posted
I'd need a few more details on some of those petitions.
The War Powers one looks probably okay, though I didn't read through the whole thing. But on the taxation one, I don't see what the specific problem is. There's a Constitutional amendment that gives Congress the power to levy the income tax isn't there?
I disagree entirely with the interpretation of the Second Amendment used in the gun control petition.
The "North American Union" one looks really thin. None of the "Whereas" statements says anything concrete. That's the section where you're supposed to lay out your proof, and there isn't anything of substance there.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow. While I'm mildly sympathetic towards one or two of their claims, I have little sympathy for those who talk about a 'de-facto North American Union', or income taxes and the federal reserve being unconstitutional.
It will be interesting to see if their 'protest events' pan out.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why do you think the Fed is constitutional? As much as I would have phrased a lot of that petition differently, the basic points seem irrefutable (if addressed):
The Constitution grants Congress the right to coin money
The Constitution does not grant Congress the right to delegate that power, particularly not to a private institution. While Congress appoints the Fed Board, the fact remains that the Fed banks themselves are privately owned, and are not subject to audit by the US government.
I get the whole income tax thing. I think the amendment was horrible, and should never have been passed, but it was, wishful thinking to the contrary. The Fed, on the other hand, was created without an amendment, and is unconstitutional on the face of it.
I'd add that it's incredibly harmful, and is responsible for a good many of the things that it supposedly exists to protect against (like economic bubbles and little hiccups like the Great Depression). But that's not the issue here. The issue is that it's a delegation of a power granted to an accountable government to an unaccountable group of businessmen.
Why do you dismiss the unconstitutionality of the Fed so glibly?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Federal Reserve is not a single entity. The board of governors and FOMC, which make all decisions regarding the coining and valuation of money, are part of the gov't. There are many private banks that are 'members' of the federal reserve, but these entities are responsible for providing information (edit: and obeying the decisions of the board of governors and FOMC). And Congress very much does have supervisory power over the board of governors and FOMC
Not that there's anything restricting the Congress from employing a private agency in the execution of the powers it holds: it has the power to make the laws necessary to carry out those powers.
edit: and Congress has supervisory power over even the most private parts of the federal reserve (not the members, but the actual federal reserve branch banks): it passed the act that created them, and it can dissolve them. If that isn't supervisory power, I don't know what is.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm afraid that the few things that I support from those petitions are actually harmed by these people being interested in them. Very much a case of "Get off of my side."
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Why do you think the Fed is constitutional? As much as I would have phrased a lot of that petition differently, the basic points seem irrefutable (if addressed):
The Constitution grants Congress the right to coin money
The Constitution does not grant Congress the right to delegate that power, particularly not to a private institution. While Congress appoints the Fed Board, the fact remains that the Fed banks themselves are privately owned, and are not subject to audit by the US government.
But surely the Constitution does not specify the manner in which Congress should do the coining? Generally, if you have a power, you also have the power to delegate it, no?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM: especially when you explicitly have the power to make laws necessary to carry out your powers.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What a mess. The pages look misleading, at best.
Just as sure as I might support one or two points, I would vehemently oppose others. It would be a mistake to put all of these issues in one basket.
Posts: 496 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is it a single petition or can you sign them separately? I didn't check that.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Without taxes how would a country pay for institutions like police, fire men, the army? R&D? Most of these things cant be funded through private enterprise or the open market alone.
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Hmm, I wish I could sign now if for no better reason then to watch with glee the chaos unfold as the government will predictably refuse to answer the petition.
IP: Logged |
posted
Blayne: income taxes are not the only kind of taxes. While I think income taxes are preferable to many other kinds of taxes, it shows your naivety and lack of knowledge to make such statements (though at least you're not a US citizen, so it isn't quite so disheartening).
Also, I wouldn't expect very much chaos.
Lyrhawn: it looks like you can sign them separately.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Without taxes how would a country pay for institutions like police, fire men, the army? R&D? Most of these things cant be funded through private enterprise or the open market alone.
Actually, believe it or not, those things were funded before there was an income tax.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My partner lived in a place where the fire department was funded by payments. Not run by the government.
