Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

First Look at Unifying Theory

page: 3
16
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 11 2010 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by asperetty
Are you suggesting that states/communities can have their own individual currency, but all backed by a national commodity? That could potentially be a very devisive program, in fact, that is one reason why the articles of confederation were abolished. Originally this type of system was in place in the US, until they realized how the state could abuse this system and create imbalances in interstate trade. And to think that it would not happen this time around like it did then, well, it might be a bit too optimistic, and the only way you would be able to control it, would be create more federal regulation, which is what you don't want. Even when backing a currency with gold there is a high probability of corruption in manipulating the gold rates and the availability of gold, no different from what is happening with our silver now, and of course the international market for diamonds.


Not to that degree, no. When I said Local Community I was referring to the State level Community. I obviously come from a communist background, so the issue of currency is a misnomer to me. Understandably, you have other ideas and so may wish to base a currency off of something entirely different and so your State would operate differently.

Interstate commerce would still exist, but not as we see now. With an overarching currency that is based on labor with a 1:1 (hours labor per manufactured commodity) conversion rate we ensure that no matter the wealth of a particular State or economical system we don't have to fear me getting any communism in your capitalism and vice versa. We have the liberty to exist economically as we see fit.


The state that produces the most would have a stronger currency, another trade imbalance.


You are still basing my theory in a world were consumerism is rampant.

From a capitalists perspective how is competition ever bad? If the other State can not compete shouldn't it be absorbed by the surrounding bodies since their systems are more successful?


That is not something you want inside a single nation...


Honestly, I'm not going to attempt to solve Nebraska's potential currency crisis. That's for Nebraska to do. You see what I am saying? It appears to me that you are still appealing to some higher governing power to solve these problems. That is federalism and is antithetical to State's Rights and what I am proposing.

Could things potentially get bad? Of course. But, the fact that we have the freedom to make those choices in the very first place is the reason why this Nation was great once.


But what to do with the central currency? That is the real question.


As I said. One dollar for every hour of Labor to produce a commodity. If it requires 5000 labor hours from 5 individuals to create the commodity than the cost of the product is 25,000 dollars. If you produce it in house (in State) and sell it in house you do not suffer any loss from the conversion. This ensures that multilateral corporations can not take hold in other portions of the country and protects against monopolization.


Yes we give the power back to congress, and back it with gold or something. But what happens in the time of war?


We have practically everything we need in order to produce everything we need. We may not get the best deals, but it doesn't matter. American ingenuity will win out every time just as it has historically. Once upon a time our technological advancements were unheard of, our products superior to anyone's. We can and will have this manufacturing base again.

As for war, Tojo said, "Behind every blade of grass a gun." I want to take that and expand on it. I don't just want guns behind that grass, I want a guerrilla fighting force that is trained in asymmetrical warfare and taught how to operate independently in the form of cell groups. At the same time we will restore the State militias and this will become a part of our education system and our civic duty.

That in of itself is a deterrent to any nation that thanks they could ever hope to get a foot hold. If the fighting force has no head, you can not cripple it. You can only transform it into something inexplicably worse than a conventional fighting force.


How do you build up a state's reserve? How would a state ever have a surplus of money to be distributed? The state never produces anything. How does it purchase from the producers within the state, so that it has something to back the state currency or to purchase/trade their state currency for federal commodity backed currency?


Now you are starting to see why I'm a communist. These are all flaws in the capitalist model that lead to corruption one way or another. The solutions I offer won't be capitalist ones so I doubt I'll be of much help for you here. But, that's the beauty of it, you can figure out capitalist solutions to capitalist problems with out socialist or federal intervention, that's the point behind what I'm doing here. You will be free to choose between which State you desire to live in. If you want to live in a Capitalist State you have to solve the problems in your system yourself, you have to take personal responsibility for your economic system and pick yourself up by the bootstraps. That is the basis of individualism, is it not?

I will say, that I know how to construct a communist state that the people will not suffer under the way they did with Moa, Stalin, etc. I have learned my lessons from history, have you learned yours?


I am assuming that there will be some type of federal tax on the states as well, and that the federal government will be able to invest in things with state legislature approval?


I learned a quote form Nenothtu awhile back, "From 1 thing know 10,000 things." The same model for the Sates will work on the federal level. They won't live in the lap of luxury like they currently do, but they shouldn't. As for the international forum... So, the countries that don't already like us won't take us seriously if we don't have an economical gun to their head? Honestly, I'm ok with this. Globalism is bullsh*t. If they want some, they can come and get it, but otherwise I think we'll be just fine.




posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by asperetty

The problem is that wars can be fought in more places than behind rocks. We have planes and warships now. Somehow that is going to need to be defended against, and a militia of men with m16s still won't take down a single apache heli.


