A Moral Victory: The Sister Wives Case And The Rejection of State Morality Codes

ad611-sister-wives-season-4Below is my column in the Washington Post (Sunday) on our recent victory in the Sister Wives case. The column looks at the most significant aspect of the case — the rejection of morality codes that once controlled across the country in prohibiting everything from homosexuality to adultery to fornication. These morality laws were upheld in the decision in Reynolds in 1876 in a polygamy case out of Utah. The Brown decision returned us to the same question involving the same issue in the same state. Some 136 years later however the answer from this federal court was very different. We are a different country today and, despite what one hears from politicians like Rick Santorum, I believe that we are a better country today.

There does seem to be confusion about the ruling with some saying that polygamy is still not legal after the opinion. That is simply wrong. Polygamy is not the same a bigamy. One is the crime defined under cohabitation statutes of living as a plural family or with a person married to another person. The other is the crime of having two or more marriage licenses. The latter has nothing to do with the structure of your family and has almost exclusively involved people who hold themselves out (falsely) as monogamous. We always argued that the state could prosecute people who obtained more than one marriage license. Bigamy has not been an offense committed by polygamists who traditionally have one official marriage license and multiple spiritual licenses. Indeed, the law targeted polygamy with the cohabitation provision precisely because there is a difference between the two. The state fought for years to preserve this law because it reached beyond simple bigamy. Before this opinion, it was a crime for polygamists to live, as do the Browns, in a plural family. After the opinion, it is legal. This is precisely what occurred in Lawrence v. Texas where homosexual unions were a crime but then became legal when the Texas law was struck down. This decision legalizes tens of thousands of polygamous families who will no longer been viewed as criminal enterprises. They will be allowed to be open plural families. They are now legal relationships. Legality of polygamy is entirely different from recognition of plural marriages just as the legality of homosexual relations is different from the recognition of same-sex marriage.

There is also a lack of knowledge about the existence of such laws outside of Utah. This law does exist outside of Utah. Indeed, the very same language is found in the Canadian cohabitation law. I was called as a legal expert in the recent challenge to that law. However, the Canadian Supreme Court in British Columbia upheld the law. Putting these distinctions aside, the thrust of this article is how this decision is part of a larger trend toward the repeal or the striking down of morality codes, including the rejection of a cohabitation law in Virginia this year.

——————————————-
The decision this month by a federal court striking down the criminalization of polygamy in Utah was met with a mix of rejoicing and rage. What was an emancipating decision for thousands of plural families was denounced as the final descent into a moral abyss by others.

Former senator Rick Santorum was among the social conservatives trying to claim the moral high ground. He tweeted on Sunday: “Some times I hate it when what I predict comes true” — referring to his 2003 claim that legalizing “consensual sex within your home” would lead to the legalization of polygamy and “undermine the fabric of our society.” (On Wednesday, with no apparent sense of self-contradiction, he expressed outrage over the removal of a Nativity scene at a South Carolina military base, tweeting: “Our Constitution protects free exercise of religion. No govt entity/official has the right to limit that.”)It’s true that the Utah ruling is one of the latest examples of a national trend away from laws that impose a moral code. There is a difference, however, between the demise of morality laws and the demise of morality. This distinction appears to escape social conservatives nostalgic for a time when the government dictated whom you could live with or sleep with. But the rejection of moral codes is no more a rejection of morality than the rejection of speech codes is a rejection of free speech. Our morality laws are falling, and we are a better nation for it.

In the Utah case, I was the lead counsel for the Browns, the polygamous family featured in the TLC reality program “Sister Wives.” They are members of the Apostolic United Brethren Church, and they have one marriage license and three “spiritual” marriages among them. After the first episode of “Sister Wives” aired, state prosecutors threatened to bring charges under a Utah law that made it a crime when a married person “purports to marry another person or cohabits with another person.” The Browns were under investigation for two years and were publicly called felons before they took prosecutors to court in a challenge to the constitutionality of the law.

The case was never about the recognition of multiple marriages or the acceptance of the religious values underlying this plural family. It was about the right of consenting adults to make decisions for themselves and their families. Judge Clark Waddoups, a conservative George W. Bush appointee,ruled that the criminalization of cohabitation clearly violated the due process clause and the free exercise clause of the United States Constitution.

In doing so, he departed from the prevailing precedent: the Supreme Court’s opinion inReynolds v. United States , which upheld a ban on polygamy in 1879. Waddoups wrote that courts today are “less inclined to allow majoritarian coercion of unpopular or disliked minority groups, especially when blatant racism . . . religious prejudice, or some other constitutionally suspect motivation, can be discovered behind such legislation.”

Indeed, in Reynolds, religious and racial prejudice were vividly on display. The court unleashed a tirade of indignation and condemnation, stating, “Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe, and, until the establishment of the Mormon Church, was almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and of African people.” Just a few years later, the Supreme Court also upheld the criminalization of mixed-race relations in Pace v. Alabama .

The idea that polygamy was a “barbarous practice” and contrary to democratic principles drove the demand in the late 1880s and ’90s that Utah outlaw it as a condition of statehood. And in Mormon Church v. United States (1890), the Supreme Court labeled polygamy as “abhorrent to the sentiments and feelings of the civilized world.”

The stigma attached to polygamy continued to distort legal analysis into this century. As recently as 2006, Utah Justice Ronald Nehring began his opinion in a ruling upholding the criminalization of polygamy by lamenting, “No matter how widely known the natural wonders of Utah may become, no matter the extent that our citizens earn acclaim for their achievements, in the public mind Utah will forever be shackled to the practice of polygamy.” Nehring frankly admitted that this hostility “has been present in my consciousness, and I suspect has been a brooding presence . . . in the minds of my colleagues, from the moment we opened the parties’ briefs.” Rather than overcome that prejudice, Nehring not only yielded to it but warned any Utah judge of the peril of being the first to recognize the rights of polygamists: “I have not been alone in speculating what the consequences might be were the highest court in the State of Utah the first in the nation to proclaim that polygamy enjoys constitutional protection.”

Well, it wasn’t. A federal judge in Utah assumed that burden. Gov. Gary Herbert objected to the court making “decisions on social issues.” (He has not yet announced an appeal.) Waddoups, however, was not dictating a decision on a social issue but rather saying that governments could not impose a single version of morality. He limited prosecution under Utah’s anti-polygamy law to cases of bigamy, where someone acquires more than one marriage license — which is an offense more common to monogamous couples, who care about state recognition, than polygamists, who care about spiritual recognition.

Across the country, the era of morality codes is coming to an inglorious end. This year, the Supreme Court struck down part of the Defense of Marriage Act barring the federal recognition of same-sex marriage. And this week, the New Mexico Supreme Court and another federal judge in Utah struck down the ban on same-sex marriage in those states — bringing the number to 18 states (plus the District of Columbia) where same-sex couples can marry. Meanwhile, Virginia recently repealed its 1877 cohabitation law and Colorado replealed a criminal adultery law from the 1850s — both relics of a time when states used their criminal codes to force citizens to comply with the religious values of their neighbors.

Most states have wisely turned away from absurd laws criminalizing masturbation and fornication. Obscenity laws have also been curtailed by the Supreme Court in deference to the First Amendment.

Still rightly on the books are laws against bestiality, which involves an obvious lack of consent as well as manifest harm. Likewise, incest bans are based on claims of medical, not moral, harm.

Once any crimes or abuses are stripped away in cases like the Browns’, what remains is religious animus. Yet, polygamy is widely practiced around the world by millions of families and was condoned by every major religion — from Judaism to Christianity to Islam — at one time. While plural families are called polygamists in our popular lexicon, “polygamy” actually refers to a broad array of plural relationships, from polygyny (one husband and multiple wives, like the Browns) to polyandry (a single wife and multiple husbands) to polyamory (couples who reject the exclusivity of sexual relations). The vast majority of these families are based on consenting relations among adults without abusive or criminal histories.

Critics often ignore these other plural relationships (and even polygynists like the Browns) in favor of a stereotype of “compound polygamists,” living in remote walled communities where women appear captive and molestation flourishes. It is Warren Jeffs, not Kody Brown, whom critics want to invoke in debating decriminalization — a sinister figure in a secluded compound where women wear prairie outfits and hairdos from the 19th century.

Obviously, there will always be abusers like Jeffs among polygamists — just as there are abusers among monogamists. However, it is no more persuasive to criminalize all plural relationships because of a small number of abusive individuals than it would be logical to outlaw monogamy based on the convicted spouse- and child-abusers in conventional marriages.

One of the great ironies about the focus on compound polygamists is the circular logic of criminalization. The government first declared polygamists felons and then pointed to their hiding as evidence of their guilt. But decriminalization will allow these families to be plural, open and law-abiding as they reintegrate into society.

In truth, 19th-century Americans were no more moral than we are today. It simply appeared that way with the imposition of official morals, including (as Santorum recalls so fondly) being told whom we could love in our own homes. It is not a single moral voice that is heard today but a chorus of voices. Each speaks to its own values but joins around a common article of faith: the belief that morality is better left to parents than to politicians.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and lead counsel in the “Sister Wives” polygamy case.

Washington Post (Sunday) December 22, 2013

1,098 thoughts on “A Moral Victory: The Sister Wives Case And The Rejection of State Morality Codes

  1. A great article Professor that will hopefully resonate with many people to educate them on the true nuances of this landmark court decision. Many political types often distort the truth through the bully pulpit of their self declared moral high ground; making absurd claims of figuratively the doom of civilization if it is opposed or contradicted. All the while they cloud the issue with deceptive twisting of the real issues presented before the courts to make it seem those praying for relief of the injustices created by these and past politicians are the ones morally bankrupting what they consider the treasury of the politicians’ idealized fantasy world.

    Now, the readers of the Washington Post can see for themselves the truths of your efforts, the courts, and the plight of the plaintiffs and their kin.

  2. Sweet. Every time a bit of common sense prevails, a branch of the stupid tree falls off, hopefully to permanently rot.

  3. One section of the First Amendment gives religionists / spiritualists freedom to take their chosen path as they seek religious / spiritual truth, another part of the First Amendment protects them from “government guidance” during their religious / spiritual journey.

  4. JT says: Likewise, incest bans are based on claims of medical, not moral, harm.

    That is an assertion with which I disagree. An incest ban does not exclude relatives that cannot conceive, or indeed relatives of the same sex should same-sex marriage be legalized. Those relatives are banned from marriage, not because of any chance of medical harm; but because of morality. The majority of people find incest repugnant. Like me, they suspect incestual desire probably originated in power-abuse. But speaking logically, incest between consenting adults incapable of reproduction is no more likely to create medical harm than sex between unrelated consenting adults.

    If JT is going to be logically consistent, a later paragraph applies. JT says: However, it is no more persuasive to criminalize all plural relationships because of a small number of abusive individuals than it would be logical to outlaw monogamy based on the convicted spouse- and child-abusers in conventional marriages.

    It is no more persuasive to criminalize all incestual relationships because of a small number of abusive individuals than it would be logical to outlaw monogamy based on the convicted spouse- and child-abusers in conventional marriages.

    (To be clear, I have no desire to commit incest and to my knowledge do not know any incestual couples. I am just pointing out that the same logic applies, and to the extent one thinks there is a logical hole in the incest argument, that logical hole must apply to the polygamy argument as well. And THAT said, I am in favor of JT’s legal win in this case.)

  5. Tony C. 1, December 22, 2013 at 6:56 am

    JT says: Likewise, incest bans are based on claims of medical, not moral, harm.

    ============================
    A person asked a Kentucky senator why so many Kentuckieans married their first cousins.

    The senator replied “because they don’t have any close relatives.”

  6. Opposing polygamy doesn’t imply religious animus nor is it the same thing as opposing gay or same sex marriage (which I support). It simply looks at the fact that some people who have been involved in polygamous arrangements, those people being women in most cases, haves testified that their involvement in such arrangement was rarely consensual. It was forced upon them by “religious leaders” and that the punishment for refusal was heavy. I hate to disagree with you but when one is allowed to break the law because of one’s allegeld religious beliefs it starts a process that is not going to end well for certain segments of society, particularly women.

  7. Mespo…. You got it…. Forcing folks to comply…. With what’s at the whim of the time…. Utah…. Allowed this before they were admitted to the union…. As the part of the Utah territory…. The women had the right to vote…..

  8. The history of polygamy largely involves male domination. Hopefully male domination is ending so don’t see much of a future for polygamy. The Utah decision on gay marriage was much more significant.

  9. Johnathan,

    An outstanding attorney you are. But your understanding of terms falls somewhat short. Polygamy is the condition of one man and more than one woman. Polyandry is the condition of one woman and more than one man, and bigamy is polygamy but with one man and only two women. The Browns understand this and refer to their situation not as polygamy, but spiritual polygamy, a form of faith based living founded on cohabitation, not the illegal procurement of multiple and still illegal licenses from the state. This confusion in your mind is disappointing.

  10. Great piece. I am curious about your assertion about that people in the 19th century were no more moral than we are. I have nothing but a love and studying of history to say that may be true, but tough to prove. I do know people were more neighborly then. Folks felt a moral obligation to help their neighbors, something that has almost become extinct in our culture. Mespo is great in showing the neighborly in people. I’m just saying that was the norm in the 1900’s and would tend to make me think those folks were more moral. Oh, they killed, robbed, raped, swindled, etc., particularly in the lawless west. They drank more than we do now. Opium and derivatives were abused. But, my money would be on they were generally more moral, not by a wide margin, but a discernible one.

  11. Dale 1, December 22, 2013 at 9:16 am

    Johnathan,

    An outstanding attorney you are. But your understanding of terms falls somewhat short. Polygamy is the condition of one man and more than one woman. Polyandry is the condition of one woman and more than one man, and bigamy is polygamy but with one man and only two women. The Browns understand this and refer to their situation not as polygamy, but spiritual polygamy, a form of faith based living founded on cohabitation, not the illegal procurement of multiple and still illegal licenses from the state. This confusion in your mind is disappointing.
    ==============================
    From Deseret News:

    Some don’t seem to know the difference between bigamy and polygamy. Bigamy is illegal everywhere and is where someone is legally married to two people without the spouses knowing about it. Polygamy is where there may be one legal marriage and other “spouses” that are “spiritual” marriages or just cohabitation.

    (Deseret News). “The Deseret News is a newspaper published in Salt Lake City, Utah, United States. It is Utah’s oldest continuously published daily newspaper …” (Wikipedia).

    Who ya gonna call?

  12. “isn’t all law a “Morality Code” of one description or another?”

    Mespo/AY,

    It can be, but it comes back to the discussion had here many times before. At its best, law is an ethical code based on objective standards rooted in reason instead of a moral code based on subjective beliefs. The distinction between ethics and morals is much more important than semantic when discussing the foundations of legalism.

    Prof,

    Thanks for the expansion on the ruling.

  13. Jonathan,

    Thank you for your efforts in the “Brown Case” and for this article that hits at a long term concern of mine. Every politician who runs on the basis of preventing sexual immorality is a fraud and a hypocrite. Humans, like all animals are sexual beings, but in our case aided by our greater sentience.

    When it is not coercive or abusive, people should have the right to live the sex lives they desire without the interference of government. While the Republican Party, as exemplified by Santorum, has made sexual morality a political issue it can never be considered an issue by true conservatives or by true libertarians. The Democrats have in many instances been in favor of not legislating morality, but many “liberals” have publicly been on the fence lacking the courage to seem to go against religious moral strictures. President Obama’s “evolution” on the Gay marriage issue is a case in point. Political hypocrisy regarding sexuality created these impositions on individual rights made in the name of public morality. The proof of this hypocrisy is the many politicians who are against government intrusion on the private sector………….except when it comes to women’s and homosexual’s sexuality.

    Throughout human history if one studies it closely the prevailing religious morality of a culture has had little to do with the actual sexual activity. Prosecution has almost always been selective and aimed at the lower classes.
    When it has occurred to members of the more privileged classes it had more to do with some other offense of the powers that be, rather than the actual sexuality involved. See the case of Oscar Wilde.

  14. Jonathan Turley sez: “Across the country, the era of morality codes is coming to an inglorious end.”

    ***************************************************

    This story and the comments started me thinking about the Mann Act. It has been used to go after child sexual exploitation offenders such as Jack Schaap and Brian David Mitchell. Rightly so on those cases.

    However, there were a number of high profile cases that were clearly political prosecutions. Among the more notable Mann Act prosecutions was that of boxer Jack Johnson, Dr. William I. Thomas, Frank Lloyd Wright, and Charlie Chaplin.

    What impact, if any, will this latest ruling have on the Mann Act?

  15. Chuck,

    Re: The Mann Act. The threat of Mann Act prosecution was used to get Governor of New York Elliot Spitzer to resign.

  16. Gene H:

    I dont think you can disconect the 4. The law is or should be based on a moral premise supported by reason.

    For example our laws are based on the moral premise “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Our laws used to promote that moral premise; what was ethical was moral. Reason was the foundation of our founding morality and the law supported the original premise; a man’s life is his own and does not belong to the state.

    Reason, morality, ethics and the law should be in harmony, reason should be used to determine what is moral, ethics and the law should be used to uphold morality.

  17. Fantastic win. The protection of an individual right is the most important thing a society can protect. However it is sad that we have to continuously fight various issues of unalienable rights out in the halls of our Capitals and courtrooms.

    For me, being able to have multiple spouses is kind of greedy but my hat is off to anyone who can deal with more than one. The old joke about gay marriage, being that “every one should have the right to be just as miserable as any married couple is.

    We tax the middle class 50% of their overall incomes and expect this policy to get them out of poverty. The right to keep ones own money and spend it as they see fit is perhaps more important to society than the right to have multiple spouses.

    Until our society protects all individual rights, we will have no fabric of society, allowing the oligarchy of each generation to force their moral and social codes on the majority.

    Will the Supreme Court in another 50 years flip flop on this issue as they have just done? We’ll there be those that attempt to continuously repeal Roe vs Wade? Will the countless number of tax and spending polices continue until the entire middle class is bankrupt. Will the next social policy be, to allow government to enter our homes and businesses and confiscate our property without due process? I know, the government already does this!!!!! and just another example why individual rights are so important for a civil society. If we allow one right to be usurped, does it not appear to all that it opens the door for the usurpation of others?

    As a defender of individual rights, I am often attached by those who want to use force and coerce, police power on the majority into obeying their moral and social codes. To have a society where the protection of individual rights, is placed in the hands of a centrally controlled political system, just begs to have the rights of it’s citizens usurped. And if will do not protect all individual rights with equal force and vigor, those in power will continue to keep the majority in political and economic slavery. We cannot any longer allow politics to pick and choose which rights can be violated and which rights cannot. All rights must be considered unalienable and therefore inviolable and until we as a society agree that this is a truth, many in our society will continue to live in conflict and despair from the negative ramifications of our moral and social policies.

  18. Somebody help me here. What’s the practical difference between the guy who has one marriage license and multiple, live-in partners (polygamy) and the same guy who tries to get marriage licenses for all of his partners (bigamy) so that all of his partners may share equally in whatever benefits the law allows (legitimization of children, inheritance rights, etc.)? Why is the former now legal, but the latter remains illegal?

    Before anyone gets too crazy, I recognize that bigamy is usually committed for fraudulent ends. Please understand that bigamy in the above questions is meant to convey that all of the persons involved are aware of the circumstances of the purported marriages.

  19. Bron,

    The problem with that is that the subjective need not be (and often isn’t) rational or even based in reality. Morality is a subjective choice. Ethics are the dictate of objective reason. While some moral and ethical systems may share common goals, the law must be – to be effective and just long term – be based in the real. If you doubt this, look at the disastrous consequences of a legal system based primarily (sometimes solely) in moral dictates: theocracy.

    Morality needs to be left in the home and the church (if you have one). If someone thinks something is immoral, then they can abstain, but they have no business forcing their morality on others. Others who may not share their sense of morality. For example, if you find homosexuality morally objectionable? Don’t practice it. However, on an ethical level, it is unethical to deprive others of their liberty in practicing consensual behavior because your subjective morality objects. Ethics, in contrast to moral, can be universally formalized and tested. They don’t rely upon subjective choice, but on objective standards and logical delineations of behavior based in observation. As a foundation for legalism, there is no question as to which is the proper foundation.

  20. Speaking of Roe vs Wade, how cool would this be to have the decision placed into a constitutional amendment whereby any challenge to this law, now and forever, must be dismissed by any and all courts of law.

    Would this be possible??? On this issue. I think it is one of the rare court decisions, that has effectively dealt with this very complex and difficult subject. It is in my opinion as important as the 1st Amendment and we should take the time and energy to place this into law for all the world to see and hopefully follow. It would than take another constitutional amendment to repeal it and I don’t thing that this would every happen.

    The question is, do we have the ability to enshrine it into history.

  21. Professor, I found your article here rather confusing. You are using a rather narrow definition of the word “morality” without offering us your definition. Most dictionaries still define morality as principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. It appears that you are narrowing the definition of morality to concern itself only with crimes against oneself rather than crimes against others (e.g., morality concerning most forms of sexual behavior). The problem is that the dictionaries have not caught up with you on this peculiar usage.

    Following is an article about the definition of morality put out by Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

    It clearly includes a code of conduct put forward by society. Your article of faith outlined above (“the belief that morality is better left to parents than to politicians”) seems to be at odds with this kind of philosophical backdrop. Would you not agree that the law should present a clear moral code of conduct for all of society?

  22. davidm2575 – I have chosen to separate the distinction between ethics and morality. As individuals we each have our own moral code. The code that each of us chose to live our lives by. For instance, I choose to not take pharmaceutical drugs because they almost all have various contraindications and I choose not to date more than one women at a time. I have a bunch of other codes that I live by.

    How I treat others I consider to be ethics. As long as I do not harm other or their property, I should be left to do as I choose as they should be. I believe that it is impossible to have any sort of moral code for society. They’re are just to many individuals that have to many different moral codes to extrapolate and more important prove that a specific moral code is good or bad for society.

    Of course we can always continue to fight it out in the politically arena but I choose to protect individual rights and let people pursue their own happiness.

  23. @ProfTurley: “…polygamists who traditionally have one official marriage license and multiple spiritual licenses. …This decision legalizes tens of thousands of polygamous families who will no longer been viewed as criminal enterprises.”

    My objection to this legal “victory” is not on moral, but financial grounds.

    Every one of these polygamist “families” – at least here in Arizona – is supported by the taxpayer. Because the “spiritual wives” have no legal husbands and the children have no legal fathers, they successfully apply for, and receive, aid to dependent children, food and housing subsidies, and health care. How is taking hundreds of thousands of dollars from the state and federal governments to support this religious, personal life choice of pursuing liberty and happiness not a criminal enterprise?

  24. Zari:

    wouldnt making it legal prevent that from happening? Also couldnt the state go after the “deadbeat dad”?

    What implication does this have for Sharia Law?

  25. I am what might be described as a flaming liberal.

    That said, I have no problem with the concept that morality is the basis of our laws. In fact, I don’t know what else would be a better basis for laws than some concept of human decency, respect and fairness — all of which are part of morality.

    What we need to recognize is the need — from time to time — to take a look at what we view as moral, since opinions on morality can and do evolve and change over time.

    But if we do away with concepts of morality as a basis for lawmaking, what should we substitute?

    Should we now allow fathers to rape their young daughters because creating laws that do not allow fathers to rape their young daughters is a moral judgment on our part?

    What if some group of men form a cult or “religion” declare their “religious” right to beat their wives and children? Is that okay? Most of us find it repugnant that Sharia law permits such behavior; we make a moral judgment and write laws forbidding it.

    What if some parents decide to sell their young daughters to sex-slave traders? Does your sense of morality find anything wrong with that? Should we write laws forbidding the sale of our children and if so aren’t we making a moral judgment?

    A plural marriage is nothing more than a modern day version of a man with a harem: the women live to serve and please the man, the man has sexual relations with the women based on his own pleasure schedule while the women’s sexual needs or desires most often are not deemed relevant. If the man in a plural marriage decides he no longer wishes to have sex with one of his “wives,” she becomes in reality a maid with no legal rights. If the man decides he is tired of one of the later wives (not the one with a marriage license and wedding certificate) and wants her out of the house, does she have any legal right to alimony or child care or training so she can become self-supporting?

    I don’t give a hoot what men and women decide for themselves, but women in a plural marriage are kidding you and deluding themselves if they think they are in a good place.

  26. Nick, More neighborly?

    Jim Crow, orphan trains, child labor, no women’s sufferage, warehousing of the mentally ill, Tuskegee experiments, school segregation, Native American relocation, anti-Semitism. Guess it sorta depended on who your neighbors were.

  27. Bron, Bingo. I was talking about people..neighbors. Many people think only the government can make us more civilized. I say government is needed, but there’s a tipping point where it becomes a creator of dissension, distrust, incivility, not being neighborly, etc. We have reached that tipping point where government is a liability, not an asset. A recent Gallup poll says 72%, let me repeat that ..72%, of US citizens agree w/ that.

  28. Mark Twain on Mormon Women – 1861

    “I am not given to exaggeration, and when I say a thing I mean it.” Page 85
    Roughing It – Chapter 14, pages 97-98

    Our stay in Salt Lake City amounted to only two days, and therefore we had no time to make the customary inquisition into the workings of polygamy and get up the usual statistics and deductions preparatory to calling the attention of the nation at large once more to the matter.

    I had the will to do it. With the gushing self-sufficiency of youth I was feverish to plunge in headlong and achieve a great reform here—until I saw the Mormon women. Then I was touched. My heart was wiser than my head. It warmed toward these poor, ungainly and pathetically “homely” creatures, and as I turned to hide the generous moisture in my eyes, I said, “No–the man that marries one of them has done an act of Christian charity which entitles him to the kindly applause of mankind, not their harsh censure–and the man that marries sixty of them has done a deed of open-handed generosity so sublime that the nations should stand uncovered in his presence and worship in silence.”

    Mark Twain’s conclusion was validated independently.

