Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Barakistan

Now there we disagree. What if the citizenry agrees, by majority vote, to institute a tax to fund an agency empowered to confiscate private homes and convert them into homeless shelters? Even if the citizenry agreed, by majority vote, this would be an illegitimate tax because it supports an illegitimate function of government.

Agreed. The fundamental premise of the tax itself must be legitimate, though that would fall to the premise that no law may be enacted or agency created that violates the fundamental laws of the nation. If the creation of the to-be-funded premise is illegitimate, then no funding structure for it, regardless of approval, may be legitimate.

A legitimate use, and taxation as a funding source then approved by the citizenry, would be a lawful tax.

Stated that way, I agree.

Wow. This thread doubled in length since last I looked in. I'll have to read all the new posts later.

Thanks for the response, TRH.

"I say this, however, because history has taught me that man's natural state in any sort of advanced society is to be in either one of two classes, subject or ruling."
----------

Make that "man's fallen nature" and it'll be a bullseye.


"The ruling class has traditionally been that class which controls the levers of state power over the remainder of the people, and tends to be a very tiny percentage of the over all population."
------------

Very tiny indeed. All the more wonder why the remainder are so willing to be ruled. And more important, why they bother to obey. Until Govv't grows to the point each one of us has an agent present at all times, to keep an eye on us, guide us and protect us, they needn't expect much from me in the way of obedience. If they're watching I pretend to obey. Other than that they can shove it. Even when they are watching, most of the time they can shove it. And the ones around here know I'll tell them that, too.


" power which the ruling class would otherwise wield entirely according to its own whims."
---------

That's the direction it's headed. Seems to be their goal. I'm surprised there were town hall meetings in Aug, why bother? The people don't need sold on obamacare, only the remaining congress critters need the sales pitch. I mean, it's not like we the people are going to get to vote on it or anything... There were no town hall meetings aobut stimulus packages or bailouts or seatbelt laws, etc. Gov't rarely asks people's approval and doesn't pay attention to their response when they do anyway, so what's the difference?

As far as the remaiinder of your post, I see all that and understand that's what people believe, but I don't like it and would rather not be forced to participate. The rulers believe they are better than, above, more important, etc. It's not true. Servants don't dictate to their masters, proof that they are liars and theives. Free and sovereign men have no rulers. These people have no greater authority than I, in fact their's is lesser than mine, hence the use of "servants". I still operate under my innate and God given authority. I'm created in His image, what can be above that? They can be equal to that... but won't. They've cast aside their legitimate authority in favor of that fictional one granted them by the state. Makes them feel big. Makes them feel important. Fact is, they're beneath me. Everything in the world system is beneath me. Doesn't matter where in the world I take a stand, the entire thing is beneath me. The simple truth is these people are the exact same liars and theives that I saw them to be as a small boy. Nothing has changed except that I now see them through the eyes of an adult and have years of observation to solidify my position. Hucksters. Parasites. They're the scum of the earth, all of them, each and every one. IMO there is no lower form of life than one that began life with the highest possible authority in the cosmos (equality) and discards it for a fictional authority over others just to make himself feel big. Self idoloters allowed to live as elite rulers by those who idolize them. Not only alowed but encouraged. Idolotry was spoken of in the bible. The entire concept was damned when Moses came down off the mountain... but people still haven't learned. The reason for that commandment is obvious to me. Most people take this the wrong way but I've said it for many years: Thomas Jefferson said "all men are created equal" and Archerhunter adds " Yeah, but the majority sure go down hill from there". They're beneath me. That's a fact. They chose that postition. The only power they have is that of the state backing them... at gun point, no less. Scum of the earth, I tell ya. Scum of the earth. Their's is a fictional power, a fictional authority. It only works for them while they're watching. And then, I'm only pretending... Answering fiction with fiction seems a perfect fit to me. Perfectly justified, especially in light of the course they've taken in recent decades. They don't obey their own laws. Everything is a double standard in their eyes. They stack everything in their favor and call themselves my servants... then expect me to obey... hmmph! Pretty laughable, actually.


I'll continue reading the thread as time allows. Much to do today.

Which is why, the Founders inform us, men establish governments, i.e., to rid us of rulers made of flesh and blood, and replace them instead with the rule of law. Free and sovereign men should have no rulers of flesh and blood, indeed, but free and sovereign men, if they wish to live in common society, must accept that they are not above the law itself, so long as the law is not patently inconsistent with natural law.