Actually, they can, but that's an entirely different discussion. The main thing here is that your idea of "militia" seems to have been colored by the pop - news conception of men in treebark camouflage getting together to run weekend war games-cum-beer fests. The reality is far different. Why shoot down an Apache with m-16's when you can use a Stinger instead? An actual militia (as opposed to the news hype) is made up of folks who are armed every bit as well, and in some cases better, than a National Service Army. In the concept as presented above in the OP, they ARE the national Service Army, with all of the training and equipment that entails. It's just that there are a whole lot more soldiers. Think Switzerland. Every single able-bodied male in the country is trained and required to keep weapons. When was the last time they had to get into a dustup? Come to think of it, they have a good bit of cash on hand that ought to draw buzzards, too. Somehow, they manage.



And wars are fought over more than gold. This isn't like Napoleon invading Russia with cannons and 4 armies equipped with swords and muskets. Defense is sadly a real issue that needs to be addressed, and is why the federal or state governments need to invest in something that can bring more tax revenue than what is created by the citizens themselves.


There wouldn't be any invasion at all, Napoleonic or otherwise. In order to invade, you have to have boots on the ground. Boots on the ground can be damaged, ultimately killed, and then they're IN the ground. Yeah, there's all kinds of fancy hardware out there, but ultimately it's useless when the operators are pushing up daisies. You need at least a 3 to 1 ratio to even begin to think about attacking a defended position. That ratio goes up when you consider that the opposition would be on the home team's turf. I don't know of any nations on Earth that have a military that big. There sure as shootin' ain't one that can deliver troops in that quantity. There's a reason that all but one of the invasions of the US (note that I differentiate between the US and America) have been defeated. There are reasons that Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany never even considered it.



And its not just for defense/war, fed/state's need to provide infrastructure. The country has to be able to obtain more value than what it currently has as a whole.


Most infrastructure would be at the State level, possibly ALL of it. I'm not sure how the country can "obtain more value" than it is able to produce without going to fiat money and writing checks it can't cash as it goes along.



Fed taxes are for investing or purchasing or trading in the international market.


See, that's where we are now, with the federal govt being a commercial entity, and that's what we want to get away from, making it a solely governing entity - and a much smaller one at that. I can think of not a single thing that THE GOVERNMENT needs to purchase or trade in on the international market. They should be governing, not engaging in business. Federal taxes are for operating the federal government, not a donation to speculators.



Unless the entire US becomes completely sustainable on itself, you are going to need states and/or a federal government making money for the ones who aren't producing, and to enable production to grow. Middle-Age reforms just cannot work in this world. You would have to get the entire world to follow such a system, and if that is the case, we might as well let the country fail and become a state under the UN.


Is there some particular reason that non-producers can't be dealt with at the local level?

Is there some particular reason we should allow the government to interfere with production? A reason, perhaps, that it's the role of government to "enable production to grow" rather than govern? Why bother calling it "government" if it's just another business enterprise? Why bother complaining about the "corporate government" if that's really what you WANT?

You see, when you allow the government to meddle in business, you open a door. Doors can be gone into as well as out of, and so you open an avenue for corporate meddling in government as well. I've heard a lot of complaints about those sorts of gongs-on lately.

I'm not sure which "middle age reforms" your referring to. Can you elaborate on what you consider to be "middle age"? If I recall correctly, most Middle Age governments were monarchies, and we're trying to get away from that in fact as well as in word. That's the idea of decentralizing - to eliminate that all powerful government structure and return control to the hands of the People.

What do I care what system the entire world follows? Can't they look out for themselves? All I'm concerned with is America. As you can see, I'm not in the Globalist camp. If they don't want to trade with us because they don't like our colors, they can always trade elsewhere.

Our problem, as I see it, is starting to produce something to trade to them in the first place.
edit on 2010/12/12 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 01:25 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


By Middle Age reform I meant feudalism.

But forget that I even said it.

I am convinced by you and Ab. The overall idea of freedom to choose is what this thread is about, and exactly what this country is about. Yes, you can have a communistic state, and I can have my educationalist state. You be Sparta, I'll be Athens, but together we are Greece.

What you guys are talking about is right 100%. Really, what you you both have said has convinced me, in terms of the federal restraints that limit it to its basic and fundamental operations, and the states rights. If one state is failing, then they can adopt another state's governing principles, whether it be economic or political, but that is the choice of the people of that state. My fear was that a failed state could result in discrepancies between that state and others, but even still, that is where the federal government steps in.

But if you limit the government to solely a large judicial entity, you are severely limiting the potential of the country, and that is my only argument. Then again, that is the job of a government, to mediate, not to control or even act unless it is in reaction, and I can't really argue further without contradicting everything I say.

