Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
I cannot help but notice that those who I have observed to be the largest part of the problem are currently making the most noise about this particular change.
It sure looks like an agenda derailed...perhaps some paychecks affected as well?
However, there are still a few more to check in...I expect to see their mewling shortly.
Good call, ATS...

Wow, this awnser of yours clearly shows your own political bias, and hatred...
So everyone who who happens to disagree with the Obama policies, and in turn see this as a move to try to control dissent is being paid off for this?...
And of course, notice how such response of yours is not "political trolling" and "political baiting"....

I wouldn't call it trolling or baiting. It is simply an observation based upon my own experiences on this board. For example, I have had 'discussions' with members who are absolutely rabid in telling me how universal health care is an abomination in Canada...yet refuse to hear first-person experiences or have their sources outed as tainted. I have come away certain that the individuals have an agenda...to sow doubt amongst the uncertain. That is the only reason I can come up with for such mindless Pythonesque 'debate'.

And my bias? I have my own values and I make no secret of them. I happen to like them, thanks

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Sure, I'm merely an observer and my politics are centre/left...but I am still a reasonable thinker.
...........

Your claims of being a reasonable thinker go off the window when you yourself claimed everyone who disagrees with this "must be paid off to disagree"...
But hey, your hatred to the right...

I don't hate the right...but I sure call some of their self-avowed policies into question. And I don't say that everybody who disagrees with me must be paid off...but I'm damn certain I've nailed a couple of them. Where do you get the word 'everybody' from? Yet another straw man.

And the simple fact is that I don't see the moderates on this board going crazy because this manner of discourse is being popped onto its own board. I stand by my comments, and the continuing wail just convinces me I'm right...make that "correct'.

---

---

Political divisiveness has been the hallmark of American politics since the writing of the Declaration of Independence and even before that. The Revolution of 1776 was not just fought between two nations but was a war fought between neighbors as some counted themselves as "patriots" and others counted themselves as "loyalists". It is not as if the entire population that lived in the colonies pre United States all lived in harmonious political agreement and much acrimony existed then easily as much as does today. In the end, it was the "patriots" who won that war and thus began the great American Experiment that would become The United States of America. But, before there was a United States there was a looser unity made up of the thirteen states that all operated under the Articles of Confederation. There was much divisiveness about this Article of Confederation and so much so that in 1787 a new Constitution was drafted that we now call the Constitution for the United State of America.

This new Constitution was the product of much divisiveness amongst our Founding Fathers and this is what gave rise to the Federalist Papers which was a compilation of pamphlets written in defense of federalism and the lesser known Anti-Federalist Papers which clearly had problems with the idea of a federal government. In the end, the Federalists won out and the Constitution was drafted with the agenda of creating a strong federal government but to assuage those who were skeptical of a strong federal government a Bill of Rights was added as Amendments to that Constitution. Not only was there a struggle to have this Bill of Rights added to the Constitution but there was much acrimony between the states over what sort of legislature would be formed. The now infamous three fifths compromise is just one example of how much divisiveness there was between people in the very early days of American politics and indeed, that divisiveness eventually led to a very bloody and tragic civil war that cost many Americans their lives.

The assassination of Abraham Lincoln is just further evidence of that divisiveness. There was also much debate and many divided over the prudence of National Banks and by the time the Federal Reserve was created there was still much divisiveness among people in regards to politics. FDR did not just see his "New Deal" rammed through Congress and easily enforced and he suffered many losses under the scrutiny of a Supreme Court that declared many of his programs unconstitutional. Even before FDR there was Teddy Roosevelt who in his 1912 bid for Presidency divided the country even further with his "Bull Moose Party" and speaking of political parties, it was George Washington in his farewell address who warned Americans of the evils of political parties. Today we accept those evils and often bemoan that we must choose "the lesser of two evils" even though there are several other political parties to choose from.

Left, right, liberal, conservative, progressive, neo-con and back to far left and far right we have always been a people zealously divided in our politics. What seems to have changed is not our divisive nature, nor has our proclivity towards leaning towards the center changed, what has changed is our understanding of law. Prior to Woodrow Wilson's declaration that the U.S. must make the world "safe for democracy" few in this country considered the U.S. to be a democracy and understood it was, at it still remains today, a Constitutional republic. Yet today, most people think the U.S. is a democracy and pay little attention to the preamble of our Constitution and what that means and instead believe that it is the Constitution and government that has granted us our rights. This was not how our Founders understood the source of rights and the notion of We the People having the inherent political power is an alien notion. Just as alien to most people as unalienable rights are.

If it is true that no one can tell another how to think then why are so many people affected by propaganda? How is it that a nation that constructed a government intended to function as a Constitutional republic is now considered to be a democracy? How is it that so many people today believe that rights are civil liberties granted by government? A simple reading of the preamble to the Constitution for the United States of America makes clear that We the People are the ones who Ordained the existing government of that nation and even more importantly a thorough understanding of that document makes clear that the rights and liberties of humanity are not just "granted" to the "citizens" of that country but rather acknowledge that natural rights are a universal phenomenon belonging to all people.