    Liberty Weekly Tribune – April 17, 1863

  29. Skip wrote: “I have chosen to separate the distinction between ethics and morality.”

    The problem with doing this is that when you choose to have your own definition of words and then proceed to force that upon everyone else, none of it lines up with how the published dictionaries use the words. For example, the OED defines Ethics as “moral principles that govern a person’s or group’s behavior.” Certainly there are connotation differences in how these words are used, but the term “moral” has traditionally always been the broader meaning. Now we have legal professionals like Gene H and Jonathan Turley deciding on a very narrow meaning for the word moral, basically divorcing it from law making completely. That is just plain weird.

    Skip wrote: “How I treat others I consider to be ethics.”

    You have a personal code of ethics. Fine. But trying to say that the term “ethics” refers only to you personal code of ethics for how you treat others is inappropriate.

    Skip wrote: “They’re are just to many individuals that have to many different moral codes to extrapolate and more important prove that a specific moral code is good or bad for society.”

    Certainly the law should not micromanage all our affairs. We cannot bear that. But some laws can be agreed upon, such as not murdering your neighbor, not stealing from you neighbor, not lying to your neighbor, etc.

  30. Professor, I might also point out your shifting definition of the word “bigamy.” The OED defines bigamy as “the act of going through a marriage ceremony while already married to another person.” Wiktionary defines it as the state of having two (legal or illegal) spouses simultaneously. Notice how it recognizes “illegal” spouses (spouses not recognized by law but perhaps recognized by religion). Now you choose a rather narrow definition of bigamy as having two or more marriage licenses.

    Why is it that almost all these changes in laws regarding sexual morality involve hijacking words of the English language in order to change their meaning and usage? Gay no long means what it use to mean. Marriage no longer means what it use to mean. Morality no longer means what it use to mean. Now bigamy no longer means what it use to mean. It is almost like the tactic is to change the meaning of language in order to create enough confusion or doubt about what is being talked about so as to change the laws.

  31. Zari wrote: “Because the “spiritual wives” have no legal husbands and the children have no legal fathers, they successfully apply for, and receive, aid to dependent children, food and housing subsidies, and health care. How is taking hundreds of thousands of dollars from the state and federal governments to support this religious, personal life choice of pursuing liberty and happiness not a criminal enterprise?”

    Is your main objection because it is a religious reason? The Black community has about 70% of children being raised this way. They basically do the same thing, but without a religious reason. It is cultural. Do you object to them also doing this? There seems to be a big problem with the law.

    Maybe government would do better to help make sure people take care of their relatives and of their own rather than creating social programs that are abused. It should give organizational assistance and tax breaks to non-profits to create a social safety net and do less redistribution of wealth.

  32. Zari,
    Having only one marriage license does not prevent the biological father to be on any and all birth certificates and therefore legal financial responsibility for all of his children.

  33. Dredd,

    Notice how davidm2575 also observes that that the meaning of bigamy has been changed by our esteemed professor. davidm2575 quotes the OED. I now use wiktionary which squares with my recollection of Websters, etc. OED apparently defines bigamy as having two and no more plural marriages, one man and two women or one woman and two men. But Jonathan’s usage, even if modern, departs from the traditional meaning.

  34. Why don’t more respected legal experts use this same kind of reasoning to call for an end all victim less crimes? You know – drugs. prostitution. gambling etc.

    Must be a good, rational, logical reason, right NPRers?

  35. Nick and Bron, I’m pretty sure all those people at a lynching were “neighbors”.

    And oh yeah, sure, there were thousands of Mississippians protesting those Jim Crow laws just as all those men were going on hunger strikes in hopes that women would get the right to vote. And just look at all those “neighbors” screaming at the kids intergrating that school in that famous photograph.

    You two are in another universe. But hope you both get your wish and get to live in a country without a government. (Gee. Do you suppose all those folks who are hoarding all those guns ALSO look forward to the days of no government?) Happy Trails.

  36. rafflaw:

    Many men have their names on the birth certificates of their progeny but do not financially support those children. Maybe they can’t. Maybe they just don’t.

  37. My birth certificate lists my father as someone other than my father. Apparently my mother just made up a name so that it would be difficult or impossible to know who my biological father was. He never contacted me and though he was very well off, he never sent me a dime. Maybe he had an agreement with my mother because she claimed to be my aunt up til the day of my wedding. Neither left anything to me in their will. Both had valuable assets, just not the normal human kind.

  38. pdm, Replace all of the lynching w/ 600 murders in Chicago alone this year! And despicable numbers of violence like that occurs in every major city every year. You have a political, and in your Jim Crow example, regional agenda. I’m giving a historical perspective, you disagree based on lynching, so be it. I’m macro, you’re micro, c’est la vie.

  39. pdm, No, all the folks with guns are hoping for the day when they won’t need their guns to protect themselves from the tyranny of their own government. That they will only have to concern themselves primarily with fending off ordinary criminals which numbers should be reduced because government is no longer usurping their rights and even those who contemplate criminal activities, will be better off for it.

    We will than be able to organize militias, as we did against King George, to protect our land and people from foreign and domestic enemies, without the fear of the ruling oligarchy using standing armies for political and imperialistic reasons. You want to stop the many wars and the military industrial complex. This is how you do it and why our founding fathers installed the 2nd Amendment.

    If people think their ideas are so good, then you should be able to get enough people to voluntarily participate using persuasion instead of force and coercion. It is the force and coercion that is wrong and why so may resist. If you can create a political system that provides for the voluntary association of people, you will have millions of followers.

    The idea that you can expect any political system and its so-called representatives to protect individual rights, when they have, throughout the history of mankind, “constantly” usurped them, takes a much greater leap of faith than any individual has the legs for.

    When you legalize the initiation of force and coercion, what type of people do you think your going to get in power, Saints? No, sociopaths, liars, scammers and fascists and there is a long history of their convictions as evidence of this fact. Ninety percent of the words out of just about every politicians mouth is a lie.

    You think the rich are bad and are the cause of what is wrong in our world, Just study the history of Chicago and New Orleans political history and you will see what is really wrong with our world. Also remember, there is huge difference between just being rich and being part of the ruling oligarchy. Many pro athletes are rich, but they are not part of the ruling oligarchy. Tiger Woods may suffer from some infidelity, but he is not an evil person. Dick Chaney and George Bush in my opinion are however.

    Most people in government are first and foremost trying to protect their own self interests and thinking that this system and the people it attracts are going to protect individual rights, is unsupportable from every known human concept. Socialism and Communism doesn’t work for many reasons and ignoring the multitude of reasons will not make them go away.

    It’s not that you cannot get socialism and communism to work for a period of time, it is that it has always failed every society over the long term. The various political systems of the world used force and coercion to maintain the legalized slave trade, and finally enough people fought back to change it. The Citizens have been fighting against the tyranny of government for thousand of years. To stop now is a big mistake.

    Do not acquiesce or fall for the lies, misinformation and memes put out by the ruling oligarchy and the main stream media they control. Fox News, CNBC, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, & CBS, New York Times, the Washington Post and just about every major newspaper and periodical in our nations. Even Comedy Central attempts to persuade our world into exception socialist and communist policy.

    How could so many people in media be wrong. Part of if is ignorance and part of it is looking out after their own self interests, knowing that there is not much they can do anyway to change the system. The do what they are told, they don’t make waves and the get paid very well for their services. How much does someone like John Stewart earns to do his silly yet humorist rants?

  40. Hi Dale. Not only bigamy, but the meaning of the word “marry” also is being altered by this opinion. Previously the Utah Supreme Court has interpreted “marry” to mean either state sanctioned or non-state sanctioned marriage. This opinion puts a more narrow view upon the word “marry” by relying upon a dissent opinion of the Utah Supreme Court.

    An interesting analysis is offered by a Orin Kerr who is a colleague of Jonathan’s at George Washington University. He blogs over at the Volokh Conspiracy and summarizes this opinion in the following manner:

    “In other words, as reconstructed by the court, people who are married by the state already can’t get married a second time. But people who are already legally married are allowed to live with other people as if they are married to those other people, and to hold themselves out as being married to those other people, as long as they do not try to get married to those other people. At least, that’s what I think the court is saying. This isn’t an easy opinion to decipher.”

    http://www.volokh.com/2013/12/14/district-court-strikes-down-and-reconstructs-bigamy-law/

    My concern is that the twisting of the English language in order to accomplish political and legal changes smacks of some level of knavery concerning the true morality value of the actual underlying behavior.

  41. pdm:

    I dont want a country without government. I want a country which follows a program of individual rights for all and a limited scope for government which protects its citizens and supports individual rights.

    I might point out that most of the lynchings and Jim Crow laws were engaged in by democrats. I always wondered why the socialists chose the Democratic Party to infest. Maybe they were ripe for the picking since they didnt have a very good record on individual rights to begin with?

  42. davidm2575
    It just goes to show you, even the words and terms of society are at the whim of those in power at the time. It is the essence and reality of government.

    First of all, government should not be involved with anything except the protection of individual rights. I see no where in the Constitution where I’m required to get a government authorized marriage license. I have not married the one I love because I refuse to render to an unconstituted government. I suggest we all follow the actions of passive resistance, when we can garner the guts to do so.

  43. Bron,
    Government has always usurped the individual rights of their Citizens.

    Do you want me to go down the list of the current list of usurped individual rights and constitutional abrogations.

    Hoping that society can change something that has never occurred in 6,000 years is __________________?

  44. hskip:

    there are few things I agree with Tony and Gene H about but one is that human beings need government to protect their rights. I am for a very limited government as we had at the time of our founding. But some form of government is needed.

    You cant have an independent court system and police force and military. It would devolve into all against all with the strongest force being the maker of the rules. I think that is called dictatorship.

    Government gets out of hand because the people let it by giving government the power to tax and to spend on them. What is necessary is to educate people in doing for themselves rather than relying on government to cure all of their ills. Government should be the last resort before you want to kill yourself.

    A democracy needs a well educated population. Our history and the philosophical underpinnings of our Republic need to be taught in schools, the real history, not the watered down gibberish they teach today. What they teach today has a certain skew to it to send people looking to government to solve all of our problems.

    So I think you should re-evaluate your contention that we dont need government, I dont think it is a workable solution and I think it would lead to some sort of anarchy/totalitarian system.

  45. Skip says: I see no where in the Constitution where I’m required to get a government authorized marriage license.

    That is because the Constitution is not supposed to be a list of laws or Rights, it is sets out the rules for a Government to define such things. The framers of the Constitution did not specify Rights in the Constitution. That is why the Bill of Rights is a collection of Amendments, they were not ratified with the original document.

    The Constitution defines what shall be a valid law and what shall not. There is nothing in it that says you need a marriage license because that is not the place for such a requirement, it is a valid law passed in accordance with the rules of the Constitution.

    If you expect to see such things in the Constitution, you don’t understand the purpose of the Constitution. The whole point is to define the machinery for passing hundreds of thousands of laws, none of which are intended to be incorporated into the Constitution itself. There is a separate procedure for making such modifications, which is much different and with more stringent requirements than the procedures for passing regular laws or state laws.

    As I said before, you argue like a 5th grader.

  46. Tony C:

    I am guessing the requirement for a marriage license is found in the part on the census.

    But why do you need a marriage license from the state? You can write a contract and have it witnessed. Are we dogs? We need permission from the state to be married? That is pretty fked up if you ask me.

    Many of these laws are brought about from a misunderstanding of the philosophy upon which our country was founded or worse, a systematic destruction of that philosophy using the courts.

  47. Davidm2575,

    We must all concede that over time the precise definition of words change, change through usage as society changes. I was disappointed that Professor Turley used the term “bigamy” like it has always referred to the meaning he was giving it. It certainly has not! And he exposes some ignorance in his article, ignorance not contained in the opinion. I suspect that Professor Turley’s legal assistants and attorneys actually working this case know the difference and are a bit surprised that he does not.

    I doubt that the term bigamy is even contained in the opinion. So far I have read half of it and do not recall reading it. But is it long and memory can be short. The term referred to is polygamy. And the Plaintiffs wisely avoided any claim to have married more that one man to one original wife. The other wives are not plural wives, the old term used for polygamy, but spiritual wives. And this use of the term “spiritual” keeps them out of trouble and away from the concept of state licensed marriage and focuses the issue only on religious cohabitation. The judge makes this point quite clearly. And although some commentators claim that a Utah statute appears to recognize common law marriage via cohabitation, it appears not to apply to those who are otherwise ineligible to enter into a licensed marriage, i.e. those who are already legally married to one spouse.

    Most uses of the term bigamy refer to one man attempting to marry a second wife, often without either the first or second knowing about the other. Often those occur in different states such that licensing process does not turn up the first marriage. But occasionally a couple will think that they were divorced when they were not, often due to some delay, and then attempt prematurely to marry another partner. This usually results in the mistake being discovered and the divorce being completed, then the new marriages go forward. But if the mistake goes undiscovered, it is bigamy. Few accidental bigamists are prosecuted. I know of a case where the mistake was not discovered for years leading to the situation where the second marriage was never recognized and a marital community did not form. The spouse knowing of this “mistake” was compelled to treat the faulty marriage as valid and had to divide assets anyway. No sense rewarding someone who knowingly makes a mistake. This clearly is not an area of law familiar to Professor Turley. Yet he is a great attorney. If I recall correctly one such case was Marvin v Marvin, Actor Lee Marvin’s case.

  48. Bron says: But why do you need a marriage license from the state?

    I don’t think that is a material question. The state has an implicit right to make law, and does, the justification for any individual law was presumably convincing to the elected officials that passed it, or refrained from opposing it. Also, there is nothing about marriage in the census provision.

    Bron says: Many of these laws are brought about from a misunderstanding of the philosophy upon which our country was founded.

    No, you misunderstand the philosophy upon which our country is founded, because you want to believe it is about absolute and unfettered freedom. It wasn’t. In both the Declaration and the Constitution the founding fathers believed very strongly in regulation and laws and governance. The King refusing to let them pass local laws to govern themselves was a chief complaint.

    The Constitution doesn’t say anything at all about restraining the size of government. It specifically gives the Congress the Power to lay and collect taxes (Article I, section 8) so certainly the founding fathers expected them to do so. Also in that section, to borrow money and to regulate the value of money, so they expected that to happen, too.

    Also in that section to establish a national Post Office and Post Roads, which I note is is an endorsement of an explicitly socialistic government operation that is in direct competition with private for-profit letter and package carrying services. The founding fathers believed in their government supplying common services on the grounds that essentially everybody needed them.

    All of that is evidence that it is you that misunderstands the founders. They believed in government, funded by taxes, both borrowing money and controlling its value, and performing services for citizens.

  49. Dale wrote: “I doubt that the term bigamy is even contained in the opinion. So far I have read half of it and do not recall reading it.”

    The term bigamy is used a lot in the opinion. Keep in mind that bigamy is simply a starting place for polygamy. Bigamy literally means “twice married” whereas polygamy literally means “often marrying.” So using the term “polygamy” traditionally has implied bigamy.

  50. Bron wrote: “But why do you need a marriage license from the state? You can write a contract and have it witnessed. Are we dogs? We need permission from the state to be married?”

    You are being seduced into the false thinking that marriage is simply a contract. Marriage defines a family relationship: husband-wife, father-daughter, father-son, mother-daughter, mother-son, etc. Each relationship has obligations and duties toward each other. The law is involved to safeguard these. Dead-beat dads don’t get away with failing on their obligations. Property is fairly shared. The license is a step in making sure those about to enter into marriage are qualified to do so. This is one reason why a blood test often is involved in getting the license.

  51. Dale, who cares whether it is called bigamy, polygamy or stupidity. People should be left to live their lives as they see fit, as long as they do not take away the rights of others. Is that not basically the golden rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you? Do you want your neighbor stealing from you or forcing you to live life a certain way?

    I don’t understand why so many people wish to force or coerce others into obeying what they believe. Live you own life as you please and try to influence others with knowledge, wisdom and common sense. If you have good ideas others will follow, if they are bad ideas, they will not.

    Sea Shepard’s apparently does a good job as people contribute $million to that Corporation. People must be happy with products from WalMart, as million of people buy their goods and services. Apparently their shareholders are pretty happy also. Obviously, we need to increase wages but that is not just with WalMart, that is a systemic problem within the private sector, plaguing most socialist and communist countries.

    Do you want Muslins, Jews, atheist, Hindu’s, Christian’s, socialist or communists telling you how to live your life? Then don’t tell them how to live their lives.

    One day perhaps the world will learn some truth that combines the powers and love of the human spirit to live in harmony. But until such time, we cannot as human being continue to allow the initiation of force and coercion to be legalized based on some majority or authoritarian rule. However we can accept voluntary associations and the protection of individual rights as our basis of a rule of law.

    Do we believe in the golden rule or not. Either we obey it for all or we can continue to have a free for all, were the rule of law is control by those with the most political power and money. I think the choice is a no brainer.

  52. Skip says: Live you own life as you please and try to influence others with knowledge, wisdom and common sense. If you have good ideas others will follow, if they are bad ideas, they will not.

    And when that doesn’t work, and the people I am trying to influence with knowledge, wisdom and common sense insist upon beating me, enslaving me for their profit, stealing from me and coercing me? What then? Accept my fate? Preach to them, even though that doesn’t work?

    My good idea, based on knowledge, wisdom, and common sense, is that we can collectively protect ourselves from those that would kill us, enslave us, steal from us, rape us, defraud us, exploit us, or harm us for their own greed. People like you, Skip.

  53. Tony C. The US government is no longer lawfully constituted and therefore all the States are operating outside the law. Nor was government ever given the authority to regulate marriage. The right to contract, happiness or not and association are unalienable rights protected by the 1st and 9th Amendments.

  54. Skip: You are wrong. Governmental authority is derived from the people. Government has the authority to regulate marriage for the same reason government has the authority to regulate murder, theft, assault, fraud, or anything else: The people gave it the authority to regulate. You won’t find its authority to outlaw rape or murder in there, either, but it has that authority.

  55. @davidm2575

    Keep your religion out of my peanut butter.

    No, blood tests are NOT often required to get a marriage license in the United States. In fact, no state or D.C. requires them. Mississippi was the last hold out, but it was repealed in 2012. The reason for the blood tests, which came into vogue during the beginning of the 20th century, was to stop the spread of disease by making sure infections such as rubella and syphilis would not affect child bearing women.

    While I know of no province in Canada that still requires medical exams (including blood tests), they are still required in most of Western Europe.

  56. Skip says: The US government is no longer lawfully constituted

    Ultimately no government is “lawfully constituted,” the word “lawfully” suggests laws are in place, and therefore a government is in place that can authorize the formation of … itself.

    Governments are either impositions of force by a dictator, strong man, King or Emperor or Religious authority, or they are agreements of a populace to abide by and enforce certain rules. In our case, that agreement was the Constitution, but it was not “lawful” because before it, no law existed by which to judge it lawful or unlawful. It was an agreement.

    You should not try to use words which you do not understand. For you, that is apparently most of them.

  57. Tony C. I have taken an oath my dear friend to protect your unalienable rights as well as my own. I wish that you would do the same for me. should I send you over the oath?

    You continually fail to acknowledge that the collective has become the usurper and that is the fatal flaw to all your arguments. When government no longer protects the unalienable rights of all it’s citizens, it is when a new government needs to be formed. And if we are unable to get a 2/3 vote of the Citizens, for a new constitution, it is better to live without one, than under the tyranny it has and will continue to render upon it’s Citizens.

  58. Skip says: Do we believe in the golden rule or not.

    Well, in accord with the golden rule, I would do unto others as I would have them do unto me: Coerce them to pay 50% of their income above $50K per year, in 2013 dollars, toward the common welfare, including subsidizing the poor, education, building and maintaining infrastructure, health care, defense and scientific research. I do not mind being subjected to that rule (and I would pay twice the taxes I do now) if all citizens are subjected to it as well. So sure; I believe in the Golden Rule. Let’s implement my plan, I will be coerced just like everybody else.

  59. ishobo wrote: “No, blood tests are NOT often required to get a marriage license in the United States.”

    Sorry, I meant WERE often required. Past tense. I fail to see what any of this has to do with religion or your peanut butter.

  60. Skip says: When government no longer protects the unalienable rights of all it’s citizens, it is when a new government needs to be formed.

    Here is the fatal flaw in YOUR argument: Who gets to say what the inalienable Rights are, Skip? By what authority? Your own? Some guy you like? Some God I do not believe in? Some dead philosopher I think is both dead and dead wrong? Why should I take your word for which Rights are inalienable? What makes you, by yourself, a better judge of my Rights than me, by myself?

    You cannot explain any of that, your idiotic “philosophy” is based upon nothing but empty rhetoric that is all about not wanting to be subjected to rules. Too bad, you don’t get that, because the very fact that you think it should be so proves you are so dumb we need rules to restrain you from harming the rest of us; you do not have the foresight to be left unsupervised.

  61. Skip wrote: “If you have good ideas others will follow, if they are bad ideas, they will not.”

    If only life really worked this way…

    Skip wrote: “Do we believe in the golden rule or not.”

    A significant number of people do not believe the golden rule, which is a big reason why we need government to punish those who do not live by the rule of love.

    Look at it this way. Without government, we cannot have a truly civilized society. Prosperity and progress comes through getting along with one another and working together. Government is the organizational framework for making that happen. The result is civilization rather than barbarism.

    Marriage is of public interest because it forms the basic building block of society, the family. There are numerous societal differences where the members are all just screwing around making babies irresponsibly with men not taking responsibility to raise families and societies where a man and woman commit to the child rearing process. It is impossible to pretend that marriage has no effect on relationships in society at large.

    In the case here, when wealthier men are allowed to maintain multiple wives, it has a different impact upon society than when marriage is restricted to one man and one woman.

    I fail to see how the simple rule, “let people just do whatever they want” is sufficient. At one level, we need the law to address it, but at another level, we still have to make moral judgments about the expediency of behavior otherwise still judged to be legal.

  62. Tony C:

    Did the Constitution prohibit private mail carriers? I am assuming the founders wanted to have a connected nation and figured the government would be the only entity able to do that at the beginning.

    The Articles of Confederation did make the government the “sole and exclusive” power to deliver mail. The founders took sole and exclusive out of the Constitution. As for taxes, they were never meant to be collected on labor, as it was it took 125 years of legal machinations to pass that dubious amendment.

    And as far as roads go, Madison canned the idea of using federal money to build canals in New York because the people of Georgia would not use them.

    So I submit, it is you who has a poor understanding of our history and founding and the principles behind our Republic. It certainly isnt socialism or any form of tyranny for that matter.

  63. DavidM: No, people are the source of law. Society is the source of law. Not some imaginary being you only know of because some human told you about it, themselves informed by some human, going back so far that you have zero evidence or proof that your imaginary being was ever anything but a fraud perpetrated on others for power.

  64. Bron, Yet when I ask the IRS, tax attorneys, CPAs and everyone else I could think of, not one person has ever been able to tell me the name of the Act and what year it was passed, that requires a Citizens of the 50 States and th4e United States of America a Federal Individual Income Tax. If the IRS refuses to provide us the law, I would suggest that nobody else will be able to as well.

  65. Bron says: Did the Constitution prohibit private mail carriers?

    I have never claimed that socialism requires exclusivity of the Government. In fact I have noted that Norway has socialized medicine but allows competition from private hospitals and clinics, which are successful despite competing against free health care, because they emphasize service, privacy and luxuries that the free system does not provide (and should not provide, in my view).

    Madison had a valid argument, but one person does not speak for all founders. The founders collectively believed in government providing services that all people could use. Federal money that favored one state over another is NOT something that all people could use. Roads in every state ARE, and health care for all would be too.

    It makes no difference if the founders agreed on a labor tax. They agreed that the Constitution could be amended by future generations to reflect environments and circumstances they could not possibly envision, and that is what happened: Not “machinations,” but the 16th Amendment that made it legal.

  66. Skip wrote: “Yet when I ask the IRS, tax attorneys, CPAs and everyone else I could think of, not one person has ever been able to tell me the name of the Act and what year it was passed, that requires a Citizens of the 50 States and th4e United States of America a Federal Individual Income Tax.”

    I don’t know who you are asking, but you are starting to sound like Wesley Snipes. That kind of thinking landed him in prison.

    The law is the Internal Revenue Code, known as Title 26 of the United States Code. Sections 1, 61, and 63 impose the tax. Section 6012 requires us to file a tax return. Section 6072 requires us to file on or before April 15.
    http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/26

  67. Tony C wrote: “Not “machinations,” but the 16th Amendment that made it legal.”

    I’m with Bron on this one. The 16th Amendment broke the Constitution and opened the path to tyranny. Without the money, the corruption would cease to exist.

  68. Too bad the courts disagreed with you and Bron in every challenge to the 16th since it was ratified in 1913, David.

    Also, the tyranny of money does not come from taxation.

    To think that is simplistic, wrong and shows a deep lack of understanding on the causality of corruption.

    The tyranny of money – corruption – is rooted in the campaign finance and lobbying systems that allows corporations and the wealthy to manipulate pols like finger puppets.

    But taxation? In the form of income tax? Is perfectly constitutional. 120 plus years of jurisprudence tells me so.

  69. Gene H wrote: “Too bad the courts disagreed with you and Bron in every challenge to the 16th since it was ratified in 1913, David. … But taxation? In the form of income tax? Is perfectly constitutional.”

    You don’t seem to understand my position at all. I never said that the 16th Amendment was unconstitutional. The 16th Amendment broke an otherwise good constitution. Prior to the 16th Amendment, it was unconstitutional for Congress to tax the people directly. Such was left to the power of the States. The proper ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1913 changed that. Now direct taxation is constitutional, but that doesn’t mean that it is a good law. It means we now have a broken federal constitution.