One night, a house caught fire. The people who lived there weren't members. So the fire truck came, got everyone out of the house (because saving lives is saving lives), and then hosed down the houses to either side while they waited for the owners to bring them a cashier's check for two years worth of dues, at which point they dealt with their house.
I don't see anything wrong with that at all. The issue with fire is the risk of it spreading, and that was dealt with. Someone who doesn't want to participate in paying for fire protection doesn't have to have fire protection.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As far as I know, R&D wasn't funded (though it also didn't exist in the common mode) before there was an income tax.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: My partner lived in a place where the fire department was funded by payments. Not run by the government.
One night, a house caught fire. The people who lived there weren't members. So the fire truck came, got everyone out of the house (because saving lives is saving lives), and then hosed down the houses to either side while they waited for the owners to bring them a cashier's check for two years worth of dues, at which point they dealt with their house.
I don't see anything wrong with that at all. The issue with fire is the risk of it spreading, and that was dealt with. Someone who doesn't want to participate in paying for fire protection doesn't have to have fire protection.
This is to me wrong on so many levels.
IP: Logged |
posted
Shocking really. A true libertarian woulda used an AK-47 on those extortionists, confiscated what was their fire fighting equipment, rallied his neighbors to put out the fire, then sold the equipment to pay for repairs.
posted
No, a libertarian wouldn't have, because a libertarian would have respected the property rights of others the same way he'd want his own respected.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: My partner lived in a place where the fire department was funded by payments. Not run by the government.
One night, a house caught fire. The people who lived there weren't members. So the fire truck came, got everyone out of the house (because saving lives is saving lives), and then hosed down the houses to either side while they waited for the owners to bring them a cashier's check for two years worth of dues, at which point they dealt with their house.
I don't see anything wrong with that at all. The issue with fire is the risk of it spreading, and that was dealt with. Someone who doesn't want to participate in paying for fire protection doesn't have to have fire protection.
This is to me wrong on so many levels.
Why? This was a place where everyone knew that you paid directly for fire protection. Where you live, Blayne, you pay for it as well. Only you don't think about it, because it isn't your choice. Here, it was everyone's choice. These people chose not to bother. It was an unwise choice. But I think that having the choice is morally superior to being forced.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
this sounds more to me like a televangelist begging for your cash...."Send me a small donation today, join me, and we will save you!!!"
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The old fire brigade run by insurance companies was prevalent in the many places during the 1800s...
I would rather have such emergency services provided for all by central funding.
That way you don't have to worry if you've paid your fire-brigade bill, they'll put out the fire anyway. Even if you're poor.
As for signing the petition - I can't, but I'm not sure that I would anyhow. It all looks a bit too ramshackle for my tastes. I like to be assured that my protest isn't going to lost in a sea of mis-management. Plus anyone who claims that one of the key reasons for the right to bear arms is to be able to unseat the government tends to be the sort of person I avoid in bars.
Posts: 892 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: My partner lived in a place where the fire department was funded by payments. Not run by the government.
One night, a house caught fire. The people who lived there weren't members. So the fire truck came, got everyone out of the house (because saving lives is saving lives), and then hosed down the houses to either side while they waited for the owners to bring them a cashier's check for two years worth of dues, at which point they dealt with their house.
I don't see anything wrong with that at all. The issue with fire is the risk of it spreading, and that was dealt with. Someone who doesn't want to participate in paying for fire protection doesn't have to have fire protection.
This is to me wrong on so many levels.
Why? This was a place where everyone knew that you paid directly for fire protection. Where you live, Blayne, you pay for it as well. Only you don't think about it, because it isn't your choice. Here, it was everyone's choice. These people chose not to bother. It was an unwise choice. But I think that having the choice is morally superior to being forced.
The Mob performs stunts like this. They call it protection. The legal term for it is extortion.
Posts: 496 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: Shocking really. A true libertarian woulda used an AK-47 on those extortionists, confiscated what was their fire fighting equipment, rallied his neighbors to put out the fire, then sold the equipment to pay for repairs.
Holy Mierda! You have no earthly idea what a libertarian believes!
I libertarian would be cutting that check as fast as they could and signing a contract that if the check bounced the fire dept could forclose on (the smoking remains) of their house.