It is free market society in every aspect, and that I can accept.

Also about the militia, I did not know my mom can buy stingers.

I was still in the mindset of having a national army, with the real weapons, while the average citizen had the left overs in the black market, with that market no longer being black. but I think it might be better that the states can purchase or develop their own military and can come together in times of war. Otherwise, there really is no need for a national military constantly on alert, is there?

In defense of my opinion that states or the federal govt should be able to make revenue outside of taxes, the way that this money is spent, or even where it is invested, is decided upon the people, always. If it is federal expenditure, then the states must ratify, according to majority or otherwise, whatever it may be. The point is that the states will determine where to invest and where to spend on the federal level, not that the federal govt has its own power to lend and spend. This goes for the state spending, the residents of that state need to approve where the money goes, and how the money is spent, or even if the state can do anything with the tax revenue at all. No governing entity has the right to spend money unless the people who are being governed approve of it.

But that does not mean that the governing body should not be allowed altogether to raise its own revenues. The govt has a duty to facilitate the progress of the state, but not control how it progressed and in which direction, only supply the resources to the people so that the people can use those resources for whatever means they see fit. Essentially, if the state/fed govt wants to raise money outside of taxes, they have to have citizen approval and citizen regulation, however the citizens decide they want to regulate, whether it be through regulating bodies, or by their own individual consensus. It places reins on the capitalist ideal, but does not restrict it completely. Yes, it is at its most basic form creating a corporate entity out of the state, but the corporation don't have any rights whatsoever to do as it pleases like they do now. A govt that is conducting business out of state, in the name of the state, can only do so if the people allow it to. And that govt does not set policies that benefit this peripheral business unless the people propose and agree to. Its like democratic corporatism, but not even that. Its just liberal democracy. It mixes up the best of capitalism and socialism. They dilute each other so that neither becomes the force that drives the state/nation because the people are the force that can allow it to even drive.

I need to read. Can either of you recommend some books for me?



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 01:48 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 





Most infrastructure would be at the State level, possibly ALL of it. I'm not sure how the country can "obtain more value" than it is able to produce without going to fiat money and writing checks it can't cash as it goes along.


No because you are using surplus funds only to invest or purchase. You are actually using tangible currency or produce. For example a person will purchase 300 shares in a company using the 3000$ they have, or the 3000$ they borrowed and expect to pay back when the value of those 300 shares increases. This is what the state should be allowed to do if the people can first be convinced that the state should do this. The difference is that there is no borrowing involved. THis is taxpayer money. Surplus taxpayer money. Like at the end of the year, they have 100$ in tax payer money, the council that governs the state has to decide how to spend that money, with the quiescence of the tax payers. Or even the taxpayer can suggest how it is spent. But in the end, there is no blank check, and there is no debt created, and what the state makes in return is spent according to how the people decide, such as grants to educational institutions. There is no direct profit available for the members of the council or the state itself. They don't hoard the money, and they don't create it. It is earned and the redistributed. Like the state could purchase land and then sell it two days later for 2 cent profit, whatever. If that is what the people want to do with the tax revenue, then they can. The people's taxes are controlled by the people, just that federal figurehead or state figurehead is the entity that represents the peoples decision.
edit on 12-12-2010 by asperetty because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
Great OP. I'm on board. It puts things back to where they were supposed to be to begin with, and adds a new twist or two that wasn't available as a philosophical basis back then. Variety is the spice of life, and options + liberty can't be a bad thing. It's certain that if SOMETHING isn't done, what we have now can only get worse on both of those counts.


Hey, you helped build it! I couldn't of done it with out our two week long conversation. I also agree about variety, "specialization is for insects."


These notes pertain to the Federal or Confederation level, as the People of any one State ought to be able to determine how best to run their State.

One function I would add at the Federal or Confederation level which you limit to military and foreign relations policy (perhaps I read that wrong and those are just examples) would be mediating disputes between the States. Not REGULATING them, mind you, but mediating them. That could help head off some nasty little brushfire conflicts.


That statement wasn't intended to be all encompassing... Thank you for pointing this out. I'll have to add mediation to it for clarity's sake.


In the representative pool, I'd emplace term limits, say four years per, limit terms to only one, disallowing two consecutive terms, and enforce "downtime" between terms of at least 8 years (2 terms worth) to prevent representatives form making a lifetime career of corruption. and getting any one person too firmly entrenched in the body politic.


I thought about this after we discussed it earlier and I thought that differing States may have different needs when it comes to this. Some may require longer serving members for continuities sake while others must cycle through quickly because they play a fast and loose economic game.