    What the 16th Amendment did was move power to the federal government. Now the people are taxed more heavily by the federal government than they are by local and state government. The local and state governments go to the federal government asking for the money to do what they need. Such has increased bureaucracy in the local and state governments by causing them to rely upon grant writing in order to receive more tax money for their projects. This is completely opposite to the way the country was originally designed to work. Previously, the States were more autonomous and held the purse strings. Now, since the 16th Amendment, a path of corruption exists because the root of the corruption is the love of money.

    Concerning campaign finance and lobbying, that is just part of democracy. Wealthy people have more power than poor people regardless of what government does. No legislation is ever going to change that unless you get rid of the doctrine of equality and equal suffrage and move toward more fascist and authoritative government. Unless you are ready to take away from the wealthy their rights simply because they are wealthy, they have a right to vote with their money, and because they have more money, their voice will be heard louder by those in power who love money.

    Ultimately it all comes down to the love of money. As long as the federal government has this enormous income stream of some $3 trillion, the people who love money will flock to get a piece of it, and the rulers over us will have hearts corrupted by money. Take away the money, and the people who love money will not flock to become politicians. At least some of the political leaders will not be corrupt politicians but noble leaders who serve for reasons other than money.

  70. I understand your opinion about the16th, David.

    It’s simply not rooted in the reality of Constitutional jurisprudence or in the reality of taxation (especially on the wealthy).

    As for your gibberish about “the love of money”? That’s really funny considering you’ve just advocated against equal (and therefor universal) suffrage. And by “funny” I mean hugely hypocritical that you whine about the love of money being the root of all evil and yet you’d give the wealthiest more votes than everyone else.

    Pssst!

    Your black shirt is showing.

  71. DavidM says: Without the money, the corruption would cease to exist.

    It is the politicians that are corrupt, it is politicians that break their sworn oaths to protect and serve and instead act in their own selfish interest. They don’t do that for tax money, they do it for personal gain derived from private fortunes, usually private fortunes run by people that want to avoid paying their fair share of taxes and shift that burden to citizens instead. Or rich private commercial enterprises that do not want to compete fairly for legitimate projects to be funded by tax money. Or rich private commercial enterprises that do not want to pay for the harm they are causing to the rest of us in their pursuit of profit.

    The corruption is not about the money, it is about the greed of the rich that would rather pay 3% of their income in bribes to criminal politicians than 30% of their income as their fair and responsible share of taxes to the society that makes their income and fortune possible in the first place.

    The corruption is about the free riders, the greedy criminals avoiding their responsibility and duty to others that want to deprive us and harm us for profit without consequences. It is the squatters that exploit the free services and protections of our country for massive profits without paying their fair share of those profits to their landlord and partner: We the people.

    It isn’t about the level of money in the government; about 80% of that money is legitimately necessary to perform the functions and provide the benefits we the people have long decided we want our government to perform and provide.

  72. We may feel strongly for or against a law or a reg, but while we argue our position the one thing we can’t do is get stupid.

    Below is just one of many cases I’ve seen where the people felt strongly, but these people got stupid & of course the govt stepped in & put them in prison.

    IE:

    Elaine Brown gets 35 years in prison for standoff
    October 2nd, 2009

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jNFgaorE2z9cYaXyjNlc0rQtQznQD9B32QK80

    By HOLLY RAMER (AP)

    CONCORD, N.H. — A New Hampshire woman sentenced to 35 years in prison Friday for plotting to kill federal agents during a nine-month standoff at her fortress-like home said she will continue to fight government corruption from behind bars.

    At her sentencing hearing, Elaine Brown said the judge’s decision mattered little to her given her age and beliefs.

    “I’m 68 years old. I don’t have much time left on this Earth. But I have no doubt I will spend eternity with my husband and a myriad of others who have fought tyranny and oppression,” she said, pausing several times to clear her throat but maintaining a defiant tone.

    She and her husband, Ed, holed up in their 110-acre compound in Plainfield in early 2007 after being sentenced to five years in prison for tax evasion. They were arrested nine months later by federal agents posing as supporters, and were convicted in July on a variety of weapons and conspiracy charges.

    Brown insisted that she and her husband were being punished for nothing more than civil disobedience and “daring to challenge and question this massive government.”

    “Our state motto is ‘Live free or Die,’ which is what we proclaimed over and over during our resistance,” she said. “I will always resist.”

    The sentence fell between the 30 years plus one month the defense requested and the 41-44 years the prosecution sought.

    Judge George Singal rejected Brown’s civil disobedience argument, saying she was not engaged in principled dissent to laws she believed to be unjust.

    “Let’s not be fooled,” he said. “The conduct engaged in by Mrs. Brown was purely criminal conduct. It was a threat to kill without a trial, without a hearing.”

    One of the charges — possession of destructive devices — carried a mandatory minimum sentence of 30 years in prison. Defense attorney Bjorne Lange argued that adding just one more month to that sentence would have been sufficient, saying there was no evidence Brown handled any of the weapons or explosives, other than the handgun she was holding when arrested.

    Lange also urged the judge to take into account Brown’s past: she worked her way through dental school, raised two children and had no brushes with the law until her arrest on the tax evasion charges.

    “They want you to look at what happened at the time of the offense and say that’s the sum of Elaine Brown,” said Lange, who also requested the lower sentence in part because no one was hurt during the standoff.

    Assistant U.S. Attorney Arnold Huftalen countered that the only reason no one got hurt was because the U.S. Marshal Service was so patient, ignoring requests from him and others to end the standoff earlier.

    “To stand before you now and say ‘Please be compassionate because I didn’t get the opportunity to kill anyone,’ is a statement I think should cause the court to look in the opposite direction,” he said.

    The prosecutor described the weapons strewn about the couple’s home — 22 pipe bombs and a 50 caliber rifle in the bedroom alongside Elaine Brown’s stuffed animal collection. Bulletproof vests and ammunition in the closet with the jigsaw puzzles. An explosive device on the jelly cupboard in the kitchen.

    The handgun Brown carried was capable of killing 17 people without reloading, Huftalen said, and there was a fanny pack full of extra bullets on the kitchen table.

    Brown may have raised her own children well, but she also “mothered” supporters who were drawn to the home, Huftalen said, including a 21-year-old who is now serving 20 years in prison for his role in the standoff.

    “This was her house. Mr. Brown was certainly seen as the patriarch, but she was there. She ran it, she financed it … and she encouraged people to come in,” he said.

    During the couple’s second trial, Ed Brown testified that the weapons were for self defense and that explosives in the woods around the home were to scare intruders, not harm them. But in a radio interview during the standoff, he said if authorities came in to kill him or arrest him “the chief of police in this town, the sheriff, the sheriff himself will die. This is war now, folks.”

    His sentencing has been delayed while he undergoes a psychiatric evaluation to determine his competency.

    http://freethebrowns.com/

  73. Tony C wrote: “The corruption is not about the money, it is about the greed of the rich that would rather pay 3% of their income in bribes to criminal politicians than 30% of their income as their fair and responsible share of taxes to the society that makes their income and fortune possible in the first place.”

    It’s not about the money, but about greed? I’m not following your line of thought here. Greed about something other than money?

    The United States already has the most progressive tax system in the world which penalizes the rich more than any other country. Yet, its effect on benefits to the poor is not as effective as those that have a more equitable tax system.

    America’s taxes are the most progressive in the world. Its government is among the least.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/05/americas-taxes-are-the-most-progressive-in-the-world-its-government-is-among-the-least/

    Your perspective about what is a legitimate role of government is completely different from mine and at least half of the citizens of this great country. Furthermore, you under-represent the tax rate. The upper federal tax rate for those earning over $400,000 is 39.6%. Add in State and local taxes, and the tax rate is well over 50% for somebody living in a state like California. You consider that a fair share, but I do not. In my opinion, the government really doesn’t need much more than about 10% of our income to perform legitimate functions of government. The plethora of examples of wasteful spending in government is clear proof that they have too much money.

    To gauge what is considered a reasonable tax rate, imagine writing a check to your next door neighbor for the amount of the tax. I do not think that writing a check for half your income and handing it to your next door neighbor to spend as he deems most beneficial for everybody is a fair share.

    I was surprised when you posted previously that an IRS audit is not abusive. Most business owners consider it abusive to have the government come in and do an audit. I personally have never experienced an IRS audit, but I would suppose it would bother me quite a bit to have people coming into my office scouring over records for four or five days, trying to find some mistakes made somewhere that would result in me having to pay even more taxes. I wouldn’t like having to pay people to assist them in that endeavor either. I’m trying to run a business and I don’t need that kind of expense, hassle and disruption in my business.

  74. Tony C. wrote: The corruption is about the free riders, the greedy criminals avoiding their responsibility and duty to others that want to deprive us and harm us for profit without consequences. It is the squatters that exploit the free services and protections of our country for massive profits without paying their fair share of those profits to their landlord and partner: We the people.

    Tony, corruption has nothing to do with profits or free riders. You just make crap up. Corruption is using fraudulent accounting schemes, to make a corporation look profitable when it is not. Corruption is politicians and bureaucrats taking kickbacks from government contractors. Corruption is enforcing a personal income tax that has never been passed by the Legislative process. Corruption is over billing the government for products or services rendered. Corruption is Bernie Madoff. Corruption is the cover up of what really happened on September 11, 2001 Corruption is the unlawful usurpation of individual rights guaranteed by our Constitution. Corruption is socialists and fascists who lie, cheat, mislead, distort, extort and support the ongoing unlawful and fraudulent initiation of force and coercion by government for person gain.

  75. DavidM: It isn’t about the money we pay, it is about the greed of those, like you, that do not want to pay what they are required to pay.

    The rich do not pay the top income tax rate, the vast majority of their income is capital gains tax. Mitt Romney is an example, his tax returns show he pays about 14% on his actual income for the year. Warren Buffett is another example that has shared his tax returns and pays about the same. The rich pay LESS as a percentage of their actual income than the middle class (people earning under $250K per year) pays. The actual richest “legal persons” in the USA, the largest multi-national corporations, can use loopholes in our tax system to pay zero taxes on income earned in the USA.

    Norway charges the wealthy higher taxes than the USA, as a percentage of income, and their tax system offers no escape; while ours offer myriad forms of avoidance, all of which I consider corruptions of the system.

    The problem is not the inflow of money to the government, or 80% of the outflow of money from the government, both of those are things of which we the people approve by super-majority. The problem is the greed of those that do not want to pay their share, and corrupt politicians to change the tax code so they won’t have to pay their share.

    DavidM says: Your perspective about what is a legitimate role of government is completely different from mine and at least half of the citizens of this great country.

    Bullshit. Social Security and Medicare have over a 70% approval rate among all voting age citizens. The idea of having a “strong national defense” system has something like a 95% approval rating. The idea of rules and regulations about safety applying to ingestibles (food and medicine) is nearly universal; rules and regulations on product safety, building safety, and road safety are nearly universal as well. The vast majority of the country agrees. Your beliefs are in the minority.

    DavidM says: I do not think that writing a check for half your income and handing it to your next door neighbor to spend as he deems most beneficial for everybody is a fair share.

    This is a ridiculously cartoonish representation of what happens; but for the sake of argument, why are you the only one handing somebody a check? Doesn’t some neighbor hand you a check as well?

    But your individual neighbor is not your partner; your partner in your enterprise is all of society, past, present, and future. Other citizens built the roads you use, other citizens died protecting your freedom, other citizens built the bridges, drainage systems, traffic controls and freeways you use. Other citizens paid to have the buildings you frequent inspected for safety and stability. Other citizens paid to have the products in your home inspected to not kill you are burn your house down. Other citizens paid to have your medicines inspected so you would not be defrauded, and to reduce the risk of them killing you. Other citizens built the courthouses and postal service and pay the police and judges that keep you safe and enforce your contracts; even if you never need them it is your freedom to use them and the threat of their participation that keeps you from being a victim of fraud or breach of contract, and other citizens provide that to you.

    I could go on, but your environment as a whole is provided by other citizens, you were born into it and are apparently so stupidly self-centered that you think it should all be free to you. You do not owe your taxes to a specific neighbor, you owe your taxes to society as a whole, because society as a whole is the partner in your business that creates an economic environment and handles all the behind-the-scenes work that makes your business even possible to execute.

  76. At what point do the Citizens of a nation fight back against tyrannical government? As I’ve pointed out there is 100% proof that the IRS, DOJ and Justices are fraudulently enforcing the Federal Individual Income Tax. See what happens when you defy fascism.

    There is a better way to fight them and their fraudulent actions.

  77. David, are you suggesting that only the institution of government can mitigate our differences, prosecute crime and provide justice? I think that you might want to reassess your opinion. There have been numerous times in history when justice was privately administered. The entire code of trade law adopted by most governments today was created by private enterprise and voluntary association; the Law Merchant. The US adopted it as the Universal Commercial Code (UCC).

  78. davidm2575,
    1. What is the name of the Act that Congress passed that created the so called Federal Individual Income Tax and what year was it passed?

    2. Why do you think that Title 26 is not Positive Law?

    Answer the two questions and be specific; the world is waiting. Do not dodge the questions either, by going into such issues as prima fascia law because the issue is really moot. Congress has never passed a Federal Statute requiring Citizens, as individuals of the 50 States to pay a Federal Personal Income tax on their individual labor. If they had, would not this law be splattered across every IRS document and we know how many IRS documents there are?

    Remember David, I’m quite aware of the corruption, as Tony C. defines it, that especially the Federal Judges are doing. As an IRS agent once told a friend of mine at a meeting, Mr. __________, you may be correct, but that is not how the game is played.

    Joe Bannister, by the way, is an ex-IRS Special Agent. He was prosecuted and won a major case against the IRS, so people can win.

    Please though remember, I do not suggest fighting the IRS, unless you have a lot of knowledge and a lot of testicular fortitude. The system is way passed corrupt. Like I said it is no longer a lawfully constituted government and they get away with just about anything they want. Just remember it is really just your money they want, and everything else, as that IRS agent stated, is just the game.

  79. Davidm2575 & Gene H. — The 16th Amendment was never properly ratified. Two guys Bill Benson and M.J. Beckman in the early 1980’s went to all the State Capitals involved in the process at the time, and got certified copies of all the documents relating to the amendment including the vote counts, the amendment that was passed, or not passed, etc. They published all the documents in a two volume book called “The Law That Never Was” in 1985. It provides 100% evidence that the 16th amendment was “NOT” properly ratified. What the book shows is that the number of required States either did not pass the amendment at all, or they changed the reading of the amendment they passed. Note that the required number of States must pass the amendment, exactly as written and passed by the other States. If you can get copies of the hard bound volumes, they likely will someday be worth their weight in gold.

    The ruling oligarchy has worked long and hard at abrogating the U.S. Constitution. Thinking that they are looking out for the best interest of the majority with such polices, is very naïve. As Jimmy Carter is reported to have said; An Income Tax is a Disgrace to the Human Race.

    As you said David, the 16th amendment however is really moot in most situations, because the Supreme Court ruled on various occasions, that it gave Congress no new taxing authority and that it was not meant as a tax on private labor in a individual capacity. What is does tax is labor in a corporate capacity and that is clearly shown in the Congressional records on the various debates and discussions. A corporation is taxable on the profits of labor. However, and here is where the confusion exists, if you go to the IRS Code (IRC) you will find that the employees of Railroads are taxable even in their individual capacity. The key is that Subtitle A applies to employees of corporations domiciled in the District of Columbia. In this case, DC is acting as a State, making the so called Federal Personal Income tax really a State Income Tax and why Title 26 is not positive law, Federally. It is interesting that it is difficult to find that actually name of the so called tax. Goggle it and see.

    So Congress is not bound by the same Constitutional limitations when legislating for the District of Columbia as when it is legislating for the 50 States, as the Supreme Court has ruled. Of course that is arguable. DC is surely it’s own jurisdiction in addition to being the Government of the United States and there are various State Government buildings in DC as evidence. A Supreme Court case also confirms this. There are at least 5 different definitions of the United States in the IRC. All that one must do is examine the definition of the United States, to see if a specific law applies to you. They don’t make the evaluation easy though. If you don’t believe me, try finding the Federal Statute and when it was passed because if you can, you will place a huge nail in the coffin of the Tax Honesty movement.

    It has been clearly shown how the IRS is fraudulently enforcing the Federal Personal Income Tax against most Citizens. Sadly the Judges, the US Department of Justice and the IRS are all involved in the enforcement and cover up of the truth which is another reason why our nation is no longer a lawfully constituted government. To many unlawful abrogations have occurred that thwart the intent of the Constitution and instead of properly ratifying it, the oligarchy chooses to commit insurrection and they will retaliate or ignore any challenges to their power.

    Happy Holiday everyone. Hopefully I didn’t just put a lump of coal in your stocking. Everyone should know all this stuff already. All the statutes and Supreme Court cases are their for all to verify. A number of IRS agents have even jumped ship when shown the evidence.

  80. Tony C. In relation to being formally Constituted. Our nation did go through an extensive formal process starting with petitions for redress of grievances, than the Declaration of Independence. The British of course, choose to retaliate bla bla bla and then we created a Confederacy of States, than a Constitution, ratified by the States and the people. It’s formally constituted, based on the best system they had at the time and better than anything since.

    We surely can argue the lawful issues of any derived legal authority, as Lysander Spooner did. I may argue for anarchy, but I would surely except, a formally and lawfully constituted government over what we have now. My contention is that we have had so many illegally contrived abrogations, that the Constitution for all intents and purposes is moot.

    The ruling oligarchy will use it when it favors them and ignore it when it does not. The like to give us little piece offering, now and then, like this case, to continue the illusion that they are continuing the lawful execution of our Constitution. They really only want our money and to quell dissention, so they can get as much money as possible. They appear to care less about anyone or anything else. That my friend is also corruption and one I do not care to be a part of.

  81. Tony C. wrote: “Here is the fatal flaw in YOUR argument: Who gets to say what the inalienable Rights are, Skip? By what authority? Your own? Some guy you like? Some God I do not believe in? Some dead philosopher I think is both dead and dead wrong? Why should I take your word for which Rights are inalienable? What makes you, by yourself, a better judge of my Rights than me, by myself?”

    I will protect “all” your unalienable rights, no matter what, how or who you think you derive them from. I do not want to choose what rights you wish to utilize nor do I care who are where you derive them from.

    The acceptance of unalienable rights is really just a contract or agreement amongst “enlightened” people, just as our Constitution attempted. Adams suggested “the Great Legislator in the Sky” as the authority. He was of course, as a Unitarian, being cleaver with his words, as not to offend others. Any though of a higher power is a merely just a system of faith and as we know, they cannot be proven to be valid or invalid. You cannot prove there is a God nor can you prove there isn’t. Even if I see God or talk to him, do I really know if it is him and should anyone believe me? If I have not, does that make me unworthy? What can I say, I like contract law, but it must be voluntarily entered into, for me to accept it’s conditions.

    It’s like trying to prove that there is no federal individual income tax law. You can’t prove something doesn’t exist, you can only prove it does exist.

  82. Skip says: I will protect “all” your unalienable rights, no matter what, how or who you think you derive them from.

    I see. So if I think I have an inalienable right to murder somebody for insulting me, or beating them mercilessly with a baseball bat when they disagree with me, or if I think I have an inalienable right to coerce somebody to work in my fields for nothing but food, you will support that.

    Either you are lying, or I have no desire to be enslaved or murdered by what you consider an “inalienable” right under your own authority. In either circumstance, I reject your definition.

  83. Tony C wrote: “It isn’t about the money we pay, it is about the greed of those, like you, that do not want to pay what they are required to pay.”

    Why do you assume that my motive is greed? My motive is simply efficiency, reducing waste, and enabling all of society to have a better life rather than being enslaved by government. I would pay more to have smaller government, but unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way.

    Tony C wrote: “The rich do not pay the top income tax rate, the vast majority of their income is capital gains tax.”

    You are mixing apples and oranges now. I was talking about income tax, and now you are talking about a tax on gains from investing money.

    DavidM wrote: “Your perspective about what is a legitimate role of government is completely different from mine and at least half of the citizens of this great country.”

    Tony C wrote: “Bullshit. Social Security and Medicare have over a 70% approval rate among all voting age citizens.”

    Changing the subject again. Nothing but sophistry from you lately. About half of the country think our taxes are too high. See the following Gallup poll:
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/1714/taxes.aspx

    DavidM wrote: “I do not think that writing a check for half your income and handing it to your next door neighbor to spend as he deems most beneficial for everybody is a fair share.”

    Tony C wrote: “This is a ridiculously cartoonish representation of what happens; but for the sake of argument, why are you the only one handing somebody a check? Doesn’t some neighbor hand you a check as well?”

    Perhaps so, but the point is who do you trust more to make your money go further? The person who earned the money or your neighbor who did not earn it? As your earnings get larger, the analogy gets more problematic because the check you write will likely be much larger than the check you get from your neighbor to spend on what is beneficial for the community. It can be entirely likely in today’s scenario that you had your neighbor a check for $30,000 at the end of the year, and then because of tax credits to your poor neighbor, you have to write him another check for $2,000 for tax credits earned and you never receive a check from anybody. In your mind, that is fair, but not everybody thinks the same way. We all know that the check you write to your neighbor for his tax credits for being poor will be spent well, right?

    Tony C wrote: “I could go on, but your environment as a whole is provided by other citizens, you were born into it and are apparently so stupidly self-centered that you think it should all be free to you.”

    Not so. You know full well that I believe in taxes. I just think they are too high. All the infrastructure you mention can be done with much less. When I see the government spending millions on buildings in other countries that are not being used, and when I see airplanes ordered that will never be used, and government conventions where the shrimp cocktail costs $4 per shrimp, and Congressmen being driven around by chauffeurs in limousines, etc., I have a sneaking suspicion that government has too much money.

  84. Skip wrote: “As I’ve pointed out there is 100% proof that the IRS, DOJ and Justices are fraudulently enforcing the Federal Individual Income Tax.”

    I must have missed that memo.

  85. Skip wrote: “David, are you suggesting that only the institution of government can mitigate our differences, prosecute crime and provide justice?”

    No. What I am saying is that societies that develop a government with good laws to take over the management of these functions do better than societies that leave such matters solely in the hands of individuals. For example, compare a nation like the United States with tribal societies in Africa or India, or compare a country like England or Spain of the 17th century with the American Indian societies in America.

  86. Tony, I didn’t decide the definition of what an inalienable right is. That has been longer established and it is the foundation of our Constitution. Their goal was to protect unalienable rights by setting up a government to accomplish this. They thought by giving government specific and limited duties it would effectively limit the potential undesirably activities. That this would protect the Citizens from the every reaching powers they had experienced under King George.

    You wrote: “I see. So if I think I have an inalienable right to murder somebody for insulting me, or beating them mercilessly with a baseball bat when they disagree with me, or if I think I have an inalienable right to coerce somebody to work in my fields for nothing but food, you will support that.”

    That is not what a right is. A right is exactly the opposite. The things you noted above would be taking away their rights.

    Doesn’t a person have the right to be secure in their person and property? Should we not have the right to go out into the world and do as we see fit in order to survive, hopefully prosper and be happy, as long as we do not deprive others of their unalienable rights?

    If individuals and groups can go around stealing my property, beat me with a bat, or enslave me, how could I ever have security and happiness.

    You have the “right” to go out in society and as long as you do not harm others, or their property, you may enter in contracts, associate with Muslims, fascist and communists, you may provide products or services to others as long as you do not coerce, defraud or harm them or their property. Some call any such action, as the “initiation or force”. If someone initiates force against you, you have the “right” to defend yourself against them. The world has adopted these principles both of not harming others but also of protecting yourself from being harmed by others.

    Pollution is even protected by unalienable rights, as would not that be harming someone if they are exposed to air, water, soil or radiation pollution.

    We might want to define a right as the absence of the initiation of force or an agreement in which to not harm others or their property unless they are initiating force or fraud against you first; self defense.

    “If we do not have a consensus of what ‘rights’ are, there is little chance our free society will survive.” – Ron Paul, 1988.

    An individual right is the same thing by the way as an unalienable right. Some consider civil rights as those granted by government. My understanding is that government has not rights therefore it cannot grant something it does not have itself. Only individuals can have rights. The only rights that a group could possibly have is those that it’s gets from the individuals involved. The group, just as each individual within the group, cannot initiate force or fraud against others.

    I think that it is important to also attempt to understand what our founding fathers especially someone like Jefferson who used the phrase “unalienable rights” in the Declaration of Independence, thought. Most people also deem both inalienable and unalienable as being the same. There are plenty of stuff on the web for you to read on this. The idea of life, liberty, and the pursuits of happiness, kind of sum up the concept. Property rights are inherent under the concept, as only you can own your own body, use it for work and store you labor by purchasing property.

    Please understand that the concept of an unalienable rights is one thing and how to best protect them is another issue for another day.

  87. Skip wrote: “What is the name of the Act that Congress passed that created the so called Federal Individual Income Tax and what year was it passed?”

    The Act of Congress was called the “Internal Revenue Code.” In 1986, under Reagan, the Act of Congress was called the “Internal Revenue Code of 1986.”

    Skip wrote: “Why do you think that Title 26 is not Positive Law?”

    The designation of positive law is somewhat academic. Much of Title 26 has been enacted as positive law. The entire Internal Revenue Code of 1954 was enacted by Congress as positive law and is found in the United States Statutes at Large. Not having a Positive Law designation only means that the Codified law may not exactly match the text in the United States Statutes at Large. Often this is from typographical error. In such cases of dispute, the United States Statutes at Large prevails. For titles designated as positive law, that means that the Code exactly matches the Statute and there is no reason to go beyond the Code.

    Skip wrote: “Congress has never passed a Federal Statute requiring Citizens, as individuals of the 50 States to pay a Federal Personal Income tax on their individual labor. If they had, would not this law be splattered across every IRS document and we know how many IRS documents there are?”

    You have been duped by false information. I have already referenced for you the law. Splattering it across every IRS document is not necessary because it is the law as every CPA and accountant worth their salt knows. You are embracing the same belief Wesley Snipes did. I suggest you review how this approach got Mr. Snipes prison time. He had the money to defend himself too.

