to me an incorrect grammatical analysis of the reading of my response. The object of the sentence wasn't "the citizenry", but rather "the Rights of the citizenry"... Therefore your questions, which seem to point out a disparity, in actuality indicate no inconsistency in my reply at all.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Are we going to be a cohesive nation bound by law, or are we going to co-exist as millions of individuals making our own law?

Another question which is seemingly based on a position which I've never stated. Also, your leading terminology (a "cohesive nation" == "bound by law") further attempts to demonize a strawman position being built by inference through the question itself. Nothing I've stated has been contrary to a "cohesive nation bound by law" or indicated that each individual should be "making our own law" at our whim. On the other hand, reading the founding documents, I see no place where the U.S. Congress has been granted the powers to make 99.9% of the laws that are currently on the Federal books.

In fact, here's a question for you (including some prior history):

In the beginning of the 20th Century, the united States knew that in order to outlaw alcohol, the Federal government's only avenue was a Constitutional Amendment. Which resulted in the 18th Amendment, known as "Prohibition" being proposed in 1917 and ratified in 1919. Additionally, they knew that in order to "change their minds" required yet another Constitutional Amendment, which was passed in 1933 as the 21st Amendment and repealed "Prohibition". Shortly thereafter (actually, the first ones came about as early as 1934), Congress began making laws against certain drugs. (Cocaine and Marajuana being two of the more prevalent...) So... You tell me... What happened between 1933 and 1934 that allowed the Federal government to do through legislative statute that which the entire citizenry as well as the government knew <u>required</u> a Constitutional amendment to achieve simply one year earlier? Heck, tell me what happened between 1919 and 1934 that allowed such a change!

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Is there going to be any form or government or not?

Again, painting me with an extremist brush using inference in a question form which implies that I have taken a certain position... which I have not. In my condemnation of tyranny, I have never once advocated anarchy! Certainly, I wish for there to be a form of government! (Regardless of questions leading to the opposite conclusion. ) FYI, the form of government I want is a limited Constitutional Republic, just like the one we started out with, but unfortunately don't have anymore.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

I think you wnat things both ways. No government or taxes, but still rights and a way to police those rights.

I <u>really</u> wish you would stop doing that! Would you care to go back through my posts and tell me where I said blanketly "no government" or "no taxes"... Won't be able to find it. However, the main purpose of government should be to protect our inalienable, endowed on us by our Creator, Rights from infringement.

Rather than galavanting off on a completely different tangent by hopscotching into zoning laws, it would be much nicer if you were to actually address some of the previous points made by myself and Yosselle instead of simply redirecting and obfuscating while simply restating your arguments.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

You mentioned the proposed voting rights act as evidence that government is attempting to curtail free speech. I admit I haven't read the text of the legislation. Does this mean you equate spending with speech?

(my emphasis added... ) Rather than take an easy shot, I'll simply point out that anyone (such as myself) who has read the proposed bill would find your question irrelevant. To answer your question: No, I don't equate spending with speech... but that's not how the proposed legislation infringes on the 1st Amendment. So... I suggest you read the actual proposed legislation before you try to extrapolate some inconsistency out of my opposition to it. Until then, you really have no basis for asking any intelligent questions about my position.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

You obviously feel that the government has legislated away far too many personal liberties.

Good. At least I got that much across...

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>What is your solution? Can we work within the framework of the government we have now, or do we blow it up and start over?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well... After reading the quote that Yosselle posted, I think I may very well be in love with Claire Wolfe...



[This message has been edited by Panther (edited June 01, 2001).]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Originally posted by Valkenar: One such disagreement might be along the lines of whether society should actively seek the betterment of its citizens, or should act only to give its citizens unfettered ability to persue their betterment individually.
Originally posted by Yoselle:
I think this statement contains two hidden assumptions:
That while unfettered individual betterment might be adequate, "active" societal betterment would result in the greatest good for the greatest number.
That "active" societal betterment efforts always involves social programs and prior-restraint type laws a la today's modern democratic socialist states the world over (including the U.S.).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I tried to avoid assumptions of that sort. By "actively seek" I was trying to say "try very hard" I wasn't trying to say anything about whether or not there is a possibility of success.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
If, by society, you mean government, then the answer is none. If, by society, you mean individual human beings who see suffering, then the answer is total.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know how governments attempt to cure human suffering, what is your proposal for ensuring that individual human efforts actually do the job?


<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

No. No. No. Absolutely incorrect. I believe in laws. I do not believe in intervention. This view is called the traditional American Philosophy.

Laws are a form of intervention. That is, the enforcement of laws is always some sort of intervention. If you're not intervening in the form of enacting the laws, then there are effectively no laws.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
Those that do (and there are many) just won't admit it.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm somewhat curious what makes you so sure there are people like this.