In the matter of taxes and budget, I would add a requirement to operate within available funds, NEVER running to deficit. Federal governments should not be allowed to run a bar tab and potentially break or bankrupt the populace.


I thought that was implied, but if you didn't see it than I will add it because it needs to be said.


Some of what I've seen here seems to assume that States would stay at their current level of servitude and helplessness, which would not be the case. They would re-take their rightful powers that have been eroded by the Federal Government over the years, so such things as military expenditures would be taken over by them, rather than evaporate into weakness and lethargy. I submit that the military would actually be strengthened, AND remain under the control of the people, since the view I'm getting here is along the lines of an armed and trained militia setup, which is by definition made OF the people, not a potential overlord for them, and is made up of all the arms bearing populace. Numbers ought not to be a problem. Foreign adventurism is eliminated, and that curtails a whole lot of military expenditure right there.


Exactly, while this may be reform, the level of reform I am proposing might as well be a revolution that starts us from scratch. We are talking about hitting the reset button and returning back to the America pre-Fed with some added bonuses.


The rest of the world can then do as it pleases, but trying to do it on MY dirt is suicidal with 300 million guns pointed at them.


Yep, you'd have to be nutty to think invasion is a good idea.



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by AdAbsurdum
 


Interesting discussion. Can't say I would want to live in your world, but I could respect it.

M



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by morefiber
 


Than we have already won because we are no longer divided.



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by asperetty
reply to post by nenothtu
 


By Middle Age reform I meant feudalism.


Oddly enough, the idea of feudalism came up in other discussions relative to this. I believe that the final consensus was that communism as exemplified by the Soviet Union, Mao's China, Cambodia after it became Kampuchea, etc. as well as capitalism as exemplified by the current American Corporate State, multinational corporations, aspects of colonialism, etc. were all down to a feudalistic system at their most basic level. Feudalism is what both AdAbsurdum and I are against, although we still seem to find ourselves on opposite ends of the political spectrum. Feudalism was a highly centralized structure, with one guy or a small group at the top of the heap making all the decisions and taking all the increase. That's what we are arguing against when we argue for decentralization.

My sig here at ATS used to be "The danger comes neither from the left nor the right, but from the center, and centralization of power will be the death of us all." I changed it eventually, because I didn't think anyone was listening.



But forget that I even said it.


Ever said what?




I am convinced by you and Ab. The overall idea of freedom to choose is what this thread is about, and exactly what this country is about. Yes, you can have a communistic state, and I can have my educationalist state. You be Sparta, I'll be Athens, but together we are Greece.


Exactly! By Jove, I think you've got it! I'm so far to the right that I nearly wrap around to the left, and AdAbsurdum is so far to the left that he rubs up against the right. That's how far apart we are politically. The fact remains, however, that there IS common ground, a common enemy. That enemy would be the various manifestations of centralization, whether that's Feudlism, Marxism, or Corporatism.

A fact arising from that is that if we can find that common ground, and assist yet others to find it, then all this petty BS that is hinged on the false "left/right" paradigm can be gotten over, done away with. Sure, we'll still have political differences of opinion, and disagreements, but we can learn not to CONCENTRATE on those, and attempt to impose our own notions on others. When we allocate too much of that sort of concentration as a play ground, it's the common enemy that has a field day, and gets away with their nefarious schemes while the rest of us are otherwise occupied. It's a case of not seeing the forest because the trees are in the way.

There is no logical reason that every person can't find their own place in the sun, and not fight over it to try forcing other into their way of life.



What you guys are talking about is right 100%. Really, what you you both have said has convinced me, in terms of the federal restraints that limit it to its basic and fundamental operations, and the states rights. If one state is failing, then they can adopt another state's governing principles, whether it be economic or political, but that is the choice of the people of that state. My fear was that a failed state could result in discrepancies between that state and others, but even still, that is where the federal government steps in.


Precisely. The People of a State will not allow it to fail if given the opportunity to avoid it. After all, it's THEIR quality of life that is affected. If it involves changing some particulars to some other, presumably better, way, they can accomplish that until they're satisfied, and it need not spill over into other States where the people may be happy with what they already have. A Federal Mandate affects ALL, whether they like it or not, whether they need or want it or not. As a matter of fact, in my view one of the functions of a Federal Government properly ought to be preventing just that sort of blanket "solution", not mandating it.



But if you limit the government to solely a large judicial entity, you are severely limiting the potential of the country, and that is my only argument. Then again, that is the job of a government, to mediate, not to control or even act unless it is in reaction, and I can't really argue further without contradicting everything I say.