STEALING and MURDER are as UN-Libertarian as it gets!
STEALING is what statists do via the government. With the penalty of Kidnapping if you don't submit to their will.
Personally, though, I think Fire protection is one of the VERY FEW places where a tax is justified. It's one of those RARE cases where, it's vitally important, and to protect those who pay, you must protect all. Fire spreads. Even if you hose down the neighbors.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think there are at least a couple of things going on in this petition. One, they have specific grievances that they want addressed. Second, and more importantly, they want to test and establish precedence of an often ignored and little used provision in the Bill of Rights.
In my view, the Bill of Rights establishes a new branch of government, The People. The people are specifically empowered by the Constitution in ways the limit government and allow the people control over that government.
Bill of Rights- First Ammendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
We hear a lot about freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the right to assemble, but when have you ever heard of a discussion of the people's right to redress?
...and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
This says to me that the People have the inalienable right to force the government to hear them out, and to respond to their statements in a fair, just, and reasonable way. It is not just enough for the government to hear the people. The government must respond accordingly and within compliance of the Constitution.
Who is watching the Watchers? Well, the people should be watching the Watchers watch them, but though non-participation in government, the people have abdicated or diminished many of the Rights they should be ever vigilantly fighting to preserve.
I don't think the actual issues at hand in this case are as important as forcing Congress and the Supreme Court to acknowledge and clarify a clear and inalienable right of the People to force government to respond appropriately to their expressed concerns.
Special interests have power because they participate in government, they speak out and make their voices hears. Though I personally question the legality of their methods. The people on the other hand are content to schlep off to work, and come home and swill beer, doing nothing more than complaining to the walls. Consequently, because the people don't speak up, their voices are never heard.
No one ever said freedom was easy or secure. If you want to be lazy about government, move to Chine or Russia. But if you want Liberty, you have to fight every day of your life to preserve it, and you have to accept that freedom and liberty are as precarious as walking on a razors edge.
As far as I'm concerned, the current President has criminally violated the Constitution many times, and he gets away with it because we let it happen. We are more interested in the Propaganda of 'Security' and the buzz word "911" than we are on the preservation of Liberty. In not challenging Congress and the President, the people have given defacto consent to the dismantling of our hard fought and hard won freedom.
Our founding Fathers knew this instinctively, as can be seen by the quote from Ben Franklin -
"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security."
Though admittedly some dispute whether Franklin said this. Some assume it was generally derived from the following statement from Franklin which also would do well if heard by Congress -
"Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."
If this 'Petition of Redress of Grievances' expands and/or clarifies the power of the people over government, then I'm all for it.
quote:Originally posted by Achilles: The government doesn't withhold services because you haven't paid your extortion.
No... they put you in jail. Or take your property in payment. Sheesh, people! Are you so used to the fact that the government is entitled to anything of yours that it chooses that you're numb to the fact that it absolutely does make you pay for services, whether you want them or not?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What do you think is the difference between special interests and people? These special interests, are they perhaps space lizards who've given up on the boring invasion stuff and decided to see how well they can infiltrate?
I also note, a right to 'petition for redress of grievances' is not the same as a right to have grievances redressed. It's more a freedom-of-speech than an influence-on-government thing. In the same vein the Norwegian Constitution says that (my translation) "big-mouthed speeches on the form of government and all other things are permitted to anyone." That's not the same as saying the government has to listen. (I can't think of a better translation than 'big-mouthed', the Norwegian word really does carry overtones of "whatever, dude." You get the impression some fairly reactionary member of the Eidsvoll meeting got the job of drafting that paragraph, and couldn't resist getting a jab in. Or, I dunno, maybe the language has changed.)
Edit: Ah, the official translation uses the rather more boring "Everyone shall be free to speak his mind frankly on the administration of the State and on any other subject whatsoever." Some bureaucrat, no doubt, without the courage of the Eidsvollsmenn's convictions.)
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Achilles: The government doesn't withhold services because you haven't paid your extortion.
No... they put you in jail. Or take your property in payment. Sheesh, people! Are you so used to the fact that the government is entitled to anything of yours that it chooses that you're numb to the fact that it absolutely does make you pay for services, whether you want them or not?