  88. David,

    Doesn’t that poll that you cite show that 50% of those polled believe that THIER taxes are too high and that the rich and corporations aren’t paying enough of their share? That’s how I read it.

  89. DavidM: It doesn’t make a difference if people think their taxes are too high, they approve of the services, and therefore of the size of government.

    DavidM says: Why do you assume that my motive is greed?

    It is the most parsimonious explanation of your views; despite your numerous protests, and I have read enough of your drivel that I do not take you at your word. Perhaps you think you are after “efficiency,” I think you are after a free ride and really do not care about other people.

  90. Skip says: I didn’t decide the definition of what an inalienable right is.

    Right, you said I could decide my own inalienable Rights and you would support them. I called bullshit. Now you say I can’t decide for myself. So my call was correct.

    Now you say you don’t get to decide what inalienable Rights are, we have to obey a bunch of dead people. I call bullshit again. Those dead people thought it was just fine to treat people like property; at least the majority of them did, and couldn’t form a government that did not permit slavery. Those dead people thought women were too weak-minded to vote, and that non-property owners were not responsible enough to vote.

    All of those beliefs of the founders were just bullshit. Being a founder of this country does not make their beliefs about anything either correct or sacrosanct. That includes anything they, or any dead philosopher, may have believed about inalienable rights, property, the economy, or anything else.

    We do not get to appeal to the authority of the famous or aged. inalienable Rights are decided by living people, not dead people. Now the fact that I agree with the founders on many such issues is not because of their name, position, deeds, or fame. I agree with the founders because there is logic to support their position, logic I believe in and would bet my life upon.

    Skip says: Doesn’t a person have the right to be secure in their person and property?

    No, not stated as an absolute as you have done. There are caveats and conditions. Does a criminal in prison have a right to be secure in their property? No. Should you be allowed to violate a contract and cost me tens of thousands of dollars and then say I have no claim on your property, and the government cannot take it on my behalf by force? No. You have no such right that is not conditioned upon you obeying the law and keeping your agreements.

    Skip says: We might want to define a right as the absence of the initiation of force or an agreement in which to not harm others or their property unless they are initiating force or fraud against you first; self defense.

    You might want to, I refuse. I will stick with a definition that makes logical sense, a Right is an agreement by Society that (a) it will not pass laws to punish a behavior or act; and / or (b) will make its best effort to punish those that violate the right, with force if necessary, and lethal force if necessary.

    Your definition is too narrow and fails to describe the right to free speech, the right to be charged and have a trial, your right to practice your religion, your right to vote, your right to association, to date and marry as you please, and many other such rights.

    And you do NOT get to initiate force against somebody for fraud; discovering you have been defrauded does not give you the right to beat up the perpetrator or kill them.

  91. Skipples,

    Yeah, that whole non-ratification argument worked out real well for Benson in court when he was trying to sell his “Reliance Defense Package” to people as a method of tax avoidance, didn’t it? The Court of Appeals said “Benson knew or had reason to know that his statements were false or fraudulent.” United States v. Benson, 561 F.3d 718 (7th Cir. 2009). Then he was denied cert.

    Oops.

    Yep.

    That’s some kind of legal scholarship you’re relying on there, Skipples.

    The kind that will land you in jail.

  92. Tony C. Your wrote: “Your definition is too narrow and fails to describe the right to free speech, the right to be charged and have a trial, your right to practice your religion, your right to vote, your right to association, to date and marry as you please, and many other such rights.

    If I have the right to do as I see fit as long as I do not take away the rights of others. I want to call you a name, because that obviously includes all the above.

    Even if you charge me with a crime, I have a right to defend. That one has only been around since the 1400 century.

    OK, so let’s keep going with this. Tell me what other Rights were our founders were referring to in the 9th Amendment. You’ve name the ones a 5th grader understands.

  93. Skip says: An entire society in 1776 disagrees with your moronic thinking.

    They are all dead. They were born into a different society, educated in a different society, told stories and inculcated with belief systems that were patently false. They grew up with slavery a fact of life, the subjugation of women and other minorities a fact of life; even many of the prominent politicians and revolutionary leaders in 1776 that believed slavery was wrong were still racists that believed blacks and other races were inherently inferior to, less intelligent than, and less moral than whites.

    Does that concept escape you? They were wrong. How do I know they were wrong? Because logic tells me so, science based on logic tells me so. And that is also how I know when they were correct, or nearly correct.

    Not because I have any reverence for famous names, as you apparently do, but because I agree with good reasoning, and I disagree with bad reasoning or raw assertion when I can see it is false.

  94. john530 wrote: “Doesn’t that poll that you cite show that 50% of those polled believe that THIER taxes are too high and that the rich and corporations aren’t paying enough of their share? That’s how I read it.”

    Yes, I read it that way too.

    Also interesting is the shift in the polling after 9/11/2001. Before 9/11, 65% thought their taxes were too high, then it dropped to 47%. That’s an 18% drop. Perhaps National Security became important as something they were willing to pay more for. Or perhaps as our politicians preached the need to raise taxes, people were persuaded of the need to do so.

  95. Tony C wrote: “…even many of the prominent politicians and revolutionary leaders in 1776 that believed slavery was wrong were still racists that believed blacks and other races were inherently inferior to, less intelligent than, and less moral than whites.”

    Wait a minute. You claim that they were wrong?

    Tony C wrote: “Does that concept escape you? They were wrong. How do I know they were wrong? Because logic tells me so, science based on logic tells me so. And that is also how I know when they were correct, or nearly correct.”

    Science based logic is clearly NOT on your side in regards to this. Have you not read Darwin’s Descent of Man? Have you not read the facts that blacks are disproportionately represented in the prison population? Have you not read the facts about blacks having a much higher number of children born out of wedlock? Have you not read how blacks have disproportionately higher number of STD’s? Blacks represent just 14 percent of the U.S. population, yet account for one-third of all reported chlamydia cases, almost half of all syphilis cases, and two-thirds of all reported gonorrhea cases.

    You can hypothesize all kinds of excuses for the racial skew in the data, but facts are facts and you cannot claim that science based logic proves your concept that our founding fathers were wrong on this point. The data still agrees with their perspective. You simply are not in agreement with them because of your own cultural prejudice. Scientific facts don’t seem to matter to you.

  96. Davidm2575 – read the book – the facts are all there – if you want to side with the corruption that is going on – feel free to remain ignorant, as it is bliss.

    Let’s tax the rich – that will make all the ills of our society go away. Morons.

  97. Tony C. – Do you have any clue what that generation went through to even get what rights they got. They were wrong? They risked being convicted from being traitors in an attempt to secure the rights of humans. They were not perfect but at least the understood the basic concept of human rights.

    No, you are the one that is wrong. You can even answer simple questions nor observe the many abrogations of the Constitution and the usurpations it allows.

    And David, same on you for misleading the readers on tax law. The first IRC was enacted in 1932. Had it involved a personal income tax they would not have had to enact the Victory tax during the law.

    Should ne the Federal Statue, Not Title 26 of the Internal Revenue Code

    So did everyone have to pay taxes before 1954?

  98. A offer a couple of links from the science perspective of racial intelligence differences:

    First, from the man who helped crack the DNA code himself, James Watson of the Watson & Crick fame:

    James D. Watson:
    “All our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really.”

    “One of the world’s most eminent scientists was embroiled in an extraordinary row last night after he claimed that black people were less intelligent than white people and the idea that “equal powers of reason” were shared across racial groups was a delusion. James Watson, a Nobel Prize winner for his part in the unravelling of DNA who now runs one of America’s leading scientific research institutions, drew widespread condemnation for comments he made ahead of his arrival in Britain today for a speaking tour at venues including the Science Museum in London.”

    “The 79-year-old geneticist reopened the explosive debate about race and science in a newspaper interview in which he said Western policies towards African countries were wrongly based on an assumption that black people were as clever as their white counterparts when “testing” suggested the contrary. He claimed genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence could be found within a decade.”

    “Dr Watson told The Sunday Times that he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really”. He said there was a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true”.”
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/fury-at-dna-pioneers-theory-africans-are-less-intelligent-than-westerners-394898.html

    From J. Philippe Rushton and Arthur R. Jensen, “Race and IQ: A Theory-Based Review of the Research in Richard Nisbett’s Intelligence and How to Get It”:

    “Contrary to many hopes and some claims, the narrowing of the gap in social conditions between Blacks and Whites has not led to any change in the magnitude of the Black-White IQ difference in over 100 years. Massive society-wide interventions such as ending segregation, the subsequent nationwide program of school busing to achieve racial balance, and the Head Start programs have failed to reduce this difference. Head Start programs did produce modest gains in school retention and graduation rates among Whites—but not Blacks [193]. Other large scale, often well-publicized, countywide amelioration projects have not reduced the Black-White achievement gap (despite desirably low student-teacher ratios and computers in every classroom) [8]. Adjusting for socioeconomic status, which itself contains much heritable variance, only reduces the Black-White IQ difference by about one-third [8].”

    “There is no value in denying reality. While improving opportunities and removing arbitrary barriers is a worthy ethical goal, we must realize that equal opportunity will result in equitable, though unequal outcomes.”
    http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/2010%20Review%20of%20Nisbett.pdf

  99. Skip wrote: “…read the book – the facts are all there – if you want to side with the corruption that is going on – feel free to remain ignorant, as it is bliss.”

    I’m not to eager to spend $80 for a book that has been ruled fraudulent activity by our courts and has landed Mr. Benson and many of his followers in prison. Have you read the book?

  100. Skip wrote: “So did everyone have to pay taxes before 1954?”

    Of course. The codification of U.S. Statutes does not invalidate laws; it only seeks to make the laws more understandable. The tax laws have undergone changes several times since 1913. I mentioned the 1954 date in reply to your query about why the IRC is not considered positive law. It was 1954 when Congress made the entire Internal Revenue Code positive law. Congress has acted a number of times to legislate an income tax upon us. I don’t know why you keep denying this fact.

  101. Gene H:

    Money corrupts some people. The rich are entitled to free speech, if they can afford a television spot well good for them. You have a right to gather 100,000 citizens and ask for $50 each to support a cause you value.

    Free speech is free speech and corporations are made up of individuals and the rich are individuals.

    If the politicians didnt have the money to grant favors, people would not be lining up to smooze politicians for handouts. Get rid of the money which the federal government gives to entities and you end the corruption.

    If the federal government had no favors to grant, no one would pay any attention to them. The ability to grant those favors comes from our tax money.

    It is pretty simple but you want to make it complex. Most likely so you can bamboozle yourself. I see you do it here on a regular basis.

  102. DavidM:

    Then how do you account for men like Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams, Frederick Douglas, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, George Washington Carver, Guy Bluford, Ben Carson and other brillian black Americans? Any one of which is most likely as smart or smarter than Dr. Watson. Which sort of ruins his hypothesis and yours.

    And how do you account for the large number of stupid white people who live in trailer parks, have sex with numerous partners, are addicted to drugs and alcohol, have to have their hands held at work, dont save for the future and a host of other things in which stupid people engage?

  103. Bron,

    No. I make it accurate. Your inability to understand notwithstanding.

    Political corruption occurs when an office-holder or other governmental employee acts in an official capacity for personal gain usually at the behest of (and for payment from) another. Corruption is a crime committed by two or more parties for mutual benefit.

    I know.

    It’s terribly complicated and complex, especially for someone with the crippling analytical deficits created by binary thinking, the choice of Objectivism, a compromised amygdala and a stunted anterior cingulate cortex.

    Do try to keep up.

  104. Gene H:

    Binary thinking is right or wrong, yes or no. Nature works like that, a horse is not dead and alive it is one or the other and not at that the same time.

    A tree in the forest leaning against another tree and having no leaves and no bark is dead it isnt sort of alive because it is leaning against another tree.

    Complexity is for stupid people and university professors in the political and social sciences. The stupid so they sound smarter than they are and university professors so they can bamboozle the stupid into implementing their half baked schemes.

    As for keeping up, you flatter yourself. There is that self bamboozling again.

  105. Thanks for illustrating that you don’t understand the natural world, systems theory, information theory or the mathematics underlying them either, Bron. Binary thinking? Is the intellectual equivalent of training wheels. Or blinders. Which is more appropriate for you.

  106. Bron wrote: “Then how do you account for men like Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams, Frederick Douglas, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, George Washington Carver, Guy Bluford, Ben Carson and other brillian black Americans? Any one of which is most likely as smart or smarter than Dr. Watson. Which sort of ruins his hypothesis and yours.”

    It is not a “hypothesis” of mine. I’m simply relaying what the data shows. I am talking facts, not hypothesis. There is overlap in the data. There are some black people who are smarter than white people. Nevertheless, there is a statistically significant difference between the races as a whole.

    Think about analyzing the height of people based upon gender. Statistically, males are taller than females, but you can find some women who are taller than some males. There is overlap, but statistically speaking, genetic differences between males and females cause hormonal differences that lead to different physical characteristics of males and females.

    Liberals have invented an entire ideology that there is no such thing as race, that race is a cultural construct, but such is not based in science. It is based in their desire to have everyone equal. I believe we should embrace diversity, but they demand equality despite reality and scientific evidence.

    Consider, for example, the mentally retarded, who are clearly intellectually inferior. My approach is to value them based upon humanity and ways that he might excel over the intelligent person. Their approach is to ignore the intellectual inequality, even get upset if someone were to point it out, and then to argue that we are all equal. They are fine to express such views, but when they claim that they do it based upon science based logic, my feathers get a bit ruffled at that false claim.

  107. I guess it is a good indicator of the moral character of a group of people on a blog that calls it a “victory” when there is a rejection of morality. :/

  108. I guess it’s a good indicator of the ethical character of a person or group of people when they think “defeat” is not being able to force their subjective moral choices upon others.

  109. Gene H wrote” “I guess it’s a good indicator of the ethical character of a person or group of people when they think “defeat” is not being able to force their subjective moral choices upon others.”

    He also wrote “Thanks for illustrating that you don’t understand the natural world, systems theory, information theory or the mathematics underlying them either, Bron. Binary thinking? Is the intellectual equivalent of training wheels. Or blinders. Which is more appropriate for you.”

    He rightfully criticizes one person for trying to push their morals on others and ironically criticizes the other when they try to call out the same thing against him.

    That is called hypocrisy Gene H. You are differently a fascist and I would not be at all surprised if you are a web troll.

    I get almost the same worded rebuttals from other people on other prominent websites, as if they are all using the same ones. You are probably using some data base to quickly get these rebuttals as they are some of the same memes used by the main stream media. Even similar criticism are used but surely the same techniques such as logical fallacies, demeaning the messenger, switching topics when cornered and what I call piling on; when a group of trolls work together to make short numerous nonsensical comments to drive the desired comment down the page, so the readers will be discouraged from reading it, having to go through numerous comments. Three or four webtrolls working together can drive down a comment by piling on with 3 or 4 quick posts each, making up to 16 posts on a thread. The reader has to read through 16 nonsensical posts before getting to the targeted comment.

    Everyone knows who his fellow fascist comrades are because they all use the same techniques. They also hide who they are and very seldom talk about themselves and they will never ever answer the difficult questions.

    Bron and my fellow friends, I believe Jonathan Turley’s website has be in fact compromised and infiltrated by webtrolls that will use the above techniques to break up legitimate discussions on trying to eliminate the fascism that has plagued our nation and world. To foster in their new world order, they believe the end justifies the means and I for one will not stand back and just let it continue to happen. The internet reformation is making a difference as more and more people are learning of the truths about the fascist social policies forced upon our Citizens. These people are interested in one thing, sticking as much of your money into their pockets and will do whatever is necessary to continue these policies.

    Despite Jonathan’s hard work, which I admire greatly, in my opinion his site has been rendered a waste of time and effort and therefore I’m bowing out as a commenter. The fascist will see this as a defeat, but is it not. I will be else where spreading the benefits of liberty and justice and challenges the fascists on the contraindications of their various social policies and usurpation of individual rights forced on the majority. Good luck.

    The State is a soulless machine. It can never be weaned from the violence to which it owes its existence – Mahatma Gandhi

    Thank you all for all the great support and good luck.

  110. Skip:

    Gene H wins again. They come, they post, he posts, they go.

    Is there no one who can “slay” [in the logic and idea department] this preternatural guest blogger?

    I had such high hopes for you, those hopes now lay in ruins upon Gene H’s keyboard of highly tempered steel. An apt accoutrement for his highly logical, some would say [or maybe just him], stealy mind.

    I guess libertarians just dont have the stomach [read huevos] for an intellectual donnybrook.

  111. Skippy sez: “…I believe Jonathan Turley’s website has be in fact compromised and infiltrated by webtrolls that will use the above techniques to break up legitimate discussions…”

    ******************************************
    Yup, you are right, but not in the way you imply. We know who only shows up in certain thread topics with long convoluted comments that border on spam. It is a dead giveaway. For people who allegedly have businesses to run and people to supervise, some folks seem to have a LOT of time on their hands to jump into the discussion with ALEC talking points. Makes one go, “Hmmmm…..”

  112. Oooo. Blather. How very . . . exciting.

    “Gene H wrote” “I guess it’s a good indicator of the ethical character of a person or group of people when they think “defeat” is not being able to force their subjective moral choices upon others.”

    He also wrote “Thanks for illustrating that you don’t understand the natural world, systems theory, information theory or the mathematics underlying them either, Bron. Binary thinking? Is the intellectual equivalent of training wheels. Or blinders. Which is more appropriate for you.”

    He rightfully criticizes one person for trying to push their morals on others and ironically criticizes the other when they try to call out the same thing against him.”

    That is called hypocrisy Gene H.

    I don’t think you know what the word “hypocrisy” means, Skipples. Let’s take a look at that. The OED defines “hypocrisy” as “the practice of claiming to have higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case”.

    In regard to the first part which you quote and then conflate out of context, your assumption is that my goal is to force any one to my subjective morals. This would be wrong. My morals are my choice. My ethics, however, are driven by reason and observation. They require no force for others to adopt them, only comprehension and acceptance of the arguments behind them. I have a complex goal in that regard and none of it requires than anyone be forced to my point of view. If someone is persuaded that the logics behind my arguments are valid and worth adopting, that is just gravy. If they learn something, that’s okay too. However, much like Napoleon, I never stand in the way of an opponent making a mistake. If I can use the ignorance of others against them to illustrate the weakness of their positions and the fundamental flaws in their understanding, I will do so. If I can make them look like a buffoon in the process, well, that’s just funny. And fun. So. Given that is (part of) the shape of my victory, there is no hypocrisy involved as you attempt to illlustrate. I’ve been arguing with Bron for years and he’s only changed his mind a minimal amount and with great strain and difficulty on his part. To be clear, I don’t care whether any specific person changes their mind or not. Why?

    Because somewhere out there in the audience, someone did change their mind and they did so voluntarily. It’s a common mistake that people always think because I am addressing them directly that I am talking for their direct benefit.

    As for the second part of your “critique” (such as it is), I was pointing to Bron’s ignorance of natural systems when he tried to pretend complexity either wasn’t real or was “for stupid people” when, in fact, complexity is a naturally occurring phenomenon with known mathematical parameters. Pointing out factual error? That’s nowhere even near the definition of “hypocrisy”. And speaking of words that you use but do not understand . . .

    “You are differently a fascist”

    Yes, I am “differently a fascist”. If you are using a different definition of fascist than the actual definition of fascist. For that matter, I could differently be a platypus if you don’t know what a platypus is. If you actually know what fascism entails and what a fascist in action looks like, you’d know I’m definitely NOT a fascist. I’m both a liberal and anti-oligarchical and pro-democracy for one thing. That automatically means I cannot be a fascist by definition as part of the definition of fascism is an anti-liberal, anti-democratic, pro-oligarchcy (either in the form of a strong leader or a syndicalist/corporatist oligarchy) stance. I regularly write here about the injustice of allowing corporations to participate in the political and legislative process, the imbalance of rights created by thinking money is free speech, promote liberal idealism and espouse the value of egalitarian democracy. Only a doorknob would think I’m a fascist based on the evidence of my postings. Or someone who doesn’t have a clue what fascism actually is. But your buddy David, who is all for oligarchy by the wealthy sure is close to what you’re looking for. If you’re looking for someone here to berate for being a fascist, I’d consider starting there.

    “and I would not be at all surprised if you are a web troll. ”

    I’m willing to bet there is a great deal that does indeed surprise you, Skipples. You certainly demonstrate a lot of confusion. Surprise often comes as a side dish to an entrée of confusion. That meal is usually preceded by an appetizer of ignorance.

    The rest of your inane rambling is simply not worth addressing.

    Not that the first part was either.

    It was just funny (and fun) pointing out you have the language skills of a hedgehog and no understanding of the words you use.

  113. Tony C. – a fifth grader?
    Tony wrote the below in response to my comment “I see no where in the Constitution where I’m required to get a government authorized marriage license.”

    Tony wrote: “That is because the Constitution is not supposed to be a list of laws or Rights, it is sets out the rules for a Government to define such things. The framers of the Constitution did not specify Rights in the Constitution. That is why the Bill of Rights is a collection of Amendments, they were not ratified with the original document.”

    Yea, Tony, we did learn that in 5th grade – thanks for the refresher course.

    So the Bill of Rights are not a part of the Constitution, because they were not ratified with the original Agreement? When I say the Constitution, it does not include the Bill of Rights? They do not specify the various unalienable rights? The 9th amendment does not allow me to marry without a government granted marriage license?

    Since you do not appear to know what a right is nor acknowledge our founding fathers as being correct because they are dead and educated in a different time, I can understand your misconceptions.

    Do you want to get into the various issues of the General Welfare and Commerce clauses and how the Judiciary has used them to usurp our Rights that are supposed to be protected by the various Constitutional Amendments. Hint, constitutional Amendment are part of the Constitution and you are correct, a firth grader would be able to most likely argue this better than you.

    From Wiki,
    The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. Proposed to assuage the fears of Anti-Federalists who had opposed Constitutional ratification, these amendments guarantee a number of personal freedoms, limit the government’s power in judicial and other proceedings, and reserve some powers to the states and the public. While originally the amendments applied only to the federal government, most of their provisions have since been applied to the states by way of the Fourteenth Amendment, a process known as incorporation.

    The amendments were introduced by James Madison to the 1st United States Congress as a series of legislative articles. They were adopted by the House of Representatives on August 21, 1789, formally proposed by joint resolution of Congress on September 25, 1789, and came into effect as Constitutional Amendments on December 15, 1791, through the process of ratification by three-fourths of the states. While twelve amendments were proposed by Congress, only ten were originally ratified by the states. Of the remaining two, one was adopted 203 years later as the Twenty-seventh Amendment, and the other technically remains pending before the states.

    The Bill of Rights enumerates freedoms not explicitly indicated in the main body of the Constitution, such as freedom of religion, freedom of speech, a free press, and free assembly; the right to keep and bear arms; freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, security in personal effects, and freedom from warrants issued without probable cause; indictment by a grand jury for any capital or “infamous crime”; guarantee of a speedy, public trial with an impartial jury; and prohibition of double jeopardy. In addition, the Bill of Rights reserves for the people any rights not specifically mentioned in the Constitution and reserves all powers not specifically granted to the federal government to the people or the States. The Bill was influenced by George Mason’s 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights, the English Bill of Rights 1689, and earlier English political documents such as Magna Carta (1215).

    Read it again Tony C. so that you really understand why the Bill of Rights is part of our Constitution.

  114. Skip wrote: “That is called hypocrisy Gene H. You are differently a fascist and I would not be at all surprised if you are a web troll. I get almost the same worded rebuttals from other people on other prominent websites, as if they are all using the same ones. You are probably using some data base to quickly get these rebuttals as they are some of the same memes used by the main stream media.”

    Skip, IMO, you are barking up the wrong tree with this analysis. I understand your frustration with those who do not apply logic to the topic at hand, and instead they focus upon personal attacks in order to feel titillated at hurting another human being. Nevertheless, to surmise conspiracy like you do here is grossly misplaced logic. It is wild speculation and quite frankly wrong, IMO. There are other explanations for their similar language and prejudicial way of thinking.

    Take a break and reconsider your contribution here. Make a logical decision, not an emotional one. Also find a proofreader to edit your writing and pay attention to his corrections so you can learn the rules of English grammar yourself. The plethora of grammar mistakes you make causes them to disrespect you. It causes them to perceive you to be uneducated, not well read, and out of their league. The elitists can be quite dismissive of others based upon such evidence. It leads them to feel quite justified to attack you personally and to be dismissive of anything you might try to say. From their perspective, because of your poor knowledge of English grammar, you are like an 8th grader trying to be a graduate student, and they just don’t see how that can work. I personally believe you have a good mind and have something to contribute here. I would hope you reconsider and stick around. Ultimately, the constant challenge will make you a better person and better able to know what you believe and why.

  115. Tony did not claim that the Bill of Rights was not a part of the Constitution, Skipples. Just not part of the body proper. He understands the incorporation doctrine though. I know. We have discussed it before.

    I’m not sure you understand it though.

  116. Said the guy with no demonstrable grasp of formal logic himself.

    Skip (and you for that matter) are not wrong because you are you, David.

    You’re wrong because your logic and your factual understanding are impaired.

    That you are both you is simply seriocomic.

    That you both make it easy to skewer you with mockery is simply good theatre.

  117. Gene H wrote: “That you both make it easy to skewer you with mockery is simply good theatre.”

    [sigh] Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. Sometimes I feel sorry for you.

  118. Why would you feel sorry for one who accomplishes what he sets out to accomplish? That is a wasted emotion, David. It is irrational.

  119. Based on some of the things I have seen you write about people with whom you disagree, I doubt you have much of a heart for people.

  120. Gene H.
    Like I said, where in the Constitution “and Bill of Rights” does it require me to get government permission through a licensure or some other requirements to get married?

    1. The General Welfare Clause?
    2. If a State enacts a licensure law, does the 9th Amendment protect Citizens from the requirement(s)?
    3. Should the Supreme Court uphold the right of contract and association?