The effectiveness of judicial solutions is directly proportional to the quality and clarity of the laws already in place. I wouldn't call it a largely judicial entity. The same three branches we have now would be represented, but much smaller and drastically more limited in scope. Penalties for violation those limitations would be quite a bit more severe.

You're right in a way, though, since I personally don't see a need for a full and constant legislative branch. I believe they should meet in scheduled sessions, take care of the business at hand that has presented itself between sessions, then go back home until the next session. I DON'T believe they should be a constant presence in DC, and away from their constituency all the time. That sort of thing fosters corruption, and fosters the legislators coming to identify themselves more with the DC culture than that of their own People, whom they are alleged to represent. Further, it fosters the notion that they need to pass laws to justify their positions. Such is not actually the case. We have far too many laws now, more than anyone can possibly keep up with. Sometimes, when something isn't broken, there's just no need to go ahead and fix it anyhow.



It is free market society in every aspect, and that I can accept.


I would prefer to think of it as a "free choice" society, and not involve the market aspects in politics, but essentially you are correct. Everyone gets the choice of what sort of economics they would prefer to engage in, from socialist to capitalist and all the permutations in between. It might involve moving to another State, but that option is wide open for those who are disaffected enough with what they have where they are.



Also about the militia, I did not know my mom can buy stingers.



I used to know a guy in Alexandria who could hook her right up with one, for the right price!


But seriously, the idea is to replace a standing army, or National Service Army with a more democratically represented body, made up of ALL the people. They would have a vested interest in their own defense, Would be VERY difficult for a power monger to abuse (he'd have to turn them on themselves - quite a trick), Would require less upkeep (militias are only supported on the public dime when in actual use), and would have access to all the equipment now held by the standing army, since they would replace it.

That doesn't mean everyone would have their own nuke silo in the back yard, it simply means that they would be properly equipped, and properly trained in the use and employment of that equipment, in tactics, etc.



I was still in the mindset of having a national army, with the real weapons, while the average citizen had the left overs in the black market, with that market no longer being black. but I think it might be better that the states can purchase or develop their own military and can come together in times of war. Otherwise, there really is no need for a national military constantly on alert, is there?


No, there really isn't. The Founding Fathers saw an incipient danger in standing armies, which is why THEY preferred the militia model. What this whole philosophy boils down to in my mind is a return to the original tenets that the US was based upon, before it got all corrupted and out of whack.

That's why the Continental Army was disbanded after it was no longer needed. They'd had recent experience of the quartering and abuses of a standing army - the British one.



In defense of my opinion that states or the federal govt should be able to make revenue outside of taxes, the way that this money is spent, or even where it is invested, is decided upon the people, always. If it is federal expenditure, then the states must ratify, according to majority or otherwise, whatever it may be. The point is that the states will determine where to invest and where to spend on the federal level, not that the federal govt has its own power to lend and spend. This goes for the state spending, the residents of that state need to approve where the money goes, and how the money is spent, or even if the state can do anything with the tax revenue at all. No governing entity has the right to spend money unless the people who are being governed approve of it.


I agree wholeheartedly with most of that, but I stick at allowing the federal government to engage in investment. If by that you mean playing the stock market, securities, and speculation, that's one of the problems we have now - trying to make something out of nothing. I suppose it COULD work, assuming that the entire house of cards were built on something tangible, rather than the current fiat basis we have, and speculation were ruled out altogether, since the government should NEVER be allowed to gamble with the People's money. Also in your defense, if properly set up and handled, it could potentially reduce taxes across the board, since some of that would be made up for by investment income.



I need to read. Can either of you recommend some books for me?


I can't think of any. My own political ideas have been developed over years, by reading whatever I could find on the subject, but nothing sticks in my mind. Maybe the founding documents, the Federalist Papers, writings by the Founding Fathers, but that really won't cover the entire spectrum, or even agree with this new philosophy in all points. The Communist Manifesto by Marx would be another thing to read, but it won't agree with this new philosophy in all points, either. From my perspective, it can provide some excellent NEGATIVE examples, though!


On militia matters: :Guerrilla War", by Che Guevara, "On Guerilla War" by Mao, "Guerilla War" by Bert Levy, "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu, "A Book of Five Rings" by Miyamoto Muashi, "36 Stratagems", author unknown, "A Minimanual for the Urban Guerrilla" by Carlos Marighella, "The Scout" by Ion Idreiss (actually his whole series of pamphlets would be valuable), and "The Edicts of Ares: Thirteen Absolute Rules of Warfare" by Michael C. Riggs would all be included in good starter kit.


edit on 2010/12/12 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2010 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by AdAbsurdum

Hey, you helped build it! I couldn't of done it with out our two week long conversation. I also agree about variety, "specialization is for insects."