Some of you believe that a government can go no further than a simple set of laws discouraging interpersonal conflict (murder, theft, etc.) without creating Tyranny (with a capital "t").

My first question is simply "why do you believe this" I'm not saying that the government we have isn't tyrannical in some way, though I think tyrannical is a rather strong word for it. All I'm saying is what leads you to the conclusion that it is impossible.

My second question is "at what point do basic laws become tyrannical" Various people have made the valid point that it's wrong to punish people before they do anything wrong. On the other hand, most wouldn't suggest that individuals should have a right to own weapons. So obviously there is such a thing as a law intended to prevent wrongdoing rather than to punish wrongdoers after the fact. To clarify, murder is a crime that you're punishing a wrong already done. Prohibiting nuclear bombs prevents a wrong not yet done. To use an example outisde the tired realm of weapons, many people would hold that creating a public health hazard ought to be illegal. So in that case, should it be legal to store deceased love ones in your house? Then there are laws with where the degree of harm done is questionable. For example, laws about public nudity or public obscenity. Then what about food labeling? Should companies be required to label their food?

My third question regards whether or not people honestly believe it is reasonable to expect that private charity will take care of the needy. For a long time we had only private charity, and if it really were providing for the poor, then there wouldn't have been anyone to give welfare to. Welfare wasn't created just in case anyone ever needed it. Welfare was created to solve a problem that wasn't being solved. A counter argument might be something along the lines of "it may not work, but our basic rights are more important" If that's how you feel, fine, but in my personal opinion, something considered a right (and it is an arbitrary human designation) that forces us to ignore injustice isn't a very good right. And yes I know what "inalieable" means. But who believes in absolute inalienability? Anyone who does would believe that screaming "fire" in a theatre ought to be protected under free speech. And anyone who believes absolutely in the right to bear arms believes in the right to own nukes. And if you don't hold absolutely and resolutely to these beliefs, then you mean "almost inalienable", not "inalienable"

I wish somebody would post something in favor of big government, then I could actually post something in favor of limiting the government's power.

Valkenar
To simplify what others have tried to say,
All government power is by coercion. Taxation can only happen by force or threat of force. Every government policy, no matter how great and noble, is paid for by pointing a gun at someone else's head and forcing them to put up the money. This is why some of us believe that any expansion of government power increases tyranny.
This is and was an accepted truth by the founding fathers and is still obvious. (Yes, the lottery is an exception, substituting a con for robbery, deceit for force).
Given this, the only legitimate use of coercion is to prevent or punish greater coercion or deception. A basic military prevents other governments using force on our citizens. A legal system strives to prevent citizens using coercion or deception on each other.

"At what point do basic laws become tyrannical?" Some laws are tyrannical when they try to proscript behavior that is not coercive or deceptive but all laws are coercive and tyrannical that attempt tp force any action.

Rory

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

I wish somebody would post something in favor of big government, then I could actually post something in favor of limiting the government's power.

Major stumbling block here is finding someone in favor of big government.

Probably if rights and wrongs, guilts and innocents, creations, carrying out of, and even dissolutions of laws could be performed by well-constructed and impartial computer applications instead of [but definitely not limited to] greed and personal interests the world of governments, laws, justice, etc would be fare more palitable to the individuals who see their freedoms eroding away from their very feet. As long as the gonvernment, from local level to international level is carried out by those who put personal agendas and personal agendas of friends, etc at high levels of priority, scum will prevail. And many laws are the result of this scum.

As long as the general poplace is content with watching cable, can drive to the local liquor store, grocery store, toy shop, get all the sex he wants, has a laxidaisical attitude, doesn't get disrupted from his 8-5 routine, and wants little else, all the mouth he makes about laws and the execution of those laws is transparent and meaningless, and he controls, effects, and affects the output of his government with the power and ambitiousness of a slug.

It's the special interest groups, with all their little self-serving agendas, who contain the self-righeous fires of hell within them are the ones in control, the ones who get the laws passed.

In short, we have become a lazy nation of herded sheep who will not even lend a hand to a stranger or the neighbor next to us.



------------------
Allen Moulton from Uechi-ryu Etcetera

Thanks for the info on FLIR. (My guess of Flatulent Lenny Is Rude was way off base.)

You answered that it should be left to "we the people" to protect against the violation of rights. The practical question is: How? Do you expect "the people" to rise up as of one mind for every perceived violation of rights? This list serve illustrates that "we the people" have varied opinions on many topics. How will they act? I hope not by a majority of the people, that would be democracy, a form of government you equate with tyranny.

You have accused my of putting words in your mouth or assuming your position by the wording of my questions. I assure you, the purpose of a question is simply to hear your answer. I neither "extrapolated an inconsistency" in your prior statements, nor "painted you as an extremist" by my question. I asked, "Is there going to be government ro not?" because I wanted to hear your answer. In fact, you did answer it. You are in favor of "a limited Constitutional Republic, just like the one we started out with, but unfortunately don't have anymore." That begs the question, what has changed? How do we change our current government back to the limited constitutional republic you want?