Fair is fair: Nimrodia

All voting is flawed because none of us know what we are voting for or against. I see that not only in public voting but also in private voting. See that all the time when I'm asked to vote for broads of directors, company policies, etc. It's impossible for me or anyone else to know everything about everything.

Voting maybe the best system we have compared to anything else but it most definitely is a flawed system.

All taxes are unlawful because they are collected by force.

Now if there was some way to subscribe for those government services I want or think I need, than collecting a tax from me to pay for the services I volunteeringly subscribe to, than that is okay but I don't know of any way to do that.

Actually, Madison wanted a clause that said the federal government could void any state law that the federal government thought was unlawful or didn't like. Madison lost that one or did he? Madison wanted to shift sovereignty from the states which were sovereign republics to the federal government.

The first seven articles of the constitution are as ambiguous as they are because of compromises necessary between the federalists and confederalists in order to get something passed. What the federalists wanted in a federal government is pretty much what we have today. It's also the reason the confederalists demanded a Bill of Rights which I'm sure glad they did.

The reason you're not following me is because I tagged to the wrong poster. The mob law thing was to Barak's view that justice lies in the hands of those offended against. The idea of turning over a burglar to a 75-year-old widow for justice ignores the rules of law and common sense.

Self defense is not private vengence, of course. Never meant to imply it is.

The Rule of Law, to me at least, means that men pass laws and so long as they are just, others must obey them.

Interesting, if true, since it entirely contradicts what Madison wrote in Federalist No. 45. You'll have to provide your source, of course.

Regardless, however, the Constitution as finally ratified very clearly divides powers between the Federal Government and the states, the Federal Government's powers being "few and defined" (and mostly outward directed), the states' powers being "numerous and indefinite" (dealing with all matters affecting the lives, liberties, and property of the people).

Please provide your source, however, including complete quotes from Madison.

No problem on the source I've mentioned it before: "American Creation: Triumphs and Tragedies at the Founding of the Republic" by Joseph J. Ellis.

I'm reading the chapter "The Argument" which is dealing with a lot of what we are discussing now. For example, I could never figure out why Washington was a Federalist when most of the heavy hitters from the South were confederalists. According to Ellis, it's because of Washington's experiences as commander-in-chief during the Revolutionary War. As commander-in-chief he had to dance to the tune of the Continental Congress as well as to the tune of the 13 colonies. As commander-in-chief he would have liked to dance to the tune of one government rather than to the tune of 14 governments. Washington believed the only way to conduct war was with a strong central government.

Madison was a radical for strong central government. I'm sure he took as radical a position as he could to have lots room for compromise.

One other thing I've learned from this book, well actually, there's allot I have learned, was that the radicals who thought the Articles of Confederation were just fine the way they were boycotted the convention in Philadelphia. The only players that showed up at the convention were the moderates who wanted to just modify the Articles of Confederation, and the radicals who wanted to scrape the whole thing out right. The radicals won and we can only imagine what would have happen and how the country would have looked had the radicals for confederation had showed up.

BTW: To truly understand the Federalists Paper, you need to get and read the Anti-Federalists Papers and Constitutional debates of 1787. The Anti-Federalists Paper is the rest of the story.

He was/is right.



Agreed. Wonderful, insightful, and ought-to-be-required reading (both of them).

I have already read both the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist Papers, thank you very much. I'm still waiting for those juicy Madison quotations, though.

Well, I don't have any Madison quotations so I guess Ellis is wrong.

... and McCain was different in this regard how exactly?

Yes, considering that I would have no trouble at all providing quotations of Madison's own words which contradict Ellis's assertions, I'd say he was wrong.

Funny, I don't recall a McCain proposal to put the IRS in charge of your health care, determining what is and is not appropriate, what you can and can't have, and how much you ought to pay for it.

Can you?

BTW - there are PLENTY of threads re: your messiah, B. Hussein Obama, the one you championed last year. Please, visit them and enlighten us all as to how wrong we are to think he's a turd and his ideas rubbish.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. I've read other history books that pretty well backs up Ellis, the Anti-Federalists Papers among them.

I think our disagreement is that I'm against central governments limited or otherwise. and you favor limited central governments. I don't believe ANY central government can be controlled or limited for very long. As I say, the more I study this the more I think Barak is right at least to some degree.

Yup, McCain proposed a tax credit for health insurance. That involves the IRS.