    From Wiki:
    For most of Western history, marriage was a private contract between two families. Until the 16th-century, Christian churches accepted the validity of a marriage on the basis of a couple’s declarations. If two people claimed that they had exchanged marital vows—even without witnesses—the Catholic Church accepted that they were validly married.

    Some states in the US hold that public cohabitation can be sufficient evidence of a valid marriage. Marriage license application records from government authorities are widely available starting from the mid-19th century. Some are available dating from the 17th century in colonial America.[1] Marriage licenses have been required since 1639 in Massachusetts, with their use gradually expanding to other jurisdictions.[2]
    ___________________________________________________________

    Guess who ran the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1639? The Crown and the Church of England. Talk about a fascist society. Although started by the Pilgrims, the Church of England and Crown soon followed them with their barbaric laws that caused such atrocities as the Martyrs at Boston Common and Salem Witch Hunts over the next 60 years. These “folks” (being kind) would take the Citizens children and possessions away, if they did not properly school them with the Church’s propaganda. The Crown was still using beatings and even cutting off peoples ears as punishment, hence, why so many people “may” have claimed to be Christians during early colonial times.

    Do you think that our founders wrote the 1st and 9st Amendments as a protection for the right to marriage?

    If you accept the concept of “Unalienable Rights” one would ascertain the Constitution protects someone from entering into a marriage contract and association, with out government permission or other requirements, as long as they are acknowledging the rights of those they are marrying. In others words, you can coerce some 15 year old into marriage, as they would take away their rights to not be coerced, but as long as no coercion is involved the 15 year old, would also have the right to contract and of association. Hence why through out our history, it was not uncommon to see marriages of very young women. Hearing some of the stories of young women after puberty, their Mothers were perhaps the quickest to give their blessings.

    If you do not accept the concept of Unalienable Rights, Then the State is allowed to use force or coercion against it’s Citizens into accepting it rules of marriage, as a necessity to contract and association under the terms and conditions created by political enactment or by simple majority rule if enacted by a initiative petition and an election.

    Which do you all choose. A fascist would of course choose the latter and a libertarian, the former.

  121. John530, Statistics of what the populous likes or dislikes is a dangerous game.

    In Federalist Paper #10, James Madison comments on the problem of democracy to be overcome:

    From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert results from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.

    Socrates himself was among the original type of “obnoxious individual” against whom a pure democracy may turn. A fine statement about the danger of the tyranny of the majority comes from Alexis de Tocqueville:

    If it be admitted that a man, possessing absolute power, may misuse that power by wronging his adversaries, why should a majority not be liable to the same reproach? Men are not apt to change their characters by agglomeration; nor does their patience in the presence of obstacles increase with the consciousness of their strength. And for these reasons I can never willingly invest any number of my fellow creatures with that unlimited authority which I should refuse to any one of them.

    There are some that think poorly of some of the great minds in history, believing that they are somehow passé and/or were poorly educated in human nature and potential social and economic conditions, yet they point out the very circumstances and problems we are still experiencing today.

  122. Skip,

    I fail to see how the will of the people is “a dangerous game.” Our laws should be based on the will of the majority of people, so long as the laws don’t violate the constitution.

    I’m unaware of a government that works better than democracy, unless you can show me one.

  123. Bron wrote: “there are few things I agree with Tony and Gene H about but one is that human beings need government to protect their rights. I am for a very limited government as we had at the time of our founding. But some form of government is needed.”

    As I said on several occasions Bron, I will take limited government, as you are arguing in favor of, all day long instead of what we have. You misinterpret my inability to argue in favor of the known political systems, as my absolute position.

    Did not Churchill say something to the effect, that Democracy’s is the worst form of government, it however is better than all others. This of course does not make sense to me and knowing why all democracies and democratic republics fail over time is disheartening because it is impossible for us to see how the world would be without one.

    The problem is, If something doesn’t work, how can it be the best. Perhaps we have just not figured out how to make it work or we have not yet figured out how to make a civil society without government work. What I keep arguing is that there has to be something better than what we have, as you said, some form of government but it may not require the initiation of force as the idea that government must take away our rights to protect them, is irrational.

    I make the argument for this; if one nation attacks another nation and provides the Citizens greater rights then what they had, it would be likely, they, the Citizens, are better off under the new government. So many people fear the New World Order. What would happen though, if the New World Order gave us more rights then what we currently have? The problem however, it is very difficult to conclude which rights are of greater preference over others. I personally like all my rights to be secure, but I just haven’t figured out how to do that yet and my government will put me in jail if I try to protect them all.

    Bron also wrote: You can”t have an independent court system and police force and military. It would devolve into all against all with the strongest force being the maker of the rules. I think that is called dictatorship.

    Sure you can. There are many private courts right now, that allow people to mitigate their differences without using the government court. They are called mediation companies. The Law Merchant, that our own UCC mirrors, was created to specifically get around not having to use the very biased, slow and costly government courts around the world.

    People all over the worst have to hire their own private security firms so private police companies already occur.

    The second part of your assertion Bron: “It would devolve into all against all with the strongest force being the maker of the rules. I think that is called dictatorship.”
    It appears to me that in our world today, we have the strongest groups (governments) initiating force against, not only their own citizens but the Citizens of other much weaker countries. I think this is called fascism and America and it’s allies are sadly one of the strongest groups. We all acknowledge that the military industrial complex is out of control and way to large.

    Government, as we know it today, allows for the consolidation of power in the hands of a ruling wealthy oligarchy, which arguably and with much evidence, does not often provide for what is in the best interest of the majority.

    The only system that I can come up with, just so happens to require a governing body, but takes away much some of the centralized authority but not through the typically political process that we are all familiar with.

  124. Skip: Yes, a fifth grader.

    What was ratified did NOT include a Bill of Rights. What was ratified contained a mechanism for setting law, without any specifics about Rights.

    The Bill of Rights used that mechanism in order to specify some rights, and not necessarily “unalienable” ones: Because they are Amendments, those Rights can be repealed, modified, or weakened. Other Rights not explicitly mentioned by the Constitution can be added as new Amendments. To clear up confusion or disagreement on an unspecified Right, Amendments can be created to clarify, modify, or repeal such Rights; like the 16th Amendment.

    Yes, the Bill of Rights is NOW part of the Constitution; and so is the 16th. The SC has had a hundred years to overturn it, and has not. It is never going to happen.

    But first and foremost, the Constitution provides the mechanisms by which laws are passed, and any law (including licensing) passed in accordance with it is a “Constitutional” law. Just as if, I claim 17+33 = 50, there is nothing in the rules of arithmetic that explicitly provides that answer, but it is true under the rules of arithmetic.

    You do not understand the purpose of the Constitution; it is to define a machine that churns out laws. Lots of them. And you have no such thing as an unalienable Right, even your Right to Life is conditional and subject to denial for behavior society frowns upon, like premeditated murder.

  125. John530, Why is the accepting the will of the people as dangerous game? Because sadly, most people vote for their own self interests, believing that this is what in the best interest of the majority. Additionally they do not educate themselves well enough, especially in economics, psychology and sociology to be considered knowledgeable Citizens. Special interest groups constantly vie for greater benefits over others through the political process causing massive redistributions of wealth. There is a plethora of information on the web, on why democracies fail over time and is a real eye opener. I just gave you three or four quick reasons but there are many more, such a political compromise, competing ideologies, government contracting fraud, corruption and psychopathic people within positions of prominent political and economic leadership. Trust me it is really worth spending the time to read from many many authors. Actually don’t trust me, just read.

  126. Bron,

    “Efficiency has its place but then so does compassion.

    But you wouldnt understand that.”

    Said the Objectivist who follows an ideal that promotes egoism, self-worship and denies that society is a real thing let alone that the individual has duties and obligations to its maintenance if it gets in the way of getting what they want. Compassion? My oh my. What would your Aynish Goddess think of you showing such weakness? Tsk, tsk, tsk.

    “Based on some of the things I have seen you write about people with whom you disagree, I doubt you have much of a heart for people.”

    Sometimes, compassion like love can be tough. I have a lot of compassion for the suffering of others. I don’t have a lot of tolerance for willful ignorance and vices being presented as virtues. Why? Because that creates more suffering in the world. Even then, I feel sorry for the people who perpetrate such things – even if they are clinically ill. That does not translate into letting them have their way. Indeed, the saddest thing about true sociopaths and psychopaths is that they will never truly understand loving another. But ignorance can be corrected. That’s one of the reasons you see both hands from me: I know you can do better. I know this because I have seen the incremental changes in your views over the years, dreadful though some of them remain. Whether or not you want to do better though is entirely up to you.

    Also, you know very well that agreement is not required and that I apply the Ethic of Reciprocity in most interactions, i.e. if you act like a dipstick and I’m going to treat you like you are acting like a dipstick until you cease. You should know this. It has been a recurring theme in our relationship. When you play nice, I play nice. When you don’t? Well it’s not my fault I’m better at the verbal smack down. Oh. Wait. Yes it is. Argumentation is one of my areas of expertise. It’s an acquired skill bolstered by a natural proclivity. Then again, some people never learn. I’ll also properly characterize actions and thoughts, especially if they are being sold under a false light. It is not ad hominem to characterize someone as something negative if they are espousing negative values. It is accurate. Is the thief a good person because he thinks possession is ownership? No. Is the murderer a good person because they think they are vindicated for another wrong? Not unless it is self-defense or the defense of others. Is the pederast an upstanding fellow because he sees nothing wrong with having sex with children? No. And it is no vice to apply the labels which go with such values as expressed. Is a Nazi any less bad because they say they are not a Nazi while espousing the views of Nazism? No. They are still a Nazi in action. That’s the thing you always seem to miss about the Law of Identity. Things and people are what they are in action, not by self-applied labels. I’m sure Hitler thought he was a perfectly sane and wonderful fellow despite all the objective evidence he was a monster and had the ethos of a monster. Bad ideas are bad ideas independent of the speaker, but the speaker owns those positions of advocacy nonetheless (unless, of course, arguing the devil’s advocate position which is rhetoric employed for a different purpose than true advocacy).

    Just so, you and the other two Mouseketeers espouse some really bad ideas. If you don’t like the negative associations that those bad ideas bring in action? Then perhaps your positions should be reconsidered.

    _____________________

    1) That would be the parts of the Constitution and the disparate state constitutions that allow their legislature to enact laws, Skipples.

    Also, it isn’t “permission” just because it is called a marriage license. It’s a record of a formalized specialty contract at law so that if it is dissolved the special rights and duties attendant to that contract can be enforced.

    2) Generally no. Not unless the license in someway proved unconstitutional like saying you couldn’t marry someone of a different race. Or like the swing in motion to recognize the equal rights of homosexuals to enter in to such specialty contracts.

    3) Yeah, and generally they have and continue to do so on a more expansive basis. However, in most jurisdictions, if you want to marry your sister or daughter or mother, you’re still going to be out of luck as incest laws (often) have a rational non-secular basis.

  127. Skip:

    you are right about mediation but that is agreed by parties prior to entering a business contract. Nothing wrong with that, at least in my opinion, but in a criminal punishment who is going to set the rules? And who is going to execute the sentence? We give the state those powers.

    The 2nd Treatise of Government talks about giving the state the power of punishment to take the personal and emotional aspects away from a victim.

  128. Tony C. Wrote: “The Bill of Rights used that mechanism in order to specify some rights, and not necessarily “unalienable” ones: Because they are Amendments, those Rights can be repealed, modified, or weakened. Other Rights not explicitly mentioned by the Constitution can be added as new Amendments. To clear up confusion or disagreement on an unspecified Right, Amendments can be created to clarify, modify, or repeal such Rights; like the 16th Amendment.”

    Bravo Tony, you just passed into 6th grade.

    Tony, the 9th Amendment says. The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    FYI: Thomas Jefferson used the term unalienable in the Declaration – those rights that cannot be surrendered, sold or transferred to someone else and why the Citizens demanded that a Bill of Rights be added. Because they didn’t trust government from encroaching on them and wanted them specified, even going to the point of protecting those not specified. There is also a very specific method to alter those rights.

    So why would any right that is already protected by the 9th, have to be added as an amendment?
    Tony C. the answer is, because idiots like you don’t understand what rights are and therefore we must obviously spend a lot more money and years of work to pass additional amendments, so that boneheads like you and Gene H. can understand what a “right” is. Must we really specify what a right is? You’re not intelligent enough to understand what they are after the many years and voluminous amounts of literature on the subject.

    Or is it that your a fascist and do not want others to have any rights to security and property?

    As far as the 16th Amendment. The 16 amendment does not specify a right so you are wrong again; it clarified a government power. Once again read the book “The Law that Never Was.” Let me see: Trust the government, and Tony C. or trust Bill Benson who was willing to risk imprisonment, like our founding fathers, I might note, to give the public the truth. He provided notarized copies of all the document involves.

    You bone heads just can imagine how a government can be corrupt despite 6,000 years of evidence.

    You don’t realize that it was the central banksters behind the 16th Amendment?

    I feel like I’m arguing with someone who doesn’t understand a cows fart is also methane gas or perhaps you are full of the methane gas.

  129. GeneH,

    I see news now that appears the social conservatives are going to put up former Gov Huckabee in a run for 2016 Prez race.

    Those nut case leaders think they can just keep on wasting our time arguing they have an exclusive Right to tell the rest of us what is & is not moral.

    I have gay friends & christian friends.

    Those gay friends will likely never turn straight.

    But maybe the christian fear in their minds that they’ll turn gay because in some of their minds they already are?

    (Ralph Reed, Karl Rove & their friends)

    For whatever reason the christain gen pop fails to realize that if the govt can deny gays equal protection under the law the govt can also deny the same to christians.

    I’ll likely email Huckabee & relay the same msg.

    ie: Set those damn social issues aside & focus on the real issues of the day.

    We can always come back later & argue those social issues til the end of time.

  130. Hey Bron, you wrote; “you are right about mediation but that is agreed by parties prior to entering a business contract. Nothing wrong with that, at least in my opinion, but in a criminal punishment who is going to set the rules? And who is going to execute the sentence? We give the state those powers.”

    The 2nd Treatise of Government talks about giving the state the power of punishment to take the personal and emotional aspects away from a victim.”
    ___________________________________________________________

    You are correct and this to me, would be an interesting discussion. Has there even been and could there be a society in which tort and criminal law is dispensed by voluntary participation instead of the force/police power of government? There are some very good arguments on both sides of the isle on this issue. I would be glad to have this debate with you. Perhaps however, in order to avoid the unscrupulous and irrelevant postings of the webtrolls, we could debate the various points than post them at one time. I would consent to that.

  131. Skip:

    to tell you the truth, Gene H and Tony C offer valid feedback for their way of thinking. They make you think about your ideas.

    Just throw it out there. You arent going to learn anything arguing with me since we agree to a point. I want a limited government, small, very small. Maybe 25-30% the size it is now.

    I dont agree with Tony or Gene on most everything but they arent web trolls. They present their points well and give you something to think about.

    You have to have something to test against so just ignore the insults. Tony and Gene are brawlers and they like blood. But the thing is that by thinking about what they say and checking what you know and believe against what they say, you can actually learn something.

    And look at DavidM, he brings up subjects that others would be crucified over but he takes it right back to them.

  132. Skip: So why would any right that is already protected by the 9th, have to be added as an amendment?

    For the same reason the entire Bill of Rights was added in the first place, dummy. To clarify certain Rights, but to avoid the risk of future generations mistakenly thinking that ALL rights had been clarified by the Bill of Rights, the 9th was included. It is a lawyerly inclusion, the equivalent of “including but not limited to…”.

    We could, if we so chose, including other rights, perhaps in order to set specific restrictions upon the government. For an example we might both agree upon, because it is NOT clear at the moment, a right to privacy and a prohibition on the government monitoring or storing by any means information about our whereabouts, transactions, the times, places (electronic or otherwise) or nature of our communications made by any means without a warrant issued in relation to a specific crime. Although I’d prefer a civil libertarian like JT draft that one and make it bulletproof.

    Skip says: The 16 amendment does not specify a right so you are wrong again; it clarified a government power.

    God you are dumb. By “clarifying a government power” it clarifies that you do NOT have a right to be free from an income tax. Or if you did, the Constitution now says you do not have that Right. It had to be removed from the amorphous and undefined set of rights “retained by the people” and made explicit.

    Skip says: Once again read the book “The Law that Never Was.”

    To what end? I don’t believe it already. I don’t care. The 16th is a century old and not overturned, I see no point in wasting time on such utter drivel. If JT blogs about some credible threat to the 16th coming up before the Supreme Court, THEN I would consider getting up to speed on the evidence that will be presented. In the meantime, a person that argues like a grade-schooler with a demonstrated inability to engage in actual logic (that is you) is not going to convince me to read anything.

    I’ve got better things to read, specifically about 8 of them as of yesterday. Down from 9, since I finished one today.

  133. Skipples,

    It’s not my fault you don’t understand that absolute rights are virtually non-existent in any society as a function of the social compact. In any society. I’m all for security and rights. Rarely as an absolute though, one exception being self-defense. As I said on another thread, the goal is maximal mutual benefit in exchange for the rights limited from the state of nature by the social compact itself. It’s a balancing act of restriction of the absolute rights found at the state of nature in exchange for that mutual benefit to society. The absolute rights you have at nature are only as good as you the individual are at asserting them and are – in fact – illusory and built on the personal ability to bring force to bear in their assertion. By in large, what you get for limiting rights under the social compact is a government to assert your rights that you yourself would be unable to secure unaided. But I’ve explained that many times now.

    Any lack of understanding of rights and how they interact with government and society is entirely yours.

    And I think Tony gives children a bad deal. Some of them are quite bright and capable of understanding these ideas. Discussing law with you is a lot like discussing quantum mechanics with a fish. Since you insist on arguing from a position of ignorance, you shouldn’t be surprised when your pronouncements are greeted as ignorant.

  134. “And look at DavidM, he brings up subjects that others would be crucified over but he takes it right back to them.”

    True enough, but persistence is not the same thing as quality of merit.

  135. GeneH,

    Re; Propaganda

    Note Alex Jones/Infowars did not report on Professor Turley’s victory in this sister-wives case.

    But they did attempt to make a big deal about the Duck Dynasty dust up.

    It’s been some time since I’ve seen reliable stats on the break down of peoples opinions on all of the major issues.

    I know Jones studies marketing stats, etc., so I assume he’s attempting to carve out a niche, drawing partly on those that are somewhat religious, but the hardline fantastic types?

    I look at Infowars as I would a car dealer, I may have to go down to the local Bob Hurley Furred dealership to buy a new Furred truck, but 1st rule always remains with all: Caveat emptor

  136. Oky1, aren’t they just about all car dealers? Sites like Freedom Phoenix will at least allow anyone to post articles from whatever sources there are and allows just about all authors to post their own articles. They’re owners are predominantly libertarian, but all the other factions of the rainbow post as well. Not much bias but not much debate either. More of a reading site. You can scam the large list of ongoing articles rapidly. If you post an article it may be gone within an hour or two. Everything for then NY Times to Turley’s site. I think that’s how I found out about Jonathan’s site.

    Gene H. He’s untrustworthy because he didn’t report on the Utah case? No offence, but this case is not going to effect our society very much, even though it’s a fantastic decision from my point of view. Divorce rates are at or near 50% so many don’t really care about old barbaric laws based on moral codes. Most American women are not going to allow most guys to have more then them as a wife. From what I understand, it didn’t flat out legalize multiple spouse marriages. Is this true.

  137. I think Tony gives children a bad deal.

    You are correct, and I apologize to children for the unintentionally insulting comparison.

  138. So we have not Constitution, Bill of rights and all political battles are moot because the ruling oligarchy will always win without a rule of law and justice? I don’t want to be a part of that.

  139. Skip: I don’t want to be a part of that.

    Fortunately for you, you are not a part of that, because what you describe is not the case. Consider your wish granted.

  140. hski,

    I like much of what GeneH writes & I understand his issues with Ann Rand.

    I seen earlier today he wrote he was Liberal political & I’ve seen him state he didn’t like big L libertarians.

    Maybe Gene will explain to us as a liberal today seems to mean to many that they are authoritarian socialist like TonyC.

    (Just trying to help us by beat us with an authoritarian club. lol)

    But in his day Thomas Jefferson was a liberal yet in today’s time I think he’d be appropriately called a small L libertarian, a political position close in most ways to Ron Paul’s positions.

  141. “But in his day Thomas Jefferson was a liberal yet in today’s time I think he’d be appropriately called a small L libertarian, a political position close in most ways to Ron Paul’s positions.”

    Then I don’t think you’re really paying attention to what Paul says or perhaps you don’t grasp what a Libertarian is versus a libertarian, Oky. Many of Paul’s ideas are straight from Ayn Rand/Objectivism and the Austrian School. He even has a theist thread running through his platform. Jefferson would be a civil libertarian by today’s paradigm without question, maybe even a libertarian, but I think his head would explode if you thought he was in line with Ron Paul’s positions. Especially the theist bent he displays. Ol’ Tommy would have had a real serious problem with that. And I’m pretty sure he’d have thought Ayn was a crazy person.

    ____________

    Skipples,

    Alex Jones is unreliable because he’s a conspiricist and a fear mongering whack job who’ll run with the most sensationalist story possible with little or no regard to verifying facts and sometimes even pursuing stories that a whole cloth fabrications.

    His attention or inattention to the Utah story is irrelevant to his being a hack in general.

  142. ** Harry Skip Robinson 1, December 26, 2013 at 4:06 pm **

    Harry,

    In that documentary I posted last week: American: From Freedom to Fascism, among other points, it cites some Supreme Court decisions on the 16th amd that at least in part backup your positions.

    The sooner we throw the 16thAmd/income tax/federal reserve systems in the trash can the better off most Americans will be.

  143. I think the Utah sister-wives case is relevant political because I believe we’ll see it used as a wedge issue by polecats to lock-in hardline christian voters.

    ie: God hates America because we are immoral, in their preacher’s eyes.

  144. Gene H.
    You wrote: “It’s not my fault you don’t understand that absolute rights are virtually non-existent in any society as a function of the social compact. In any society. I’m all for security and rights. Rarely as an absolute though, one exception being self-defense. As I said on another thread, the goal is maximal mutual benefit in exchange for the rights limited from the state of nature by the social compact itself. It’s a balancing act of restriction of the absolute rights found at the state of nature in exchange for that mutual benefit to society. The absolute rights you have at nature are only as good as you the individual are at asserting them and are – in fact – illusory and built on the personal ability to bring force to bear in their assertion. By in large, what you get for limiting rights under the social compact is a government to assert your rights that you yourself would be unable to secure unaided. But I’ve explained that many times now.”

    That is the biggest line of BS I’ve every read.

    Especially the mutual benefit aspects of your warped ideology. This is your goal????? Pretty screwed up and it working really well for the poor and homeless isn’t it? A free for all based on some fictitious social compact. I thought that is what our Constitution was supposed to be.

    Like, I didn’t know that the ruling oligarchy were the ones that controlled the game and that they lying to everyone about how the game is played.

    Are you suggesting side with he most powerful gang, not matter how despotic they are. As long as you’re protected, who cares about everyone else.

    You are however right to some degree, that the myth of the rule of law is just as illusory as are absolute rights without the majority asserting them?

    With this in mind, it is borderline psychopathic to not tell people this truth, and not in some academic sociological garble. To not stand up for the rights of human beings, is being cowardice. I understand what you’ve been saying all along Gene H. I just thought that you were a webtroll, I must admit however, that if you are not a troll, you are surely a coward.

    You wrote “It’s a balancing act of restriction of the absolute rights found at the state of nature in exchange for that mutual benefit to society.

    Allowing the ruling oligarchy to determine the restrictions is an act of cowards and I have not seen you take a stance against or for anything of relevance. Instead you mislead, demean and discourage intellectual thought for so-called good theater and for this you will remain my enemy. Scumbag.

    That’s pretty good theatre isn’t it. The problem is I’m not acting.

  145. GeneH,

    Getting Rid of the Federal Reserve, the 16th Amd, the outright fraud by Wallst banks/insur co’s

    Correcting Judaical/Legislative/Executive branch corruption.

    Withdrawing our US military from foreign entanglements.

    Ending the drug war.

    Restoring US national sovereignty through the written intent of the USC & returning to the people it’s Individual Rights contained there-in.

    Returning back to the States duties the Federal Govt unconstitutionally took over.

    IE: local policing as opposed to this growing nationalized Gestopo & their Fed Funded Nazi check points around the holidays. I hate that crap so now I don’t even leave the property hardly during those times.

    This is not a complete list.

    But it is evidence that Jefferson’s & Paul’s positions are aligned in most areas politically.

    You’ve got my curiosity up so please elaborate.

  146. Why we have to have a smaller & much less corrupt Govts & Corporations:

    Around the holidays & other times of the years I’ll be reminded of past cases that causes me to get pissed all over again.

    I’ll give you this as a example of the many cases I’m speaking of.

    A mother finds out that a cop has raped 2 or 3 of her underage girls. She turns the video/picture evidence over to the police chief & the FBI.

    The cop is put on paid leave for 3-4 months & from what I understand the case was covered up, investigation cleared him & the cop remains at his job.

    Mean while Wallst banks/insur co’s are repeatedly proven to be totally criminals.

    So the town that (the excused) rapist works in has a bond issue to further fund the police dept. With the ability to tax the citizen why are they borrowing money in the 1st place? But they go ahead & float a bond issue & most likely get it passed with these rigged electronic voting machines.

    Then most likely, as shown in the past, Wallst banks/Insur’s takes that one bond issue & resells that one security to hundreds of pension funds & other investors.

    That type blatant criminal corruption can not be allowed to continue & I’m positive it will be stopped some how.

    Stopped sooner rather then later I hope.

    In the mean time I’ll just have to continue to contain my anger.

  147. Skipples,

    So. The social compact theory of law is the biggest line of BS you’ve ever heard, eh? Too bad for you it is the underpinning of modern legal theory.