I see you read Heinlein, who had some thoroughly interesting political theory of his own dispersed throughout his work



In the representative pool, I'd emplace term limits, say four years per, limit terms to only one, disallowing two consecutive terms, and enforce "downtime" between terms of at least 8 years (2 terms worth) to prevent representatives form making a lifetime career of corruption. and getting any one person too firmly entrenched in the body politic.


I thought about this after we discussed it earlier and I thought that differing States may have different needs when it comes to this. Some may require longer serving members for continuities sake while others must cycle through quickly because they play a fast and loose economic game.


I'll have to ponder it a bit more. My gut says "not at the Federal level", because that would have some States entrenching potential career politicians to the detriment of others, and misdeeds at the federal level would affect us all. No problem with letting States run it like they want to internally, though.



Some of what I've seen here seems to assume that States would stay at their current level of servitude and helplessness, which would not be the case. They would re-take their rightful powers that have been eroded by the Federal Government over the years, so such things as military expenditures would be taken over by them, rather than evaporate into weakness and lethargy. I submit that the military would actually be strengthened, AND remain under the control of the people, since the view I'm getting here is along the lines of an armed and trained militia setup, which is by definition made OF the people, not a potential overlord for them, and is made up of all the arms bearing populace. Numbers ought not to be a problem. Foreign adventurism is eliminated, and that curtails a whole lot of military expenditure right there.


Exactly, while this may be reform, the level of reform I am proposing might as well be a revolution that starts us from scratch. We are talking about hitting the reset button and returning back to the America pre-Fed with some added bonuses.


And it's those "bonus features" that could allow it to work right this time. Particularly the feature that allows the People to say "not on MY watch" and enforce that BEFORE the next election cycle, which always seems to fall after the damage is done.



The rest of the world can then do as it pleases, but trying to do it on MY dirt is suicidal with 300 million guns pointed at them.


Yep, you'd have to be nutty to think invasion is a good idea.


They really CAN do as they please at home, and I don't care a bit any more. Once upon a time, I DID care, because of the perception (and demonstration in some cases) that it was on the move, potentially coming to a neighborhood near me in the not too distant future. Those days are gone now, and it is now WE who are exporting our ways to folks wholly unsuited to them. It's no more proper to force "democracy" at the point of a sword than it is to force religion or communism at the point of a sword.

Sometimes, the more things change, the more they stay the same, and then you need a scorecard to keep up with which players are on which teams at the moment.

There are some places on Earth where "our way" just won't work, and is an exercise in idiocy to try to force it to work. Afghanistan comes to immediate mind, since I'm not altogether ignorant of Afghan customs and culture. "Our way" just won't work there, ever, and there is NO logical reason we should be trying to force it to with this ridiculous "hearts and minds" campaign. The purpose of a military, and by extension war in general,is to kill people and tear things up, not "help" them to do things they don't want to do to begin with. I'm of the opinion that we should have gone in with a vengeance, fought the Taliban like we really meant it, destroyed them utterly, and got the hell back out of there. No "nation building", no "hearts and minds". Help the Afghans to get what THEY want in the way of government, infrastructure, etc, sure, but not attempt to force our model on them.

Our model simply won't work there. Not now, not ever. It should have been enough to erase the Taliban, and get on with living and letting live.

I've got odd notions about such things though. I don't see the difference between crossing the Afghan border to get the Taliban, and crossing the Pak border to get them where they sit as guests of the ISI.

Edit to add: it might not be obvious which "way" I'm referring to re Afghanistan. I'm talking there about the current US system which they're now trying to "help" Afghanistan with. To be honest, though, I'm not sure this new system would work there, either. They seem to have stumbled upon the only variety of chaos that they will accept already.
edit on 2010/12/12 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
I see you read Heinlein, who had some thoroughly interesting political theory of his own dispersed throughout his work


Well, when you are out of work you have a lot of time to read. I'm absolutely obsessed with history. Can't get enough of it.


I'll have to ponder it a bit more. My gut says "not at the Federal level", because that would have some States entrenching potential career politicians to the detriment of others, and misdeeds at the federal level would affect us all. No problem with letting States run it like they want to internally, though.


The federal level would have to be standardized, I agree for the reasons stated. Term limits for the HOR and the Senate are going to have be new addition though now that we see what the outcome is.


And it's those "bonus features" that could allow it to work right this time. Particularly the feature that allows the People to say "not on MY watch" and enforce that BEFORE the next election cycle, which always seems to fall after the damage is done.


...and then we just get caught up in dog and pony shows. Even this way the minority can have their grievances heard fairly. It's more than just votes, tax dollars are at stake.


Our model simply won't work there. Not now, not ever. It should have been enough to erase the Taliban, and get on with living and letting live.