Yet today too many people across the world believe that freedom can not be gained with out a government first set in place to grant that freedom. However, the U.S., a country that has incrementally and slowly over time become a tyrannical state, was not a government that granted freedom to anyone but rather, by Declaration of Independence, asserted that all people were free. Because of the natural proclivity towards divisiveness that document and the Constitution that followed did not abolish slavery. It was believed then that any attempt to vilify slavery would have only accomplished a division between the 13 colonies that would have weakened the independence gained from England so compromises were made. Today academia teaches its students that that Declaration of Independence was written by white land owners who did not view anyone other than themselves as entitled to freedom but this is not entirely true. It is true that the author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, was a slave owner and that the Founders did agree to the three fifths compromise which is a shameful compromise that has forever stained an otherwise remarkable document, but that compromise was borne out of a need to keep the thirteen states united and allegiance to the U.S. stronger than that of any foreign nation. It was strongly believed at the time the Constitution was forged that if there were no compromises made regarding slavery that the southern states would not sign on to any Constitution that demanded those "slave states" deconstruct their fundamental plantation economy in order to become a part of the U.S.

It was and indeed, still is believed, that had the northern states insisted on a prohibition of slavery for all states who joined the U.S. that the southern states would have formed an allegiance with England in order to protect their "property", that being slaves. Such an unholy alliance would have endangered the security of a newly formed United States...or so it was believed. It is debatable if that belief was well founded or not. Not so debatable that the southern states would have rejected any constitution that forced them to give up their economy based on slavery and not even debatable that those southern states would have forged an allegiance with England, but debatable that such events would have necessarily brought an untimely end to the newly formed United States.

It is clear by the succession of southern states that marked the beginning of the Civil War, that obviously the southern states would have never of agreed to a constitution that prohibited slavery but it should also be clear by the events of northern states so profoundly sure that slavery was abhorrent to the very tenets laid out in the Constitution, that not all of the Founders and early American political figures were simply just "white males who owned property". Such a painting of those founders today greatly oversimplifies the complexity of divisiveness that influenced the compromises that ensured that slavery would continue to exist in America even after a remarkable document such as the Declaration of Independence had been written.

Thomas Jefferson, being the principal author of the Declaration of Independence, serves as an excellent example of the complexities of these so called "white males who owned property". He was deeply conflicted over the issue of slavery even if his ownership of more than 200 slave might suggest there was no conflict at all. It seems, at least today, disingenuous to suggest that Jefferson kept those slaves out of compassion for them and that if he had freed them they would have faced greater hardships than they might have faced being his slave. By all accounts, Jefferson cared for his slaves and tended to treat them more as hired hands than as chattel. There is strong evidence in many of his writings, including the Declaration of Independence, that he was opposed to slavery which is deeply ironic given his ownership of more than 200 slaves. As President he signed a bill that outlawed international slave trading. Yet he was human and did fear that freeing his own slaves would lead to his own financial ruin and only freed in his lifetime 7 of his slaves all being descendants of the Hemmings family.

Jefferson's rumored relationship with Sally Hemmings only further illustrates the complexity of that man and metaphorically the complexities of many slave owners in the United States. However, as Jefferson aged his conviction that slavery was abhorrent to all principles of freedom he believed to be true became more apparent. In his own words:

"There is nothing I would not sacrifice to a practicable plan of abolishing every vestige of this moral and political depravity."

Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, September 1814

There was no greater issue that divided Americans in politics than that of slavery. Indeed, the issue remains a hot topic of discussion today as there are many who currently believe that the 14th and 15th Amendments only served to undermine the 13th Amendment and instead of prohibiting slavery the 14th and 15th Amendments made slaves of all citizens of the United States. The entire issue of slavery is one where so many people remain divided that federal edicts such as a mandatory draft are advocated by people who would also claim that they oppose slavery. Yet, how can any legislation requiring people to sign up for registration to a draft even exist given the language of the 13th Amendment?

Administrative agencies such as F.E.M.A. claim the authority to conscript people into service in the event of an emergency and they claim this authority based on the registration of the draft. That claim of ability to conscript and indeed any military conscription is nothing less than slavery. Beyond the draft there is the dubious nature of income taxation as it is enforced today that is arguably just another form of slavery. It is ironic indeed, that those people labeled "tax protesters" are viewed by many people today as "un-American" given the history of this country and the tax revolts that led to the Revolution of 1776.

It was Chief Justice John Marshall who first said:

"The power to tax involves the power to destroy"

McCullogh v Maryland

There are certain acts and industries that can be and perhaps should be argued that any government has the power to destroy and excessive taxation is certainly one way to destroy them. However, the right to earn income is not one of those actions or industries that any government has the right to destroy. Every person has the right to earn income and a tax on this act is nothing more than declaring people slaves of the state or federal government. Taxation is a necessary lubricant in order to keep the unwieldly wheels of government grinding but does the necessity of governments to tax give those governments the right to tax an individuals income? How can any person truly live his life, enjoy liberty and pursue happiness when his income is subject to taxation?