    _______________

    Oky,

    Jefferson didn’t trust banks or bankers. His opposition to the first Fed, however, was largely the same opposition that many rightly have today. Namely that it was a private corporation working with a bias toward narrow private interests at the expense of the best interests of all. This is a view I happen to share. I think the Fed as set up is a joke, but I think that in an economy of scale a central bank is necessary for a variety of economic reasons not the least of which is controlling inflation. It should be a public trust though and not a private corporation. That form puts it at odds with the function of a central bank. He also objected thought the notion violated the traditional notions of property (it didn’t) and that the Constitutional basis for forming the first Fed was weak (it was not and Hamiliton won the day). Jefferson was a brilliant man. Without question the smartest man ever to hold the Office of President. He was, however, not perfect. Hamilton had a much better grasp on economics and the necessities of some form of central bank to running a nation.

    “Withdrawing our US military from foreign entanglements.”

    And yet Jefferson entered us into the First Barbary War. He was against needless foreign entanglements and probably would be appalled that the US attacked Iraq in response to Saudi Arabian backed aggression, but he did understand the use of war when necessary.

    “Ending the drug war.”

    He’d probably have never started the drug war. However, as an aside the President that did start the drug war – Nixon – would have been someone Jefferson would have wanted hung by the neck until dead for his crimes in office instead of being pardoning.

    “Restoring US national sovereignty through the written intent of the USC & returning to the people it’s Individual Rights contained there-in.”

    Not at the expense of the general welfare he wouldn’t. To think it would is the logical fallacy of presentism writ large. The way Constitutional jurisprudence evolved over the years? Honestly, Jefferson would have probably had a mixed reaction to. He was certainly intelligent enough to recognize that some changes were made by the necessity of changing circumstance and were rational and while he would have objected to some expansions of Federal power, I don’t think it is either fair or accurate to think he would have objected to all expansions of Federal power. I think his biggest problem would have been the overreach Congress often has under the Commerce Clause

    “Returning back to the States duties the Federal Govt unconstitutionally took over.”

    See above. I also think Jefferson’s take on the Civil War would have put him squarely in Federal camp versus the Confederate camp. He was pro state’s rights but I don’t think he’d have bought the manifest bullshit the South was selling to justify slavery. He was a very conflicted man on that topic but I think he’d have leaped at the chance to end a practice he knew he could not have in his lifetime. There has been a lot of history since Jefferson. We can only guess at his reactions. They should be educated guesses though. I think that as staunch an anti-federalist he was in his battles with Hamilton that the Civil War would have modified his way of thinking. That being said . . .

    “IE: local policing as opposed to this growing nationalized Gestopo & their Fed Funded Nazi check points around the holidays. I hate that crap so now I don’t even leave the property hardly during those times.”

    I think he would indeed be appalled at the state of Federal law enforcement. I think he’d have been disgusted from the time of Hoover onward. The DHS? Would probably make his head explode. And while he would likely understand the need of an intelligence apparatus, I think he would have real problems with how the CIA and NSA operate. Especially post 9/11.

    An area of Paul’s platform I think Jefferson would have a problem with is where they apply to fundamental rights like marriage, prayer in public schools/tax credits for private religious schools (this one would have really bent Jefferson), homeschooling, creationism (Jefferson was a scientist who “rewrote” the Bible to take out the mumbo-jumbo spooky language parts), the whole “under God” language in the pledge (Jefferson would have probably thought the pledge was ridiculous to start with, but the “under God” language would have been an issue for certain). He wouldn’t be crazy about Paul’s “privatize government services” bent either. Jefferson was very anti-tyranny including economic tyranny (which would be the natural result of privatizing most governmental services).

    Just to name a few.

    No. Jefferson would have been sympathetic to some of the same goals as Paul, but not all and certainly not to all the methodologies Paul would employ. In reality, Jefferson probably would be so angry at the state of modern elections and the lobbying system, he’d be fostering a second Revolution in the literal sense.

    I really doubt he’d be a Paul supporter.

    By the same token, I don’t think he’d be happy at all where the partisan tradition he helped found in this country has led to either. There are very few modern pols I can think of that Jefferson might endorse and that would still only be a “might”. Paul isn’t one of them, nor is his son.

  148. Smaller does not equate to less corrupt.

    Removing money from the electoral and legislative processes would though.

    Size is – again – the wrong metric for government function.

    The proper metric is functionality in service to the social contract: maximal mutual benefit in exchange for the rights limited from the state of nature by the social compact itself.

    The government should be big enough to do this and no larger.

  149. **The government should be big enough to do this and no larger.**

    Gene, we are in agreement.

    I think sometimes it’s like when my wife & I went to Kentucky, they spoke English there but the native dialect was so different we couldn’t understand what some of them were saying.

    Your speech is a bit legalize & I think maybe hskiprob misses keywords or phrases your attempting to explain.

    Or it could be your just pissin him off, hell don’t, I know TonyC rubs me the wrong way. LOL :)

    (Better to be pissed off then pissed on Dad used to say.)

  150. There is a difference between “misses” and plain ol’ “doesn’t understand well enough to have a rational let alone valuable opinion on”, Oky.

    He and David have a fundamental lack of understanding of the theory of government, albeit probably intentional ignorance on David’s part. Bron used to be as bad as they were, but he’s come around a bit over time (although his future progress in understanding may be fundamentally limited by his Objectivism and proclivity for binary thinking). All governments service the social compact. How well they do this for all is the true measure of their success. Right now, ours is failing because our social compact is well laid out in both the DOI and the Constitution (although the DOI is not black letter law) and ours is servicing the desires of the few at the expense of the many and trampling everyone’s rights but the those of the uber-wealthy and the corporate oligarchs; breaking our social compact at the core. That kind of malfunction has happened before in history. It never ends well for anyone, including those in government. They don’t realize or are too arrogant to understand that in every form of government the rulers ultimately rule at the consent of the governed. When you break their trust and start working against their best interests? It eventually leads to social instability, insurrection, rebellion and/or revolution. That’s the thing about the social compact. It serves all of society and when it ceases to, the ninety-nine always outnumber the one. Eventually, someone will do something stupid and heinous enough to overcome the inertia of apathy and then it will be game on. Could this be averted? Yes it could. Will it be averted? It’s looking less likely all the time. But change will come. Change is the only constant in the universe. Everything is transitory. Will it be a transformation for the better or the worse? Only time will tell.

  151. Gene H. – Social Compact Theory
    From Wiki,
    Regarding the Constitution of the United States, the compact theory holds that the nation was formed through a compact agreed upon by all the states, and that the federal government is thus a creation of the states. Consequently, states should be the final arbiters over whether the federal government overstepped the limits of its authority.

    Yet Gene, our Constitution clearly states that it is created by the people for the people and of the people. It cannot be shown, that the Constitution is a compact between State governments. The Constitution itself, in its very front, refutes that idea; it, declares that it is ordained and established by the people of the United States.

    Should the States also be able to arbitrate if the Federal Government has overstepped it limitation. Absolutely. Are not the State governments the representatives of the various State Citizens but the State should not be the final arbiter for this, it must be the people.

    I think Jefferson may of had this opinion, but some suggest he was in favor of the social compact theory. If he did support the theory, if he had lived in 20th century America, he surely would not now.

    Never the Less, The Federal Government through various methods have discouraged the State Governments, thus the people from arbitrating Federal abrogations of the Constitution to limit it’s authority to such a degree that it can be easily argued that the US is no longer, as I have reiterated so many times, a constituted society. I will not go into the 17th Amendment, but it did give greater powers, according to many and my opinion, to the Federal Government, even though at first glance, it appears it give more power to the people because of the direct vote for Senators. This is a moot point however, to the social compact theory.

    It is becoming much clearer in recent years from studies of the various nations that the greater the establishment of property rights, which is what many of the enumerator non-enumerated rights are about, the more capitalism, the more prosperity and less poverty. According to economist Thomas DiLorenzo, The Fraser Institutes index “Legal Structure and Property Rights by which it means the relative security of property rights and the viability of contracts across countries, indicates the more stable property rights are, the stronger a nations economy is. Hence, things like government and central banking caused inflation, price controls, regulation in general and government controls or subsidizing of production, diminishes the stability of property rights, causing a weaker economy. The belief is that when government causes property value instabilities, it makes it difficult for capitalists to make good economic calculations and thus good decisions. The perfect example is all the people that made really bad decisions in relation to their real estate holdings between 2000 and 2008, as prices rose and than collapsed during that period and it is clearly established now that the central banksters caused both the rise and fall of property values through their lending practices.

    According to the Fraser index that uses the same components as the Wall Street Journal and the Heritage foundation, a similar correlation exists between the economic freedom ratings and the growth rate of GDP across 123 countries studied. Quite simply, their is no better solution to poverty than capitalism. Obviously the poorest nations had the highest poverty and the wealthiest, had the lowest. FYI: The seven components are, the size of government, the extent of government control of markets, degree of price stability, freedom to use foreign currencies, protection of property rights, freedom of international trade and freedom of capital markets.

    This is “exactly” what I have been trying to explain in a multitude of ways. To increase prosperity, you must have two things; protected and established rights and justice, that latter providing the first.

  152. ““And look at DavidM, he brings up subjects that others would be crucified over but he takes it right back to them.”

    Bron,

    DavidM is bigoted against Gay People, people of color and feels women should be subservient to men. Like many bigots he feels his prejudice is based in fact and not in ignorance. I call him a bigot based simply on the views he has expressed in his comments and so my judgment of him is one of logic, not rancor, since he is indeed an amiable bigot. Aside from that though he does try to actually make a case for his positions.

  153. Oky1,

    Interesting that you bring up the Cloward-Piven Strategy. I was actually working in welfare when the welfare protests began in NYC and I was right in the middle of it because my Union supported the strategy. It was a mistake by the Union and I felt used by the protesters. The CP Strategy (you have no idea how ironic that is) was a stupid one based on wishful thinking and in the end actually made the lives of people who needed welfare worse. Six years later I was working on my Master’s at Columbia and Cloward was my professor for one course. He was a pompous ass of a man, who chain smoked in class and who appeared to be a heavy drinker. He and I got into some arguments in class and he gave me a C+, which was the worst mark I received at Columbia. Living through the negative effects of that strategy taught me much about people from all sides of the political spectrum who are considered famous “experts”. The main thing being that as “experts” they’re great self promoters.

  154. “Smaller does not equate to less corrupt.”

    Gene,

    This is the obvious and provable point that so few of those screaming about shrinking the Federal Government never seem to understand. The most corrupt governmental entities in our nation’s history were always at the local levels. The reason is simple: it is easier to corrupt a smaller entity because it is infinitely cheaper.

  155. Hi Mike,

    I was missing you! (Smile)

    The wife just went to bed.

    Like I mentioned last night on another thread, being a leader sucks, but I got what I asked for, now let’s see if I can keep leading.

    Regardless, it’s game on until I drop.

    We got done speaking on a troubling topic & I mentioned to her this song comes to my mind.

  156. Kinda all over the map there, Skipples.

    I’ve noticed you do that when frustrated.

    That’s also still a lot of gibberish still based on a fundamental lack of understanding of the social compact, the powers of the various states and the relationship of the states to the Federal government and economics based in science and not the proclamations of a crank like von Mises, Skipples. The states do have power to challenge the Federal government. They can sue. They even win sometimes. Sometimes they lose. That is the nature of the adversarial legal process. They can also simply opt to ignore Federal law as they are in the burgeoning effort to legalize marijuana. Why? Because at the state level they know the War on Drugs is a failure, that marijuana is considered mostly harmless as an intoxicant by most people, is scientifically safer than booze or tobacco (both of which can be lethal doses quite easily where is it a practical impossibility to to OD on THC) and their citizens support legalization.

    Your “analysis” of state’s rights as it relates to the social compact also has nothing to do with capitalism. You also obviously don’t know what democratic market socialism entails either because the “market” part of that blended economy? Is capitalism. It just isn’t laissez-faire capitalism, the inevitable outcome of which is economic (and eventually brute) tyranny because that is what human nature promotes without constraints. Laissez-faire capitalism is a bad idea. Equal in bad ideas with communism and for the same reason albeit from different angles: both ignore human nature. In reality, a totally free market doesn’t work. It encourages abuses and economic tyranny. In reality, a command economy doesn’t work. People need some degree of property for security and to spur innovation and create motivation. In reality, what works is a blended economy where some transactions are based in a relatively free market and some transactions are controlled to maximize benefit to society regardless of profit – taking the best of both systems and leaving the worst of both systems. And you can get to be just as wealthy under that system as you like, you just won’t be able to do it by taking advantage of people for profit in ways that harm society as a whole.

    You’d be able to understand that simple fact if you didn’t worship money and understood what you read. Seriously, you previously suggested a book by a convicted felon offering ultra vires fraudulent advice on tax avoidance. I think Barnum may have been talking specifically about you.

    Capitalism isn’t enshrined in the Constitution either. The Constitution is silent on economic policy other than giving Congress the power to tax and spend for the general welfare and for common defense. The only economic model that is straight out is out by implication, not expressly, is communism because we do recognize (non-absolute) property rights by its terms and communism by definition does not recognize personal property. It also rules out some forms of monarchy and theocracies but for different reasons in addition to the property matter.

    Quite simply, you still don’t know what you are talking about.

    Sure. You think you do. But that’s the “blind” part of “blind ignorance” in operation.

  157. MikeS,

    Anything you can feed me that’s helpful organizing people towards non-violent protest, I’m all ears copying it & spread it like a Plague among wallst bank/insur trash.

    I’m feeling better, I know, I’m feeling ready now to mix it up.

  158. MikeS,

    If you’ve an idea…

    My wife & I have a person we are really interested in/vested & trying to help with their weight problem, but we know now/feel they’ve quit & given up all hope.

    We’ve seen this before with others & we’re attempting to stop it , this time, while we’ve still a small bit of time.

    When we’re lost on the road it doesn’t hurt to ask for directions.

  159. Gene: “Smaller does not equate to less corrupt.”

    Isn’t the limit of corruption in government making everything and everybody in the country the property of one supreme ruler, that doles out lavish rewards to his protectors? Isn’t a sole dictatorship the smallest government possible?

  160. Oky1: I know TonyC rubs me the wrong way.

    Interesting phraseology. I’m not here to smooth any fur, so you have a lot of company. I’m just here to play the game, and I call bullshit when I see it. You (by your writing and IMO) seem overly invested in appeasement, supplication and other “social lubricants” as argumentative tactics in defending your views. Those don’t work well on me, I’m more of a hyper-rational. Perhaps that lack of efficacy of your “sweetening” tactics, or lack of reciprocity, is what you find irritating about me.

  161. Fidel Castro was considered a dictator, even though he was really part of the communist oligarchy. Communism is the larger government per capita, fascism the next, socialism generally the next and libertarian the smallest. Of course the amount of socialism and the specific sectors the State controls and influences can vary drastically. As Gene H noted, Hitler sold the Germans socialism and gave them fascism. The size of government is determined by the amount of socialism, hence the size of the bureaucracy in which to administer and enforce the social policies.

  162. As you know libertarians argue between a small limited government and not government. For me I’m hoping there is a compromised between the two. A structure set up by voluntary efforts, but with the ability to enforce. As an example in remote areas of the 1800s, the wealthier town people would hire law men to protect everyone. The wealthy knew there would be people that could not afford to contribute but they had no choice in paying for the law protection. The necessity outweighed the importance of using force against those that were free riders. The majorities actions outweighed the criminals ability to commit crimes, most of the time. Still today with our advanced government system, criminals still get away with murder.

    It really depends on our constitutional rule of law and if we can change it to adopt a lesser level of initiation of force against the honest non-criminals citizens. Right now the penalty for being honest is just to high. If you are an honest average wage earner in this country and follow all the rules and regulations you will be relatively poor by todays standards.

  163. Oky1,

    There is a website you should check out. I have it downloaded on my PC, Kindle and IPhone. It’s free and I find that it works when I want to shed extra pounds. I have the link below. There is a food diary on it that helps you keep track of what you’re eating each day and what exercises that you do.

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/account/logout

    I’m a big guy and I always had a big appetite, so I’ve struggled with weight gain all of my life. The problem with almost all diets is that they work short term, but people fall back into bad habits. The best way to diet is by becoming aware of what you are eating and seeing how the calories build up. The Weight Watchers plan for instance has always been effective, but then people become overconfident and stop following the rules they’ve learned. Through keeping track of what you are eating you can lose weight and keep it off but it does take commitment because our eating habits have developed over a lifetime and are not easily dealt with.

    There are many causes of being overweight, some which are deeply psychological and others which are the result of bad eating habits developed early. Then too there is the possibility of underlying physical conditions that are the cause. Because of this I can’t give you any easy answers. However, that website may be of use. Dealing with obesity is a difficult problem for those struggling with it and requires much love and support. The one thing I can tell you is that the attitudes of many that being obese simply a matter of willpower is BS.

  164. “The size of government is determined by the amount of socialism, hence the size of the bureaucracy in which to administer and enforce the social policies.”

    Specious and simplistic reasoning that still misses the proper metrics. The size of a government no matter its form is dictated by three primary factors: size of the populace and geographic distribution (physical constraints) and how well it services the social compact (political/social restraint). Inefficiency in a system is in part a function of design, in part a function of implementation and in part purely mathematical based on complexity (any system of sufficient size is going to have a certain percentage of error a scientist would recognize as an acceptable rate of error). Criminals still get away with murder because there is no such thing as a perfect complex system. The best you can do is minimize the rate of error. You’ll never eliminate it. For example, if we totally removed money’s corrupting influence on elections and on the legislative process, you’d still have a certain number of bad actors in public office. You’d have a helluva lot less, but you’d still have some. Efficiency isn’t solely about size. It’s about a lot of different metrics. But the prime metric is still does the government function to the maximal mutual benefit in exchange for the rights limited from the state of nature by the social compact itself. The form – so long as it does not ignore human nature – is just another tool in the tool box. Some tools are better than others. Laissez-faire capitalism, like its polar opposite communism, are both bad tools because they ignore human nature to disastrous result although they look good on paper. There are a lot of ways to combat corruption (reduce systemic error). Arbitrary limits on size is not one of them. Government must be large enough to do the job as properly defined – which in our case does indeed mean looking after the common good/general welfare – and no larger.

    Our government isn’t broken because of its size.

    Our government is broken on purpose by the monied interests that have made it a pay-to-play system that have turned us away from the rule of law and to the rule by law (that last bit is an important but subtle distinction).

    But size didn’t cause that.

    Treating money as free speech, taking the limits off campaign contributions or circumventing them, and the grossly distorted system of modern lobbying did that. Deliberate sabotage combined with poor legal reasoning and a lack of understanding of social dynamics exploited by the unscrupulous in pursuit of personal profits and power without accountability.

    Solutions to problems must be rooted in reality. And that? Is the cold stark reality. That is how the American Experiment was polluted into a plutocracy marching toward fascism. And all of you think free markets are the silver bullet solution to that problem don’t realize or don’t care that you are aiding and abetting a “solution” that does nothing to fix the problem and indeed exacerbates the push toward economic tyranny and – eventually – more brutal and direct tyranny.

  165. “The size of government is determined by the amount of socialism, hence the size of the bureaucracy in which to administer and enforce the social policies.”

    Hskiprob,

    I think you need to re-think this oversimplification.

  166. ** Mike Spindell 1, December 27, 2013 at 10:29 am **

    Thanks, I’ve saved that site & attempt to pass it along.

    This movie below I seen a year ago. I’m seeing some people I know have good results with the concept of juicing.

    My wife & I use gardening & other activities as something we enjoy & we have to move to have any chance at having it produce anything.

    Mixing flowers into that vegetable garden really made it pretty.

    I think I had 70 jumbo sunflowers out last year with heads 8-10 inches across. We’ll be doing that again.

    The size of our garden over produces so we often have extra to give away.

    We find it interest many take the free produce, but they won’t even pick it themselves.

    Maybe they don’t see that the exercise is more valuable to them then the free vegetables?

    Back on the subject my wife & I will just have to work at coaching to help that person to stay engaged & motivated.

    That gal we used to help care for a few years back she was a Nurse & knew better. She jacked around & waited to long to the point she got gangrene in her feet & had to have them amputated.

    I don’t see a clean link, but below it shows the title. It’s not a cure all, but I think it will be helpful for some.

    http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=fat+sick+and+nearly+dead+full+movie+hd&sm=1

  167. Mike Spindell wrote: “DavidM is bigoted against Gay People, people of color and feels women should be subservient to men. Like many bigots he feels his prejudice is based in fact and not in ignorance. I call him a bigot based simply on the views he has expressed in his comments and so my judgment of him is one of logic, not rancor, since he is indeed an amiable bigot. Aside from that though he does try to actually make a case for his positions.”

    I am not a bigot. This is such a hate-filled way to talk about me during the holiday season.

    A bigot is a person “having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one’s own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others.” Now you invent the phrase “amiable bigot” because you recognize that I am not intolerant? I do not have a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others. How can you make such a claim without evidence? Does not such a claim make you bigoted?

    I have a different position on equality than you do. I believe that everybody is equal before the law, but everyone is not equal in nature, ability and talents. I believe everybody should have equal opportunity to make choices in life and better themselves, but not everybody is equal in how they take advantage of the opportunities available to them.

    I believe in both gender diversity and racial diversity. We do not give equal opportunity to people because of equal abilities, but because of equal stations in life. I do not believe in furthering preferential treatment toward one class of people based upon the prejudicial idea that the class has been harmed historically by bigots. I believe we are all equal before the law, period. Anti-discrimination laws create unequal classes of people and perpetuate the kind of bigotry we see manifested by your sentiments here.

    If I have a job that requires lifting 100 pound boxes, I am more likely to hire a male than a female. If I have a babysitting job, I am more likely to hire a female. You go around trying creating laws to make such illegal because you think only a bigoted person would think in such a way. The truth is that your anti-discrimination laws are contrary to nature. Your stupid laws deny reality and nature.

    You want to pretend that same sex unions are identical to opposite sex unions, despite the clear biological distinctions that same sex unions use sexual organs in perverted ways contrary to nature, unable to produce offspring and children. In contrast, opposite sex unions are based upon gender diversity and complementary unity that produce offspring that best serve society if raised by parents who love each other and produced children through their union together. So because I recognize gender diversity, you feel justified to call me a bigot. That is unjustified, IMO.

  168. When one espouses a bigoted position – even one couched in a manifest lack of understanding of natural law theory – they should not be surprised when others think they are bigots. Also, your claim that you think people should be treated equally under the law is belied by your assertion that homosexuals should not be able to engage in the specialty contract that is marriage (not to mention your completely anti-egalitarian position that the wealthy deserve more of a vote than everyone else).

    You don’t like that people think you are a bigot, David?

    Quit being one.

  169. Mike Spindell, wrote: I think you need to re-think this oversimplification.

    No I don’t. You need to understand what socialism is. It is the redistribution of wealth for social purposes. Each program; police, military defense, public parks, public education, social security, HUD, Department of Energy, Treasury, the judiciary, Medicaid, Department of the Interior, PBS TV, each County clerk of records, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. increases the amount of revenue and personnel needed to administer and achieve the goals of each program. Hence the more social programs a country has, the larger the size of government. The size of each program also determines the number of people required to administer and implement the program.

    Capitalism is the absence of government. If you minimize government we have greater levels of capitalism.

    I get tired of having to spell out in detail each and every aspect of the comments I make. Apparently, you and others are not really taking the time to read and understand my posts and instead are just looking for ways and means to discredit them. I’m not necessarily accusing you of this Mike, but that is what Tony C and Gene H. are trying to do. They are refusing to take off their blinders.

    Wouldn’t it be easier, if you do not understand something I say, just to ask a question instead of making erroneous conclusions and comments in an attempt to, as Gene H. noted, make good theater.

    I will answer even the difficult questions, unlike the fascists and socialists on this blog and I will not intentionally lie or mislead. This is not a fcuking game to me.

  170. “Capitalism is the absence of government.”

    That may be the single dumbest and most ignorant thing ever written on this blog by anyone.

    Anarchy is the absence of government, Skipples.

  171. Oky1: Exercise does astonishingly little for weight loss, in fact I read in Science News of studies that show it is counter-productive; exercisers often burn a 100 calories and then, because that is actually a lot of work, feel entitled to reward themselves with a 300 calorie snack. Or the exercise makes them hungry and they eat a bigger portion at dinner.

    People frequently over-estimate the calories they would burn in various exercises and under-estimate the calories in foods they eat, a double-whammy for this “little reward” dynamic. For example, at typical walking speed I burn about 100 calories per mile; and many people trying to lose weight can’t afford two hours of walking a day.

    The way to lose weight is to eat less. A fairly recent strategy that seems to be working, and takes advantage of human psychology, is putting two or three “thin days” in the week, as a permanent life style change. It isn’t a diet that will be over, it is how one eats.

    The idea is to pick two days back to back, depending upon one’s schedule, and on one day (the thin day) eat 1000 calories or less. On the other, eat normally; if you want to make up lost calories from the thin day, go ahead.

    In studies, however, that self-permission to make up lost calories actually helps people get through their thin day, by postponement of the reward (instead of flat denial of the reward). But come the fat day, the average “make up” calories is only about 300, so the net effect is often 800 or 1000 calories less intake. Do that three times a week, and lose 3/4 a pound a week (or more) without exercise, without “eating right”, without depriving themselves of food they love, and because of that it is easier to stick with (also shown by study).

    The trick is mental. As Roy Baumeister & John Tierney document in their book “Willpower” (in which they study willpower and the failure of it) willpower is much like a muscle, it tires and needs rest. And like a muscle, it also gets stronger with exercise.

    This approach, “thin day, fat day” prevents willpower exhaustion. You can tell yourself, “I can have that tomorrow,” and even if you know you probably won’t actually have it tomorrow, the possibility that you could makes it easier to exert the willpower to not eat it today!