I meant anyone invading us would have to have a screw loose. I agree with you. About Afghanistan and Iraq, we're on the same page. That whole ordeal will never work and only have a chance if they redrew the boarders along religious lines. Give the Shiites there own country, the Kurds their own, the Sunnis another. Even then they'd probably just become puppet states for the larger Muslim Nations of their own respective denominations.


I've got odd notions about such things though. I don't see the difference between crossing the Afghan border to get the Taliban, and crossing the Pak border to get them where they sit as guests of the ISI.


The difference is whether or not a nation is in bed with the IMF.


Edit to add: it might not be obvious which "way" I'm referring to re Afghanistan. I'm talking there about the current US system which they're now trying to "help" Afghanistan with. To be honest, though, I'm not sure this new system would work there, either. They seem to have stumbled upon the only variety of chaos that they will accept already.
edit on 2010/12/12 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)


Agreed. Not that they couldn't find one. I'm just not an Arabic Muslim so I have no way of even speculating and know better than to bother.



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 03:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by asperetty
But forget that I even said it.


Whew, sorry it's taken me awhile to get back to you!


I am convinced by you and Ab. The overall idea of freedom to choose is what this thread is about, and exactly what this country is about. Yes, you can have a communistic state, and I can have my educationalist state. You be Sparta, I'll be Athens, but together we are Greece.


Yessir! Together we are these United States!


What you guys are talking about is right 100%. Really, what you you both have said has convinced me, in terms of the federal restraints that limit it to its basic and fundamental operations, and the states rights. If one state is failing, then they can adopt another state's governing principles, whether it be economic or political, but that is the choice of the people of that state. My fear was that a failed state could result in discrepancies between that state and others, but even still, that is where the federal government steps in.


That's exactly my thinking as to the purpose of a Federal Government, actual governance as opposed to intervention.


But if you limit the government to solely a large judicial entity, you are severely limiting the potential of the country, and that is my only argument. Then again, that is the job of a government, to mediate, not to control or even act unless it is in reaction, and I can't really argue further without contradicting everything I say.


I still argue that it is better for us to collectively realize the potential of our nation as opposed to leaving that to the scruples of power mongers...But, we can discuss that more in depth at a time of your choosing.


Also about the militia, I did not know my mom can buy stingers.


Ever heard of Dragonman? That guy will sell you a tank if you got the money, no joke.


I was still in the mindset of having a national army, with the real weapons, while the average citizen had the left overs in the black market, with that market no longer being black. but I think it might be better that the states can purchase or develop their own military and can come together in times of war. Otherwise, there really is no need for a national military constantly on alert, is there?


Bingo. Less taxation and we have lessen the probability of being suckered into wars for profit.


In defense of my opinion that states or the federal govt should be able to make revenue outside of taxes, the way that this money is spent, or even where it is invested, is decided upon the people, always. If it is federal expenditure, then the states must ratify, according to majority or otherwise, whatever it may be. The point is that the states will determine where to invest and where to spend on the federal level, not that the federal govt has its own power to lend and spend. This goes for the state spending, the residents of that state need to approve where the money goes, and how the money is spent, or even if the state can do anything with the tax revenue at all. No governing entity has the right to spend money unless the people who are being governed approve of it.


I'm going to have to agree with Nenothtu on this one. But, I will say that what State does is its business. So I support this on the State level.


But that does not mean that the governing body should not be allowed altogether to raise its own revenues...


For what purpose would the Federal Government ever have a need to create revenue? Or are you referring to international trade? Because I have proposed that that be handled by the individual States engaging in the business at hand. My new motto is: Separation of Church, State, and Economics.


I need to read. Can either of you recommend some books for me?


Oh man... Everything Nenothtu listed I've read and can recommend. If you haven't yet, read Thomas Paine's essays. A lot of people have read Jefferson, but check out Paine too, if you haven't. Something I think you maybe very interested in is something called Anarcho-Syndicalism. AK Press has heaps of books about it and I think it will help you see a point where I am gathering my ideas. Above all things I recommend you read "My Word is My Weapon" and anything on Zapata.

That should keep you busy for awhile. Hehehe.



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by AdAbsurdum

Oh man... Everything Nenothtu listed I've read and can recommend. If you haven't yet, read Thomas Paine's essays. A lot of people have read Jefferson, but check out Paine too, if you haven't. Something I think you maybe very interested in is something called Anarcho-Syndicalism. AK Press has heaps of books about it and I think it will help you see a point where I am gathering my ideas. Above all things I recommend you read "My Word is My Weapon" and anything on Zapata.

That should keep you busy for awhile. Hehehe.