As to taxes, I believe it was Yosselle and not you who argued that taxes are tyrannical.

I certainly have addressed your prior arguments other than alleged conspiracies to kill Dr. Zegel, Mr. Ghigliotti and Jack Hartwell. I have not addressed them because they sound more like X-Files episodes than part of this discussion.

Your question about the 19th amendment and its repeal is quite interesting. Looking at it from a historical perspective, my understanding of the issue is that prohibition was the culmination of an effort by a vocal minority that began before the Civil War. The Women's Christian Temperance Movement (I hope I have the name right) was the principal moving force. A constitutional amendment was sought because that is the highest law of the land, and once done, would be harder to undo. Congress could have passed temperance legislation without passing a constitutional amendment. An example of that is the Equal Rights Amendment. There are already Federal laws on the books that prohibit discrimination based on gender. Nevertheless, proponents of the ERA want a constitutional amendment because the issue is important enough to them that they want it to be part of the highest law of the land. Maybe Mike Murphy or one of the other historians on the list could shed more light on that.

As to my hypothetical about zoning laws, why don't you want to answer it? Part of this discussion is, How much government is too much government? Where is the line to be drawn?

Norm Abrahamson

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Allen M.:


It's the special interest groups, with all their little self-serving agendas, who contain the self-righeous fires of hell within them are the ones in control, the ones who get the laws passed.

In short, we have become a lazy nation of herded sheep

AMEN!

First, I will apologize for not getting into this thread more heavily right now... I have some things that need to get done and get taken care of, so even though I'm still watching, reading, learning and thinking, I won't be very active... at least not today.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Norm Abrahamson:

You answered that it should be left to "we the people" to protect against the violation of rights. The practical question is: How?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

By enforcing the provisions of the Constitution. Which is really one of the very few and limited functions of a government and the societally-desired, local police force.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Do you expect "the people" to rise up as of one mind for every perceived violation of rights?

No. Only for the more egregious violations which are not being handled by the authorities which We, the People have vested the power in to deal with... but mainly only for those violations being committed against the citizenry by those who are abusing their power.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

You are in favor of "a limited Constitutional Republic, just like the one we started out with, but unfortunately don't have anymore." That begs the question, what has changed? How do we change our current government back to the limited constitutional republic you want?

I don't have the time to specifically map things out right now, perhaps others can "pick up the ball", but the fact is that something did change. And to return us to our original government, things will have to change again...

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

As to taxes, I believe it was Yosselle and not you who argued that taxes are tyrannical.

Correct. Given that fact and putting on my "moderator's hat" for just a second, given the fact that specific questions seem to be asked and either not answered or percieved as not answered, I think it would be a good idea to direct specific questions in short posts to specific people for response... or, if you prefer, to "the other side" for response. I'm just as guilty as anyone of going on a rant and writing a novel which can lose the response in the middle as anyone else, so perhaps the debate can be more lively if we're specific in our questions and responsive, concise and "to the point" in our responses... Just a thought.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

I have not addressed them because they sound more like X-Files episodes than part of this discussion.

The X-files are a TV show that are "make believe"... these cases are real, regardless of your trivialization of them. I'm sure the wives, widows and children of the gentlemen in question wish they were merely an X-files episode... as do the wives, widows and children of the other examples I gave.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Your question about the 19th amendment and its repeal is quite interesting. Looking at it from a historical perspective, my understanding of the issue is that prohibition was the culmination of an effort by a vocal minority that began before the Civil War.

Yeah... So... That doesn't address my question.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

A constitutional amendment was sought because that is the highest law of the land, and once done, would be harder to undo. Congress could have passed temperance legislation without passing a constitutional amendment.

Try again, council...

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

An example of that is the Equal Rights Amendment. There are already Federal laws on the books that prohibit discrimination based on gender. Nevertheless, proponents of the ERA want a constitutional amendment because the issue is important enough to them that they want it to be part of the highest law of the land.

More to it than that...

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

Maybe Mike Murphy or one of the other historians on the list could shed more light on that.

Hint: The historians can look at the history from the end of the War for Southern Independence through 1934 for the ever increasing answers.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

As to my hypothetical about zoning laws, why don't you want to answer it? Part of this discussion is, How much government is too much government? Where is the line to be drawn?

I'll discuss them, just don't have the time to respond right now. (You may be suprised...) Regardless, I felt that the current subjects needed to be answered before moving onto tangentials.

One question that you haven't answered, and that I didn't ask, was the one that Yosselle asked about the progressive income tax. If he's reading, perhaps he can ask again, specifically and to the point without it being buried in the middle of a long post. Sorry, but I don't have the time...