    The other aspect is to not consider it a diet, with goals. Goals cause two problems: If they are achieved, the diet is over, and so is the weight loss. It needs to be a permanent change. Secondly, if the goal is not met, then discouragement sets in and the weight loss will also vanish.

    The only “goal” is to find a permanent eating regime with a level of calories one can eat that leaves one suitably thin and healthy AND without accumulating a sense of deprivation of favorite foods, because that accumulation takes willpower to sustain, and eventually that muscle fails and the diet fails.

    As a goal, this is a search for a permanent change, and failing to find that regime one week does not mean the goal is lost or the regime cannot be found. One can try again next week.

    As for the thin days, 1000 calories can be a fairly large amount of food; particularly if soups and vegetables are involved. Not that they have to be; it should be chosen by the eater, it is easier to get through the thin day if their main meal is something they enjoy and can look forward to.

  172. Tony,

    I’ve got a buddy who is a trainer and nutritionalist (mostly MMA clients) and what you say comports to his experience that the most successful regimens include a version of what he calls “an eat what you want day/meal”. It just can’t be every or even most days.

  173. Gene H. You just can’t grasp the concept that government on it’s economic foundations is unethical. It must take money and property from those it rightfully belongs to and give them to those it doesn’t rightfully belong to.

    When a private individual does this it is called theft, when government does this it is what you call a social compact. The problem is that if you are in the minority and or not rich, they generally loose.

    That is why government seldom if ever provides for what is in the best interest of the majority. You cannot fix a system that is inherently unethical. and we’ve been trying for 6,000 years

    Oh that’s right Gene H., I forgot that you are the all knowing and will solve all the problems of the world!!!!!!!! You don’t even understand why communism and socialism always fail, how are you on God’s green earth, going to provide any insight into improving the human experience?

  174. Gene, yes that is how many people on the planet define capitalism; the unfettered free market. If government exists, it fetters the market place. LOL. You were finally right on one point. Yes, anarchy is also the absence of government. Very good!

    The question is, do you now understand what socialism is and how it effects the size and scope of government?

    And if not, please provide your dissertation on the subject. The world can’t wait!!!

  175. Gene: My own diet, which maintains approximately military weight (despite a pretty sedentary life style), is about 12,000 calories a week. I have four days of 1200 calories, to which I have long become accustomed. Friday night through Saturday night I eat what I want, eat out, and consume approximately my weight in ice cream while watching movies.

    I also have 12 days in the year that I am off; six of them between Halloween and New Year’s day, so this morning I am 9.5 pounds over my pre-holiday weight!

    But no worries, it will all be gone before my next physical in April.

  176. Skip: You just can’t grasp the concept that government on it’s economic foundations is perfectly ethical. It creates an environment in which you have Rights that are protected by mutual consent, it defends that environment, and charges you a fee for your fair share of the cost of that environment, which is defined by how much that environment benefits you, in terms of making profits.

    You cannot grasp that, because you are greedy and petty. No offense, that is just the facts. You are not forced to pay taxes: Just stop using our infrastructure to make money, and your taxes will disappear. In fact, because of what we believe are your Rights as a human being, we will make you a net beneficiary and keep you fed and alive.

    If you don’t like that arrangement, you are even free to leave. Walk across the border to Mexico and don’t look back. It will be exciting, you will have a chance to learn a new language, and meet new and interesting people with some new free market propositions for you to consider.

    Nobody forces you to stay, nobody forces you to even work. I have a sister that would rather live in a drainage ditch than work (literally), despite forever having a room and board in my mother’s house (but my sister also doesn’t like the rules, like doing her own dishes). My sister doesn’t owe any taxes at all. Ever. Legally. Even under the table she never earns enough that she would have owed a penny. You can do the same! I know it is an aspirational goal, it will take a certain amount of dedication and sacrifice, but you don’t have to pay taxes!

    Which means, the social compact, which you can escape at any time, actually is voluntary; it is just like your phone contract, take it or leave it. There is no negotiation, but at any moment you can stop earning or walk into Mexico or the Canadian wilderness or start swimming for International waters and live free, little bird, for the rest of your life. Minus the many years the social compact is adding to that life.

  177. Skipples,

    You still don’t grasp that there in nothing unethical about limiting absolute rights in exchange for mutual benefit, but that is the nature of the social compact. I’m sure glad that someone like yourself, generally unable to put together any cogent line of thought and often not even a complete or sensible sentence, have figured out that the basis for modern legal studies and all those who’ve been studying the subject for the last 300 years have it all wrong and you’ve got the right answer. I anxiously await the entire field of the study of jurisprudence to bow down before you. I suspect I’ll be waiting until the eventual entropic death of the universe.

    And no. I have stated many times that communism fails and why it fails. I’ve also shown many examples where forms of socialism work and to a far greater functionality in the service of the social compact than other systems (Norway and Denmark to name just two). That it upsets you that communism fails for a very similar although slightly different cause rooted in the same error – not realistically accounting for human nature – just burns you up apparently. Oh well. That’s what happens when you think you understand what you are talking about and you don’t. You build sand castles instead of cogent arguments.

    I also understand what impact size has on government. It is you that don’t understand no matter how many times you insist that you do or how many times it is explained to you. I also don’t care that “many people” choose to define something wrongly. That still makes them . . . wait for it . . . wrong.

    Just like you.

  178. Gene and Tony, Many believe exercise is important but do no know the reasons why except, that you burn more energy. That’s not the real reasons you need to exercise.

    According to a friend, the lymph glands are like check valves, it they are not manipulated by exercise, they do not push the fluids around you system. You heart is worked harder as are you’re lungs, etc. What’s the old saying, if you don’t use it, you loose it. Mow the grass, trim the bushes etc. Manual labor is good exercise.

    There is some evidence that periodic fasting is very good for both the heart and arteries, as the fat in the arteries, according to a PhD friend, burns first before the body burns it’s other stored fats. Just be careful as toxins are going to be set loose and need to be excreted. Things such as wheat grass, spinach and other vegie’s high in chlorophyll, he says, can be juiced to solve the ill felling from toxins, some suffer when fasting. Hence, the term a juice fast.

    I don’t exercise much I’m to busy blogging. I hit some golf balls at the range and play as much as possible, work in the yard and have sex as much as possible. It beats the hell out of going to the smelly gym.

  179. Skip says: Many believe exercise is important but do no know the reasons why

    I am not among them. My wife and I lift weights together for an hour once a week. I walk the dog three miles a day. I wouldn’t believe your “friend.”

    Your PhD friend is wrong, too. What is his PhD in, medieval studies? Your arteries are not clogged by “arterial fat” that can be burned, fatty acids contribute to plaque buildup that is not reduced by exercise or burning body fat at all. Even fighting fit Marines at the peak of health and that get tons of exercise are building up plaques in their arteries, as studied extensively by autopsy of those fallen in battle. Soldiers as young as 18 can have significant arterial plaque.

    For example, see Jim Fixx, one of the most celebrated marathoners in decades. from the link, “On July 20, 1984, Fixx died at age 52 of a fulminant heart attack, after his daily run on Vermont Route 15 in Hardwick. The autopsy revealed that atherosclerosis had blocked one coronary artery 95%, a second 85%, and a third 70%.”

    Working your lungs does not make your lungs stronger or more efficient. Working your heart does extremely little for your heart; the primary benefit of aerobic exercise is improving the efficiency of the muscles in burning oxygen. Our hearts are already being exercised 24 hours a day, so even long term exercise in workouts that increases the heart rate significantly for a short periods of time typically improves heart function itself by less than 3%.

  180. My friend has a PhD in both Chinese Herbal and Alternative Medicine. He was talking about fasting that burns fat in the arteries first. That’s right I forgot Tony you know everything as do all your resources. Remember that it took the allopathic community until the mid 1980s to accept the fact that peptic ulcers were caused by a simple bacteria.

    It wasn’t until the mid-1980s that Warren and Marshall finally succeeded in convincing the medical community about the relationship between H. pylori and the formation of ulcers. As you will see, this was no simple task. It took much determination, hard work, and some rather unorthodox methods to accomplish this feat. Dr. Warren, a pathologist in Western Australia, first noticed Helicobacter organisms on his birthday in June of 1979. By this time technical advances in medicine had changed the way that diseases were diagnosed. The widespread availability of the fiberoptic endoscope, an instrument inserted into the stomach via the mouth, allowed physicians to collect high quality tissue specimens that they could examine microscopically. This greatly increased the ability of pathologists to view the fine details of tissue specimens. While examining a biopsy specimen of tissue taken from a person with chronic gastritis (inflammation of the stomach lining), Dr. Warren noticed fine, blue lines on the surface of the mucosa, the cells lining the stomach, in areas that were clearly damaged and inflamed. At higher magnification, he observed what appeared to be numerous small bacteria,

  181. Dale 1, December 22, 2013 at 8:05 pm

    Dredd,

    Notice how davidm2575 also observes that that the meaning of bigamy has been changed by our esteemed professor. davidm2575 quotes the OED. I now use wiktionary which squares with my recollection of Websters, etc. OED apparently defines bigamy as having two and no more plural marriages, one man and two women or one woman and two men. But Jonathan’s usage, even if modern, departs from the traditional meaning.
    =====================
    I noticed the tag-teams on this thread, but the fact that you are commenting as part of a tag team does not change reality.

    Marriage is a state issue.

    Thus in the present case it concerns Utah state law as it intersects with American Constitutional Rights.

    Here are the relevant Utah statutes at issue:

    Title 76

    Utah Criminal Code
    Chapter 7

    Offenses Against the Family
    —————————-
    76-7-101. Bigamy — Defense

    (1) A person is guilty of bigamy when, knowing he has a husband or wife or knowing the other person has a husband or wife, the person purports to marry another person or cohabits with another person.

    (2) Bigamy is a felony of the third degree.

    (3) It shall be a defense to bigamy that the accused reasonably believed he and the other person were legally eligible to remarry.
    —————————-
    76-7-103. Adultery.

    (1) A married person commits adultery when he voluntarily has sexual intercourse with a person other than his spouse.

    (2) Adultery is a class B misdemeanor.
    —————————-
    76-7-104. Fornication.

    (1) Any unmarried person who shall voluntarily engage in sexual intercourse with another is guilty of fornication.

    (2) Fornication is a class B misdemeanor.

    The Utah state law outlaws consensual sex between adults as did Texas law which was struck down in Lawrence v Texas.

    Under the Utah statute, polygamy is merely bigamy on steroids.

    The Deseret News is more articulate and discerning than the legislators were, distinguishing bigamy from polygamy due to the religious nature of the latter in the present case.

    Nevertheless, when a man with a state granted marriage, including a license, does a “spiritual marriage” (two wives) even though he does not ask for another state license, or when he merely cohabits with another woman besides his state-legal wife, that man and that second woman violate the Utah law of bigamy, fornication, and adultery.

    When he thereafter adds another spiritual wife (now three wives) or cohabits with a third woman, he also commits bigamy, fornication, and adultery according to the same law.

    That is why I quoted the Utah “Deseret News” for a definition of bigamy and polygamy – a state specific focus by newspaper people in that state who can discern one set of factual events from another.

    It is bad nomenclature to have a word that means so many things (bigamy = fornication, adultery, and polygamy).

  182. The Utah law is silly in some ways, because say a guy is married legally to one woman in the state of Utah.

    While married he cohabits with another woman, but does not have sex with that other woman, nevertheless, he is guilty of the felony of bigamy (not adultery because there was no sex).

    If he does not cohabit with her, but does have sex with her, he is only guilty of a misdemeanor (adultery).

  183. Tony C. and Gene H. You two live in the delusional world where our political leaders and Judges are saints and angels, setting up and maintaining a social compact that affords mutual benefits to all. What a bunch of hogwash and you see how that’s been working for the majority and for our economic system over the last several decades.

    How many people would you like to see on food stamps before you realize you socials compact concept is not working? Would another 50 million be enough for you, or are you waiting for another round of food lines and rationing.

    Oh, yea Gene we can cure all the problems with even more taxation and regulations and of course, with campaign reform. The problem is Genie, the politicians you trust have been saying this for 45 years and instead of improving it’s getting worse.

    Capitalism saved the world from the corruption of the authoritarian rule by the monarchs and you idiots are throwing it way on socialist myths. Even your greatest examples Norway, is fraught with social and economic problems even with being a tiny country with one of the greatest resource to populations ratios. Capitalism is the art of finding what people need and providing it for them at a price they will by it for. How hard is that to understand.

    What you may not understand is that these are not my original thoughts, these are the thoughts of hundreds, perhaps thousands of economists from around the world.

    Keep trying to use force against people into excepting your socialistic BS because, as you will see, socialism and communism fail and the they fail for pretty much the same reasons.

  184. Oky1:

    “Maybe Gene will explain to us as a liberal today seems to mean to many that they are authoritarian socialist like TonyC.

    I have been saying that for years.

  185. Skip says: ou two live in the delusional world where our political leaders and Judges are saints and angels,

    Actually I think they are scum, Skip. I think our political ranks are filled with sociopaths and even a handful of psychopaths. Seriously. I think the majority of national level politicians (and even major city politicians) are hopelessly corrupt, self-serving thieves. I really mean that.

  186. Skip says: How many people would you like to see on food stamps before you realize you socials compact concept is not working?

    All of them. At least, anybody that wants to apply for them, I would seriously consider 1500 calories worth of nutrition a day a birthright of every citizen.

  187. You really are incapable of thinking in anything but absolutes, aren’t you Skipples. I don’t use the word “cure” because that is the language of utopians such as yourself. I use the word “mitigate”, which means “make (something bad) less severe, serious, or painful”. Utopia is not possible.

    I’m also not surprised these “aren’t your original thoughts”. Thinking well and for yourself isn’t your strong suit and that much is manifest by your comments. But as they say in programming circles, garbage in garbage out. See, that’s what is frustrating about Bron. He actually can think well when he applies himself, but he often (but not always) insists on a diet of intellectual garbage and candy just like you do. And David sells intellectual garbage and candy so there you have it.

    Also, Austrian School economists are to economics what ancient astronaut theorists are to SETI. A million of them could tell me I’m wrong and it would mean precisely nothing. They practice political polemic disguised as economics, but it is not really economics at all.

    Again, since you’re hard of understanding, I require no force against others to make them change their minds. The ideas themselves and the arguments behind them will either persuade them or they won’t. That you personally are not persuaded means absolutely nothing in the bigger picture. Someone out there is persuaded. Which is fine. All I can do is show the foot of the path. Just as there is a difference between knowing the path and walking the path, no one can walk that path for another. It is a trip they make themselves. I don’t force anyone to change their mind.

    They do it themselves.

    Or they don’t.

    Sic transit gloria mundi.

  188. David,

    Your comment has been removed for revealing personal information I did not give you permission to share. That is a banning offense.

  189. Skip says: these are the thoughts of hundreds, perhaps thousands of economists from around the world.

    Quantity is not quality, Skip. 99.9% of the world population used to think the world was flat. And the center of the universe. That the moon shone with its own light. They were wrong. 200 years ago scientists thought the Sun was burning a fuel like any other fire, and confidently computed it would have to run out of fuel within 5000 years. They were wrong.

    Economists are not even scientists, you can quote thousands if you want, but if you trace those thousands of arguments back to their source, you aren’t going to find thousands of theorists that all came to the same conclusion by different paths. You are going to find a small handful of theorists that everybody is quoting. A small handful of theorists that are wrong, because they willfully ignore the evidence to the contrary.

    Free Markets don’t work. They fail. That is the fact.

  190. TonyC,

    Thanks for the diet/exercise post.

    I’ll likely argue against your “The beauty of European Socialism” later at some point, but now.

    Here’s a repost of a video I put up the other day:

    **Many here are still unsure of what has/is happening to the sovereignty of the USA, I couldn’t more strongly suggest they review this video as the same that is happening to Europe is already happening here today & is being written into law in every state! **

  191. DavidM:

    Gender diversity, I am all for that. I practice it myself, have been for the last 26 years. The children appreciate that I do too.

    vive le difference is my motto.

    By the way, my wife could never lift 100 lbs on the best day of her life. I used to do it all the time.

  192. Tony C:

    “Free Markets don’t work. They fail. That is the fact.”

    WTF? Where is there a free market that has failed? I thought you and others said they have never existed? So how can they fail?

    How can something that has never existed fail? There hasnt been a free market in this country, I think the 19th century was pretty free, since the creation of the fed and the passage of the income tax amendment. Top that off with 10’s of thousands of pages of regulations and where is there a free market?

  193. Tony C wrote: “I would seriously consider 1500 calories worth of nutrition a day a birthright of every citizen.”

    Then I surmise that you reject the aphorism:: “He who does not work, neither shall he eat.”

    If so, this is kind of interesting, because even the socialist Lenin advocated for this principle.

  194. Bron: There is a free market in Somalia, many parts of South America, many parts of Africa, many parts of the Middle East. Northern Pakistan is a free market, parts of Afghanistan are free markets. Zero government regulation of trade, period. No taxes. Plenty of mercenaries you can hire to protect your transactions and enforce your contracts. Good luck.

  195. DavidM: Yes, I reject that aphorism. It is complete absolutist bullshit. I do not subscribe to Lenin or anybody, don’t you know that by now? I subscribe to my own logic, based on principles I find self-evident. I know that is alien to you, thinking for yourself, but there you go.

    First, I have an autistic child within my family that may never work. Shall I let him starve?

    Secondly, unlike you, I do not place my faith in false gods.

    I have faith and trust in humanity’s urge and desire to improve their condition by work and effort, regardless of their economic position. Although a few people like my sister might collect their 1500 calories and idle away their time staring at clouds, the vast majority of people WILL work to improve the quality of their food, their shelter, their clothing, their entertainment, and about 55% of them will find ways to work to improve the lives of others.

    I don’t need sticks to get people off their duff, providing people with the basics of life will not cause them to stop working. As is shown in all countries with a strong safety net, it will actually encourage them to work and to innovate and find a way to do even better. Because that is human nature, the carrots are built in. They want to take the subway instead of humping a bicycle, they want to own their own car instead of taking the subway, they want a new car instead of the grad school beater. They want the 60″ TV with the surround sound speakers and the heart-stopping bass. They want the house instead of the apartment. They want an iPhone. They want, just once, the $200 a plate dinner at Ramsey’s.

    About 98% of us want more than the minimum necessary to sustain life, and we will work for it. I put my faith and trust in that reality.

  196. Gene H wrote: “Your comment has been removed for revealing personal information I did not give you permission to share. That is a banning offense.”

    Go ahead and treat me like Ed Snowden, but I shared nothing that you have not made public already.

  197. Yeah, you did, David, so save your self-appointed martyrdom for someone who doesn’t know better. You violated a black letter policy of this blog. The matter has been escalated.

  198. Gene H wrote: “Lenin was a communist, not a socialist.”

    What purpose does this nitpick serve? Most scholars recognize a relationship between communism and socialism. In Marxism, socialism is established before communism. Communists always fight for socialism, and Lenin was no exception. Read his actual writings or speeches, and you will find that he advocated strongly for socialism. Lenin can easily be called a socialist as well as a communist. Remember that the name of the nation he founded was the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics (USSR).

  199. Socialism is not communism and communists view socialism simply as a intermediate step to communism, not an end form in and of itself.

    So the purpose was accuracy, David.

    Lenin was a communist.

    He was not a socialist.

    He most certainly was not a democratic market socialist.

  200. Bron wrote: “I dont think you can call those free markets. There is coercion and force being used.”

    I agree with you, Bron. The examples he offered are not even close. The United States of America is probably the closest example of a free market. Also, look at emerging markets where it takes time for the government to catch up. For example, what is happening with the Internet and sellers like Amazon, or look at high tech development with personal computers. Eventually government gets to regulating these as well as they want a bigger piece of the action. But in the beginning, you see what the free market does by increasing competition which pushes prices down. Once government catches up, these markets will be like the oil and gas markets. Shortages will be announced from over-regulation, and prices will rise and people will have to do without.

  201. Skip says: (although it is not showing on the board for some reason): My friend has a PhD in both Chinese Herbal and Alternative Medicine.

    How utterly perfect. I would respect medieval studies more.

    Skip says: He was talking about fasting that burns fat in the arteries first.

    And he is wrong about that. Completely.

    Skip says: That’s right I forgot Tony you know everything as do all your resources.

    I do not know everything, but I am professionally trained to read science and I probably average two hours a day doing it, from all sorts of sources. It is a perk of my position; effectively unlimited free access to just about anything I find interesting. Plus I spend several hundred dollars a year of my own money on additional sources, and I probably understand much better than you how to access online sources to see abstracts of what research is currently in progress.

    I don’t know everything, Skip, I just know a lot more than you do. I am a professional learning machine, and very good at that.

  202. “I am not a bigot. This is such a hate-filled way to talk about me during the holiday season”

    David,

    You have expressed belief that Black people are intellectually and emotionally inferior to White people and presented what you call proof of it. You have accused homosexuals of being deviant and promiscuous sexually to a degree that is threatening to society. Finally, you have written that women should be subservient to men in marriage since that is the natural order of things. You have also stated that propertied people are more entitled to vote than those who don’t own property. To me that shows you to be a bigot against people of color, homosexuals, women and people of lesser financial statues. You can define yourself however you choose, but that is my judgment of you. I find it funny that you, who expresses such prejudiced views would try to turn it around and accused me of being “hate-filled”. The funniest part is that I bear you no animus and actually welcome you here, because you provide me with the ammunition to dispel your rather extreme and un-American beliefs. DavidM, don’t you understand that you are far too insignificant for me to hate?

  203. Bron says: I dont think you can call those free markets.

    Why not? Zero regulation permits coercion. Zero taxes requires you to pay mercenaries to protect you from coercion, and to coerce others into keeping their contracts with you.

    How is the government supposed to do that for free? If there is any charge of any kind, tariffs, taxes, fees, what have you, then the market is no longer free. You keep telling me any form of taxation is theft.

    Does your free market philosophy require theft?

  204. I love the way Gene H and Tony C. just constantly criticize, what they just can’t seem to grasp. They can’t understand how people can associate and do great things without being forced to do so. Perhaps they were unloved as children and just don’t understand the concept. That when people voluntarily do things, they want to do it and therefore do a better job. That people who are forced to do things aren’t happy (themselves and/or slaves) and generally will do a horrible job at whatever they do. That when people work together without being forced or coerced, their creativity, integrity and productivity increase. Human nature is a wonderful thing, not one to be used as pieces of meat, under the treat of force and coercion by a corrupt ruling class, who steals from their labor, in the name of the public good. This is really the system they embrace, one where everyone tries to line up at the public treasury and fight over who gets what and how much. Theft, conflict, compromise, corruption, coercion, collusion, fraud and framing innocent people are all proven and prosecuted elements of the social compact they adore.

    They just can’t fathom a society were people work together without being threatened by force and coercion on a constant basis yet as they watch the initiation of force and coercion, do they not see that it has bankrupted and impoverished the lower classes, much more now than every before in our history. That is because we have the greatest level of socialism ever, and yet they do not see the causation and instead blame capitalism, that which does not even exist in today Amerika. Many many other people here in the US and around the world understand what the libertarians are saying and as each year goes by, even more are joining the ranks of those in favor of true capitalism.

    Wake up boys. There really can be a better world.

  205. Your Pollyanna understanding of human nature relies on the very bad assumption that left to their own devices all humans will be good actors operating in good faith, Skippy.

    That is simply not the case.

    Left to our own devices as a species we are self-predatory. Homo homini lupus. Man is the wolf to man. Even the ancients knew this to be true.

  206. “Hence the more social programs a country has, the larger the size of government.”

    Hskiprob,

    First of all you are conflating “social programs” with “socialism”, which shows you don’t understand either concept. The reason for that is that you begin with a false premise and that is that Government is essentially bad and that government’s collection of taxes is theft. To me that is counter-factual and emblematic of the thinking of a phony economist named Von Mises and the sociopathic writer of bodice-bursting fiction who fancied herself a philosopher.
    When someone like you starts out with counter-factual premises to bolster your arguments that the arguments are unlikely to be of value. Contrary to you belief I’ve read everything you’ve written and I must agree with both Gene and Tony that you don’t know what you’re writing about. You might be a perfectly nice fellow, but you are politically at sea.

  207. DavidM:

    “Remember that the name of the nation he founded was the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics (USSR).”

    There is that small fact. Socialists dont like any mention of socialism when it looks bad for them. Norway and a couple of other postage stamp size countries with relatively conforming populations and lots of oil money are making it work. So obviously it works if there is free enterprise to back it up and freedom.

    Which is sort of what I would like to see here, a free market with limited regulations and low taxes so that we would need only a very small safety net for only those who really need one.

    If we could only convince the socialists that the way to help everyone is to give them more freedom not less. But then who would need the socialists?

    I think it must suck for socialists to have an ideology which requires people to suffer to be able to stay in power?

    And blaming capitalism? WTF is that all about? They always go back to the great migrations from Europe where millions of people landed on our shores and there were few jobs to be had. Never mind that in less than the span of an individual life most people had a job and large cities were created, roads were built and airplanes were carrying mail while houses were lighted and people were using elevators instead of stairs.

    H3ll, the invention of the elevator reduced the cost of housing to the poor just as the discovery of oil reduced the cost of light and heat.

    Socialism is taking us backwards now. Our money is worth 3-4% of what it was at the end of the 19th century. If the FED keep going it will be Zimbabwe. I am buying gold as a hedge against the madness but then I guess nothing is safe from people who keep putting off the inevitable.

  208. “The other aspect is to not consider it a diet, with goals.”

    Tony,

    This is quite true. Part of the “secret” to attaining a healthy weight is to determine that what you eat will be healthy. For instance I love Barbequed spare ribs, but they are incredibly fatty and fattening. I don’t eat them. It used to be that I could eat a I pound steak at one sitting. When I eat steak now, which is rare, I never eat more than 5oz. The interesting thing is that in changing my eating habits for my lifetime I don’t feel deprived, I’ve just learned to love foods that are much better for me to eat.