Which is better then you oh i don't know DYING from being unable to pay some large insurance firm that all it cares about is the bottom line.
IP: Logged |
posted
Huh. Interesting what you find when you actually read these things. I had no idea about this, for example:
quote:The number of representatives to be elected to the Storting shall be one hundred and sixty-nine.
The Realm is divided into nineteen constituencies.
One hundred and fifty of the representatives to the Storting are elected as representatives of constituencies and the remaining nineteen representatives are elected as members at large.
Each constituency shall have one seat at large.
The number of representatives to the Storting to be chosen from each constituency is determined on the basis of a calculation of the ratio between the number of inhabitants and surface area of each constituency and the number of inhabitants and surface area of the entire Realm, in which each inhabitant counts as one point and each square kilometre counts as 1.8 points. This calculation shall be made every eighth year.
No wonder the dang farmers are so influential, they've got all those points from the square kilometers! And you have to wonder how the number 1.8 was chosen.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Achilles: Are you so opposed to contibuting to the community that you would stop it?
That I would stop contributing to the community? No. I would do so voluntarily, and pay in for the things that I feel are worthwhile. Fire protection, for example.
I wouldn't pay for public education, because I'm opposed to it. But then, I pay full price for my daughter's school, which goes to pay not only for her, but for scholarship money for other kids there. Which is absolutely fine with me.
I would not pay a penny for general "arts". If there's art that I like, I'll pay. I don't see why I should have to fund someone who's so poor an artist that he needs a government grant.
My problem is that your very question assumes that not being willing to be forced to pay for unwanted services means "being opposed to the community". That's ridiculous. How brainwashed do you have to be to think that the only way to have a civilized society is by letting the majority rob the minority? Civilization at gunpoint isn't very civilized.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Political Power comes from the barrel of a gun.
IP: Logged |
posted
I think you're confusing 'is' and 'ought' there, Blayne. Lisa presumably does not dispute where power comes from, she just doesn't like it.
I do note, by the standards she is holding civilisation to, there has never been a civilisation. So I think this is not a case of brainwashing, but of empirical evidence.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Achilles: Are you so opposed to contibuting to the community that you would stop it?
That I would stop contributing to the community? No. I would do so voluntarily, and pay in for the things that I feel are worthwhile. Fire protection, for example.
I wouldn't pay for public education, because I'm opposed to it. But then, I pay full price for my daughter's school, which goes to pay not only for her, but for scholarship money for other kids there. Which is absolutely fine with me.
I would not pay a penny for general "arts". If there's art that I like, I'll pay. I don't see why I should have to fund someone who's so poor an artist that he needs a government grant.
My problem is that your very question assumes that not being willing to be forced to pay for unwanted services means "being opposed to the community". That's ridiculous. How brainwashed do you have to be to think that the only way to have a civilized society is by letting the majority rob the minority? Civilization at gunpoint isn't very civilized.
Your very answer betrays you. The majority robs the minority? I think this is not the case, and everyone should pay in an ideal situation.
I believe, according to your logic, that you would not, in fact, continue to support the community. You don't seem interested in educating children whos parents could not afford an education.
Your position seems rather selfish to me.
Posts: 496 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, the selfish charge... It always seems to come out of those who are so very generous with other people's money.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Political Power comes from the barrel of a gun.
And when necessary PEOPLE power comes from the barrel of a gun. See the Second Amendment. That's is one of the tools the people have for keeping the politicians under control. At least, theoretically.
Posts: 803 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa, why is it fundamentally immoral to force citizens to pay taxes even if they don't support everything that their tax money goes towards?
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Achilles: Your very answer betrays you. The majority robs the minority? I think this is not the case, and everyone should pay in an ideal situation.
I believe, according to your logic, that you would not, in fact, continue to support the community. You don't seem interested in educating children whos parents could not afford an education.
Your position seems rather selfish to me.
Actually, I do help educate children whose parents can't afford an education. As I wrote. So your estimation is demonstrably wrong.
What I want to know is why you think that it's okay for someone like you to force me to support the things you think need supporting.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