The justifications for income taxation amount to nothing more than extolling the virtues of social programs. It is often argued that income taxes pay for needed government services but what income taxation has done is fund an expanded federal and state governments to implement many social programs that are dubiously constitutional. Here in lies the divisiveness of modern day politics. The argument is one of individual rights over collective rights and for the individuals who understand that their freedom is something they own with or without the approval of any government, the notion of collective rights is nothing more than an oxymoron.

Indeed, the great divide over the meaning of the 2nd Amendment often comes down to interpretation of what "well regulated militia" means. Those who advocate regulation of individual gun ownership and those who advocate banning individual gun ownership rely upon this phrase "well regulated militia" to justify their belief that the 2nd Amendment is a "collective right granted" to "well regulated militias". Those who advocate freedom of any individual to keep and bear arms argue that, first of all Amendments don't grant rights but rather acknowledge them and are set in place to prohibit any government from abrogating or derogating those rights and secondly that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights and any extension towards collectives of those rights only exist because first and foremost the individual has the right to begin with.

Thus, the great divide today is fundamentally a disagreement between collectivists and individualists. The collective argues that all individuals are contractually obligated to the state and must obey all laws that state legislates. The individual argues that no contract between individual and state can be valid unless both parties have agreed to the terms. It is worth mentioning, however, that if the collectivists insist on demanding servitude to the state regardless of any contractual agreement made between individuals, that this is nothing more than an argument for slavery.

Even more importantly in this understanding of social contracts is the actual understanding of tort law and how contracts are enforced in courts of law. If a "citizen" is under contract to act in certain ways then surely the government is under contract to act in certain ways as well. Yet, at least in the U.S., the Supreme Court has consistently held that the government is not contractually obligated to protect its citizens. If this is true then what actual obligation do individuals have under this so called "social contract"?

It was earlier stated by myself that how people understand their fundamental rights today is different than how the Founders of the U.S. understood those rights then. In the 18th century it was understood that all persons had the right to life, liberty and pursuit of property and happiness and the justification for slavery became in the equivocation of declaring certain races as not truly persons. Thus the "three fifths" compromise which implied that slaves were only three fifths of a person rather than a whole person. This equivocation of racism only serves as strong evidence that it was universally accepted that all people had rights granted by their Creator and not by governments. Conversely, today it is almost a universal reality that most people accept that racism is wrong but will argue that rights are not some kind of natural phenomenon and can only exist by the grant of government. This is the fundamental difference between how people understand freedom today and how it was understood at the time of the Revolution of 1776.

We are united in our belief that we are free and divided over the issue of slavery just as we were then. Slavery still exists today and can be evidenced by any person who subsists on incomes earned below the poverty level and even those of the middle class....

...employment can not be gained in the U.S. without ownership of identification "authorized" by the state and all employees are expected to sign some form of government contract of taxation before gaining employment. How is this not a form of slavery? If a person has no money to invest in his own business and must by necessity find employment in order to survive, how can it be construed that this forced signing of contract to government taxation be anything other than slavery?

Furthermore, when an individual comes to learn the statutory definition of terms such as "employee" and "tax payer" how can that not be viewed as anything other than one who has been subjected to slavery? Read many blogs on the internet or letters to the editor of any newspaper and count how many people will claim; "as a tax payer I have rights!" Here again, lies the fundamental difference between how our Founders understood natural rights and how we tend to understand them today. Given the language of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, it should be clear that people have rights whether they are "tax payers" or not. When one makes the claim that as a tax payer they have rights are they implying they have certain privileges above and beyond the natural rights they all ready have? Given SCOTUS' assertion that the government is not contractually bound to protect its citizens exactly what rights do "taxpayers" imagine they have?

We are indeed a people greatly divided on many political issues and no greater division exists than that of slavery. For those who believe that it is governments duty to redistribute wealth they are in fact, advocating slavery of the individual to the collective. The change in understanding what slavery is lies in the change in understanding what rights are. Today many people claim they have a right to "health care" and then turn around and demand some form of insurance scheme to pay for that "health care". People absolutely have the right to health care, which is to say that every individual has the right to act in ways to maintain optimal health but do people have the right to demand wealth redistribution in the form of taxation in order to pay for an insurance scheme that would claim to offer a certain kind of "health care"?

If the law is not about protecting an individuals right to gain and keep property than it about legal plunder. Do we have the right to plunder others so that we can have a government regulated insurance scheme? These are complex issues that get lost in simplistic soundbites intended for a dumbed down population. A population that believes itself on the whole to be infinitely more sophisticated in our knowledge than those who Founded the U.S. and yet, is that true? Are people today, on the whole, wiser than people of the 18th century? It is a question worth asking and one worth debating regardless of the political divisiveness it may encourage. Let us remain divided in our politics as long as we can find a way to unite in our endeavors to be free. Ah, but there's the rub...

This is an awsome article.

It should wake people up alot.

Are you saying that our paranoia is misplaced? There isn't any bogey-monster? The Nazis are not waiting in the wings to throw us into fema camps with gas chambers? How about World War II? Did our fathers only imagine that as well? Were there concentration camps? Were there gas chambers? Did the powers that were, throw away the laws and murder the citizens? If not then we have nothing to fear. We should have a good laugh and go out to the movies.