Here's a link to a website which contains the complete works of Thomas Paine: Complete Works of Thomas Paine. I have all of his stuff in one big PDF file, but ain't sure where I stashed it on this hard drive at the moment. I also have all of the Federalist Papers, among several other things pertaining to political thought at that time, with a similar problem. If anyone is interested, I can hunt them down and e-mail 'em out.



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Not off-topic, although it may be hard to see the connection at first, but the "Rocket Docket" in Federal Court in Richmond, VA, just decided on the case Virginia brought in reference to the "Health Care" plan.

Ruled the Individual Mandate provision to be unconstitutional.

Because of the lack of a severability clause in the new law, that ruling against one particularity of it make the whole shebang unconstitutional. A bit of a lack of foresight there!


Thanks, Judge Hudson, for standing in the gap on behalf of the People. That's what the Judiciary at that level is all about, deciding just how far the government can push us around. He correctly assessed that forcing the People to make a purchase of ANYTHING was not covered under the Commerce Clause, which regulates production and distribution between States, not individuals.

This means they may not get the chance to come after me when I refuse to comply. I'm sure beyond doubt that it will be appealed to higher courts, and will no doubt make it all the way to the Supreme Court in the next couple of years, so I'm still watching my back and greasing up the old squirrel rifle.

It ain't a done deal yet, but it brings a bit of hope. I believe the same case, but brought by Florida instead, goes to hearing tomorrow. After that, 19 MORE cases by individual States against the Feds to go, and that is a large part of what we are discussing here - States vs Federal powers. Under this new system being hammered out, it would not be an issue. Under this new system, ALL of the other 29 States could go to the trough and swallow the hook, and still NO ONE could force these 21 dissenting States to enslave their own citizenry to the Feds.

Yeah, it's a mess, but there's a glimmer of light. We'll see just how much power over individual decisions that the Feds wind up with in the system as it stands now.

I may need that squirrel rifle yet.

Edit to add: This is apparently the 3rd case involving this argument that has been decided, with the other two being in favor of a totalitarian government. I'm not kidding in the least when I say that this is where I've drawn my line, and am perfectly willing to go to war over it. In that eventuality, you can be sure there will be a SEVERE rollback to Original Principles, with this issue just being the wedge in the door that allows for the contest to begin. Judging by the White House reaction to this decision, they're a bit over confident in the matter. If the Courts don't get it stopped, when it goes to the People a bad time is going to be had by all. Some times, it's best to stop pushing an issue that enslaves the masses, before they decide to weigh in on the issue as loudly as they can.

We can get pretty loud when riled up.

The White House hasn't figured that out yet, and may be incapable of learning from history. as I recall, a simple requirement for a Tax Stamp on tea was the catalyst for the first go round. THAT one only directly affected merchants, and indirectly the rest of the tea drinkers.

I believe the second contest (the "Civil War" - what the hell is civil at all about war?) was also catalysed by a port tax imposed on the Southern States by the Feds on behalf of New England merchants, to the benefit of the Northerners, and the detriment of the Southerners.

Sure, in both cases there were other issues, but unjust taxation was the catalyst for both, and the other issues rolled right on in to increase the fervor until shooting broke out.

THIS "tax" (for that is precisely what it is - it's administered by the IRS on behalf of corporations) affects us ALL, not just merchants, or tea drinkers, or cotton growers..

Bad business, that.

Oh, and the White House is NOW saying that they view this Individual Mandate Provision as "severable". Doesn't matter at all HOW they "view" it, severability is NOT mentioned in the law, and so brings the whole thing down around their ears.. Maybe they aren't quite as confident as I first thought... but still way too confident for comfort.



edit on 2010/12/13 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2010 @ 10:15 AM
link   
Ab and Neno, you're both swell people.

No more comments until I'm well read.

But because I have to have a last word...

Federal/ State revenue from taxes go into infrastructure development. That does not mean purchasing or investing from companies necessarily. It means that if Govt has the money, then they can supply it on behalf and for the people. The simplest metaphor I can use is a savings account in a bank that the people, whose decision to withdraw is wholly their own, but represented by some type of governing body, can use that money as they so please, but the fact is that the money is there, and the people are voting where it goes. Also, it does not have to be spent. And if it is, one thing it could be used for is purchasing or mining for gold, since gold will be the central standard which the state currencies are backed by.

The best way these taxes are spent or invested was stated in my education reform. As R&D grants to the most successful colleges/schools, or even all around to every school, so long as it is for the education of the future citizens. How and in which way or for what research is left up to the educational institute and the students wishes, and only them.

If there be any federal law, let it be that all taxes are redistributed through the educational institutions.
Pretty radical, I know.

Anyways, thanks for the reading suggestions. I'll be all over that for the next forever!





new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join