  209. Bron wrote: “I hope you dont get the boot. And make sure you find the references in the blog threads as your back-up.”

    LOL. You make it sound like they are going to put me on trial or something. What I expect is an authoritarian swing of the left foot of fellowship based upon specious accusations. They don’t want people around who are not subservient to their viewpoints. Whatever I said that Gene took as “personal” doesn’t really matter. It is all an excuse to do what they have wanted to do for a long time. Others have been calling for me to be banned for awhile now, well before this intolerable post. Hatred is the motivation. Anybody with a modicum of intelligence can see that.

  210. Bron,

    No one is blaming capitalism in general but rather a specific extremist form of it: laissez-faire capitalism. Apparently you missed the part where socialist models that rely on blended economic models like democratic market socialism rely in part on capitalism. Just not the extremist variety that you endorse. The Soviets, like the Nazis, can call themselves whatever they like but they are what they were in action. In action, the USSR was a communist state with a command economy.

  211. Tony C:

    “Why not? Zero regulation permits coercion. Zero taxes requires you to pay mercenaries to protect you from coercion, and to coerce others into keeping their contracts with you.

    How is the government supposed to do that for free? If there is any charge of any kind, tariffs, taxes, fees, what have you, then the market is no longer free. You keep telling me any form of taxation is theft.

    Does your free market philosophy require theft?”

    At the beginning of our country when we had a limited government dedicated to protecting individual rights things worked out pretty well and brought forth a very high standard of living. None of it with harsh regulations or a tax on income from labor.

    By the way, in those countries there is no concern with individual rights.

  212. “My own diet, which maintains approximately military weight (despite a pretty sedentary life style), is about 12,000 calories a week. I have four days of 1200 calories, to which I have long become accustomed.”

    Tony,

    You’re right one of the tricks is regularity. In 1970 I lived for 8 mos. on a diet that consisted of the following:

    Breakfast: 2 slices of white toast with butter. Orange Juice and coffee.
    Dinner: 1 pound broiled Rib Steak w/o bone on a garlic bagel. That was pretty much it with only two or three days of exception. I went from 245 to 175 and maintained myself at that weight for ten years pretty much eating what I wanted to. Of course I was much younger than, far more active and did 100 situps and 100 pushups each and every day. :).

  213. No, David, I don’t hate you. I may hate what you stand for, but you? As Mike said, you are far too insignificant to hate personally. Hate takes work. You’re simply not worth the effort. However, your frustration at having your agenda debunked on a consistent basis is starting to show. It must be hard for you, dealing with people who actually understand how propaganda works and can defuse it with ease.

    What you said about me was personally identifying information I chose not to share. That’s a clear violation of blog policy. So far, every GB who has responded to the escalation has responded in favor of your banning for doing so as well.

  214. Mike Spindell wrote: “You have expressed belief that Black people are intellectually and emotionally inferior to White people and presented what you call proof of it. You have accused homosexuals of being deviant and promiscuous sexually to a degree that is threatening to society. Finally, you have written that women should be subservient to men in marriage since that is the natural order of things. You have also stated that propertied people are more entitled to vote than those who don’t own property. To me that shows you to be a bigot against people of color, homosexuals, women and people of lesser financial statues.”

    Your warped misunderstandings of my positions notwithstanding, how would you feel if I called you a bigot for thinking that your judgment of me shows you to be a bigot against people with traditional values? Would that make you feel good, or would you be offended by me publicly calling you a bigot?

    Mike Spindell wrote: “that is my judgment of you.”

    Here is part of the problem. Try discussing the topic a little more and a little less time judging me.

  215. DavidM, This is their world, it’s all they got. For us normal folks it’s just a blog to discuss ideas. To them, it is a battlefield and they will engage in any means necessary to win the war of their righteous crusade. Their non religion has a religious zeal. And, their free speech mantra is bullshit. They do all they can to silence and ban those who stand up to them. Those of us who have experienced their cabal activities to ban us who disagree just need to remain vigilant. But always remember, no matter how bad you are, you’re still better than me. Something I actually agree w/.

  216. Being a bigot of those who express bigoted ideology is no vice.

    Especially in an egalitarian society.

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal”.

    Isn’t that the first clause of the phrase you claim to hold so dear while seeking to disparage and trample the rights of others, David?

    Mmmmmm. Rank hypocrisy. Delicious.

  217. You’re still here, nick.

    But only because you changed your ways.

    You ran afoul of a soft rule. David? Not so much.

    Thanks for chiming in. It added so much to the conversation. Is your two cents still worth thirty-seven dollars and change?

  218. Bron wrote: “Norway and a couple of other postage stamp size countries with relatively conforming populations and lots of oil money are making it work.”

    Yeah, but remember too that the Kingdom of Norway also could be used as an example of how a Monarchy works, or how a Theocracy works so well. Surely an atheist like Tony would not embrace that. They pick and choose the elements they like and ignore other possibly contributing factors. Could it be that socialism requires authoritarian rule like Norway has in order to work temporarily?

    When I traveled to China, I was struck by the existence of toll booths on the expressways. Toll booths in communist China? A bit unexpected, but clearly free enterprise exists at levels that many overlook in virtually every country. People often claim communism or socialism, but what ends up in existence is a mixture with capitalism. Same in this country. We can herald how we are a capitalist nation, but in practice we have a lot of socialism.

  219. Norway is unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy like the U.K., Andorra, Belgium, Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Spain, and Sweden.

    It is not a traditional absolute monarchy like Liechtenstein and Monaco.

    Ahhhhh, that devil! She is indeed in the details.

  220. Gene H wrote: “Lenin was a communist. He was not a socialist. He most certainly was not a democratic market socialist.”

    Lenin was a democratic socialist. He differs from your perspective of democratic market socialism by the fact that he believed that in Russia at the time, a revolution through vanguardism was necessary to produce the desired socialism. Lenin worked to organize workers just like unions here do. Ultimately, however, his goal was the overthrow of the ruling class.

    You might consider the following book:
    Revolution, Democracy, Socialism
    Selected Writings of V.I. Lenin

    http://links.org.au/node/2762

    “The substance of this volume, however, is its collection of Lenin statements that further confirm Le Blanc’s view of Lenin as a revolutionary socialist committed to democratic principles. Le Blanc has adroitly excerpted passages from Lenin’s voluminous body of writing, organising these selections in a largely chronological but also thematic compilation.”

    “Lenin himself became a revolutionary, influenced by the Marxism of Georgi Plekhanov. He studied capitalist development in the Russian countryside, authoring a major book on the subject in 1899. Driven into exile, Lenin distinguished himself at the time of the 1905 Revolution by insisting that a “democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry” was the necessary foundation of advancing social democracy in Russia. In the years leading up to World War I, Lenin charted the path of the Bolsheviks within the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party.”

    “More than any other single individual in the history of modern revolutionary movements, then, Lenin had both seen and advocated a path to the possibility of building the prerequisites of socialism.”

    “Unfortunately for Lenin, his tree of life would see a foliage of problems in the 1917-1923 years, and through these leaves of difficulty no theory could triumphantly proclaim socialism into being. In the last years of his life, Lenin was pressured aplenty to adapt to what Le Blanc acknowledges was a “tragic authoritarianism”. But he also struggled to keep alive what had been a life-long commitment to revolutionary democracy. Lenin, a tactician who addressed realities, often offered guidance that had a certain timeless ring to it: “Control over a bank, the merging of all banks into one, is not yet socialism”, he wrote, “but it is a step towards socialism.” This kind of elementary socialist vocabulary needs to be resurrected. So, too, does Lenin’s boundless internationalism, his belief in the triumph of world revolution that alone could abolish the regime of capitalist accumulation premised on the exploitation of the many by the few, a social order destined to reproduce an ongoing orgy of oppression.”

    “Lenin believed it impossible to reach his goals ‘by any other path than that of political democracy.'”

  221. davidm2575 1, December 27, 2013 at 6:15 pm

    My reply to Gene H about Lenin did not post. Have I been banned already, or is it snagged in WordPress?
    ==========================
    “Yes.”

  222. “Who on Jonathan Turley’s blog better fits this definition of bigotry than”

    DavidM,

    Your comment that begins with this sentence has been deleted. You have violated one of the few rules we have on this blog and that is investigating and revealing personal information about anyone commenting, especially if they use their real names to comment. You don’t use your name do you, since there are many David M’s in this world. If you pull this crap again you will be banned and I have that from the highest authority on this blog. Make any arguments you want but do not violate this rule.

  223. Gene H wrote: “…your frustration at having your agenda debunked on a consistent basis is starting to show.”

    My frustration was over how you were mistreating Skip. I am a true egalitarian, not a phony like you who pretends you are for treating everyone with respect. You are for everyone’s rights and equality except for people like me, Skip, and Nick. Maybe if I was a black homosexual, then you would be for my rights, but because I am a white successful businessman, then I am the man to hate. In your own words, bigotry against me is no vice.

    Gene H wrote: “What you said about me was personally identifying information I chose not to share.”

    This is a lie. I know nothing about you other than what you have chosen to share. I have never met you, neither do I know your friends, nor have I hacked into your computer or downloaded classified information about you. Any information I wrote about you came to me from you because you chose to share it. Nothing you have shared with me has been in private, as you well know. I have never received any private correspondence from you or from anybody else about you. All information I have disclosed about you is public information. For you to pretend otherwise is a lie, and for your comrades who agree with you that I should be banned for it, well, they either are falling for your deception or they embrace a silly rule that makes President Obama’s stance toward Ed Snowden look charitable.

  224. That’s one man’s take on it. History shows otherwise, David. Lenin was still a communist in action, David, who didn’t come into power by democratic process but by revolutionary action. No one voted Lenin into office. He seized power by violence. I don’t care if he wrote the recipe for sugar cookies, that doesn’t make him the Pillsbury Doughboy in action. At least your appeal to authority wasn’t a fallacious appeal, just an appeal to someone who got it wrong. If you want to trace the genesis of market socialism? You really need to start with (and this is really going to get you) Adam Smith.

    As for your second comment?

    Well, it isn’t a lie. Plain and simple. You disclosed personally identifying information about me that I choose not to share in this forum and you did so without my permission and in violation of the policy of this blog. I don’t care where you got it.

    And try to martyr yourself all you like.

    The discussion of your unacceptable behavior is currently not working out in your benefit.

  225. David sez. “I am a true egalitarian…”

    **************************
    Dave, I don’t think that word means what you think it means. Either you are ignorant of the etymology and definition of the word, or you are a bald faced liar.

    A person who advocates limiting rights and privileges for gays, blacks, women, and people who are not well off sure as hell is not an egalitarian.

    Try this on for size: “I am a true bigot….”
    See how much better that fits?

  226. Gene H wrote: “Lenin was still a communist in action, David, who didn’t come into power by democratic process but by revolutionary action.”

    He used both revolutionary action and the democratic process. You overlook the many organizations that voted for and joined his cause. His violence was more of necessity than desire. He ideally would have opted for something more purely democratic like Germany, but the situation in Russia did not allow for it. From an idealism standpoint, he was not much different from many on this blog, but from a practical standpoint, he had the fortitude and courage to fight violently for the goals he believed was best for the poor suffering working class.

  227. OS wrote: “A person who advocates limiting rights and privileges for gays, blacks, women, and people who are not well off sure as hell is not an egalitarian.”

    This does not describe me. I believe all people are created equal and are therefore equal before the law. Their rights and opportunities are equal. But that does not mean that I believe all people are equal. There is a difference between being created equal and being equal. The felon in prison is not equal to you. His rights have been taken away.

  228. Let’s see.

    Doesn’t want gays to be able to marry or enjoy the same contractual relationship as heteros? Check.

    Thinks blacks are inferior? Check.

    Thinks women should be subservient to men? Check.

    Thinks the wealthier a person is, the more votes they should have? Check.

    Sounds like a perfect summation of your previously advocated stands, David.

  229. Also, there isn’t a difference between being created equal and therefor equal under the law and being equal. They are the same thing as it applies to legalism. There is a difference between created equal and equally created. The later for which you provide a fine example of – just not in the way I’m sure you think you do. It is either willful ignorance, a lack of self-awareness, or political malice trying to sugar coat the hate for one who holds your views to claim to be an egalitarian. It’s counter-factual by your own example, hypocritical and a really bad joke.

  230. David,
    How about the gay couple who want to get married? Or the woman who is pregnant and wants an abortion for personal reasons that are none of your business. Or the woman who does not want to be subservient to her husband or any other male on the planet? How about the transgender person who simply wants to use the bathroom? How about the poor person who can’t get insurance, and goes without needed lifesaving surgery because they can’t even afford to go to the doctor to get their cancer diagnosed?

    Those are all issues on which you have weighed in multiple times with your bigotry.

    You got yours, and to heck with the rest.

  231. Mike Spindell 1, December 27, 2013 at 4:59 pm

    DavidM,

    I don’t know you that well, but I know plenty of people that fit the description MikeS presented.

    I’m a back door partner to one such person that I was forced to call down the thunder on 3 or 5 years ago. He’s containing himself now. Some thing we still actually agree on.

    What he represents is the rock in the Republican party’s shoe that they have to throwing out.

    Those concepts Mike lays out have been proven to enough people that they are no long acceptable to most of the populous.

    Even Ok’s Repub Senator Tom Coburn has been forced to admit it publicly.

    I don’t hate you, but we’ve here in the USA, as a people, have moved beyond that ole dogma of that type of oppression.

    And yes, the Democratic party has a few rocks in their shoes that they need to throw out.

  232. Apparently you don’t know what “democratic process” entails, David.

    Garnering the support of allies isn’t sufficient. Democratic process relies on free and open elections. No one elected Lenin to be anything. He took the job. After him? Stalin consolidated power to be absolute ruler of the USSR. After Stalin? The head of state was appointed by the Communist Party. They didn’t have elections in Russia until 1990 and there is still some question as to about how “free and open” they are. If Lenin had been democratic? The first thing he’d have done was set up elections so the people could choose their own leader(s).

    But he didn’t.

    Nope.

  233. **Or the woman who is pregnant and wants an abortion for personal reasons that are none of your business. **

    OS,

    Some would love to ban abortions.

    A friend of mine was showing me the house he built for a Black Market abortion cleint. (Unknown to my friend at the time)

    That Doc served time in prison over it.

    Seems like then the price was up around $25,000.

    But hey, the wealthy can still fly their kids to where ever for an abortion if made illegal here.

  234. **How about the poor person who can’t get insurance, and goes without needed lifesaving surgery because they can’t even afford to go to the doctor to get their cancer diagnosed? **

    OS,

    Sorry, but that’s a rock in the Democratic Party’s Shoe.

    “Insurance does not reduce risk, it increases it!”

    IE: 2007-8 Wallst financial collapse, those were insurance products that blewup & are still blowing up. 25 trillion the 1st year, est about 5 x or more now. (Ya, the elephant in the rm most are still ignoring)

    But for something most can relate to on the ground USA, without Insurance those estimated 500,000-1.5 million USA women wouldn’t not have been wrongly given unneeded hysterectomies.

    It wreck many of their & their families lives forever because of increased Risk of Insurance.

    Bring it in even closer in today’s time, an older gentlemen is considering a back surgery to get rid of 24/7/365 daily pain, but he knows he has a big juicy Insurance policy so he’s going no where near those butchers because he knows they’ll likely intentionally set off an in hospital heart attack so those Docs will have the Insurance funds to supply their daughter’s drug habit & BMWs.

    What’s the solution, you tell me?

  235. It used to be it was small minded, religious fanatics who wanted to ban people, book, music, etc. Now it’s “progressives” obsessing on banning people and speech here. A secular religious ferocity.

  236. Bring it in even closer in today’s time, an older gentlemen is considering a back surgery to get rid of 24/7/365 daily pain, but he knows he has a big juicy Insurance policy so he’s going no where near those butchers because he knows they’ll likely intentionally set off an in hospital heart attack so those Docs will have the Insurance funds to supply their daughter’s drug habit & BMWs.
    =======================================================
    oky

    sometimes you take paranoia to a whole new level

  237. Oky saw the Breaking Bad episodes, Half Measures then Full Measures. He learned from Mike that half measures don’t work, you have to commit. Oky is, and will be, committed.

  238. **
    oky

    sometimes you take paranoia to a whole new level **

    pete9999,

    When one spends a lifetime career in building/land development those projects are exactly like getting married to those people.

    (Sometimes hallway Sex! lol)

    Doctors, Judges, Federal Prosecutors, Bankers, reformed hookers, everyone, they all put their pants on one leg at a time.

  239. pete was saying you were fully committed to paranoia. I was just drawing an analogy to Breaking Bad. A great character, a sleazy PI, former cop, tells a great story about how if you want to get a job done, you can’t just go half way, it may even mean killing someone, but half measures never work. It’s just good natured ball busting mostly directed @ Breaking Bad fans and your idiosyncratic comment. I enjoy your humor and eclectic views.

  240. Oh, anyone w/ half a brain identified Mike as an interesting, intelligent, complex, sleazy PI. A great character in a great series.

  241. **Breaking Bad fans and your idiosyncratic comment**

    Nick,

    I was watching some propaganda crap on CNN 2-3 years ago & said Ph it pulled the plug.

    I cut the cable & got rid of half the TVs around here.

    My wife says I’ve went Palio, (caveman) lol

    When in a room full of people in mask the one without seems the odd one.

  242. Oky, Spent a couple weeks in Italy w/ only CNN and BBC. I watched maybe an hour total in those 2 weeks, mostly about Mandela. We only watch Netflix, HBO Go, etc, ~80% of the time. Sports fills up most of the remaining 20%. For some reason my wife will watch the CBS evening news, all the Big Pharma commercials!! I can’t watch.

  243. Re Italy

    I was wondering yesterday just how many billions $$$ Airlines, restaurants, hotels, retailers, etc are losing a year because people won’t travel now because of Homeland Security/TSA?

    Ph’em, they can eat those empty plane seats & empty beds.

  244. Oky, Amen to the TSA. My wife had knee replacement surgery a few years ago. If there are those full body scans they can see that’s the metal on/in her body is her knee. However, most places have the metal detectors which means a full pat down every time. It sucks and I feel bad for her. I can think of a few times when we’ve driven 8-10 hours instead of taking a flight specifically because of the hassle.

  245. David M:

    I have not been involved in this discussion but I wanted to emphasize Mike S’s point that disclosing personal information about anyone who doesn’t want it revealed is the universal taboo here and at every other responsible blog I know about. Some in the blog’s administration wanted to give you a second chance and my own sensibilities about the First Amendment were plucked as well. However, had I been the deciding vote you would have been instantly banned and I have NEVER suggested this about a commenter before. I believe you knew exactly what you were doing and decided to push the line here using resources unavailable to most everyone except paid counter-bloggers. Cooler and better heads prevailed and you have another chance to do the right thing. I hope you take advantage of the largesse shown you by more tolerant folks than me and use the blog for its intended purpose rather than as an object of your agenda.

  246. Nick,

    In biz they buy air conditioners in the winter & sell them in the summer.

    The tide has turned in biz.

    The midlevel bank/insurance managers that feed Wallst’s addiction to greed are ripe & ready for harvest.

    Ya, no doubt they’ll be a bit ornery bringing in.

    Where does a guy find the best price for hides?

  247. Seconding Mespo’s comment at 10:58 PM.

    David, you know what you are and what your agenda is. You are transparently obvious to everyone here. On most other blogs you would be long gone.

  248. Nick,

    I read somewhere Wallst banks/insur had DC polecats come up with a scheme in the 1800s to pay , I think, $0.10 a Buffalo’s tongue supposedly to make purses out of them, to starve out Native Americans so they could exploit their lands.

    They killed millions of Buffalo tongues & filled warehouse back east which in turn caused cholera epidemics on the great plains which caused deaths of whites & Natives.

    I find a sense of poetic justice now that it’s the Wallst bank/insur trash that has a bounty on them to be brought to justice.

    Heroes of the people will be made right here, right now.

  249. “Others have been calling for me to be banned for awhile now, well before this intolerable post. Hatred is the motivation. Anybody with a modicum of intelligence can see that.”

    DavidM,

    You are lying for sympathy because no one has called for your banning at all in the past.

  250. “Your warped misunderstandings of my positions notwithstanding, how would you feel if I called you a bigot for thinking that your judgment of me shows you to be a bigot against people with traditional values?”

    DavidM,

    Call me whatever you’d like to call me, but your response is on the level of an 8 year old on the schoolyard going Nyahh, Nyahh, Nyahh. The confessed bigot calls me a bigot for calling him a bigot. David you’re amusing, but yet still a bigot based on your own words.

  251. “But always remember, no matter how bad you are, you’re still better than me. Something I actually agree w/.”

    Well Nick that is true, but I really thought you thought better of yourself.

  252. “Any information I wrote about you came to me from you because you chose to share it.”

    DavidM,

    You are lying again. I’ve read your comment and it was information that Gene has not shared on this blog, but that I am aware of as Gene’s friend.

  253. “Oh Great Wakan Tanka we pray to thee for peace, justice & good will towards all the creatures great & small and upstanding by/of the Xenophobes ”

  254. Ph’ing typos:

    “Oh Great Wakan Tanka we pray to thee for peace, justice & good will towards all the creatures great & small and understanding by/of the Xenophobes ”

  255. One PI is

    “Oh, anyone w/ half a brain identified Mike as an interesting, intelligent, complex, sleazy PI. A great character in a great series.”

    and the other is Nick Spinelli

  256. Gene H wrote: “Lenin was a communist. He was not a socialist. He most certainly was not a democratic market socialist.”

    Gene has yet to realized that socialism is just centralized planning and controls, just like communism except that instead of directly owning the means of production and taking the revenue for government from the profits, socialism just taxes the profits as revenues and regulates industry for the centrally planned government. Two different methods to achieve the same goal. The redistribution of wealth.

    And he has not yet figured out that those who claim democratic market socialism are lying to him. There can be no such thing. You either have free markets or socialism, they are antithetic, just like slavery and liberty, thus like oil and water they cannot mix; at least not for what is in the best interest of the majority nor for those who end up being the economic slaves for the ruling oligarchy.

    Socialism and communism always end up destroying individual initiative and the benefits derived from the creativity and hard work. It’s why ninety-eight percent of the mixed economies around the world are suffering huge amounts of social and economic problems.

    People around the world are starting to figure it out and are rebellion against their governments. How successful they are will vary but most of the government will eventually be forced into greater free market capitalism, or they will die under their own conflict and corruption.

    Did you happen to see any of the videos on how powerful those water guns in Turkey were, that they were using against their own Citizens to quell dissention and rebellion.

    Really Gene H., this is the kind of world you want to live in????

  257. No, Skipples. I understand exactly what the differences are between laissez-faire, a mixed economy and a command economy are. You seem to be the one with some confusion on the economic basics.

    Do I want to live in a world where the government acts as a brake on the abusive and exploitative actions of bad actors in business that a laissez-faire system invites, adequately provides for the general welfare of citizens over protecting private profits and doesn’t treat the “monied elite” as if they were above the law?

    You’re damn right I do.

  258. Seems like those evil socialist European countries like Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Germany, are all doing pretty well and have a population that enjoy their socialistic tendencies.

  259. davidm,

    “Others have been calling for me to be banned for awhile now, well before this intolerable post. Hatred is the motivation. Anybody with a modicum of intelligence can see that.”

    Who has called for you to be banned?

  260. OS wrote: “David sez. “I am a true egalitarian…” “Dave, I don’t think that word means what you think it means. Either you are ignorant of the etymology and definition of the word, or you are a bald faced liar. A person who advocates limiting rights and privileges for gays, blacks, women, and people who are not well off sure as hell is not an egalitarian.”

    I have NEVER advocated limiting the rights of gays, blacks, women, and poor people. These are malicious lies perpetuated by you and other leaders on this blog to discredit me.

    An egalitarian is someone who believes in the principle that all people are created equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities. An egalitarian believes in a society where all people are treated with respect and dignity, despite whatever station in life they hold. It is because I am an egalitarian that I have jumped to the defense of Skip. I am horrified at the utter disrespect and abuse heaped upon him that led him to express that he was leaving the blog. There was not a single word of contrition from any of you when that happened.

    You see, a true egalitarian recognizes that everybody has different abilities and talents. He is not blind to differences, but rather he celebrates diversity. A true egalitarian does not denigrate someone whose education is less than their own. He helps that person have the same opportunities that he has had in life. He shares his knowledge and his benefit of education with others. If he finds someone illiterate, he does not mock and scorn that person. He teaches him to read.

    What you guys do is create a class system in society that makes people unequal. You hate the wealthy and worship the poor. You hate the white man and adore the black man. You deplore manliness and elevate feminism. You mock virgins and glorify sexual liberation. You trash the religious and adulate the secularist. This is NOT egalitarianism. It is liberalism gone amuck.

    I challenge you and anybody else to actually read what I have posted and not how others have characterized my posts. I have NEVER advocated limiting rights for any class of people. I have advocated for a classless society that while cognizant of the differences that exist in different groups of people, treats them all equally with respect and dignity. I have argued that there is nothing wrong with a football or basketball coach showing preferential hiring for blacks over whites. I have argued that same sex unions are distinctly different from opposite sex unions and so the laws concerning marriage should not destroy the traditional definition. I have advocated for laws that establish the rights and obligations that make sense for same sex unions without disturbing the unique relationship represented by opposite sex unions. It is your twisted mind that makes my unique position of advocacy for gay rights as something desiring to limit rights.

    A similar situation exists with the issue of abortion. I have time and time again expressed that I do not believe like the pro-life groups that a person exists at the moment of conception. I believe that there are competing rights of the mother, rights of the father, and rights of the unborn. Nevertheless, because I believe in acknowledging the existence of a potential life and our duties and obligations in that regard, suddenly I am against the rights of women? Again, it is only your desire to create classes of people (which actually creates an unequal society) that causes you to stereotype me in order to judge me in the worst ways as being beneath you and unfit for your blog. Oh, you proclaim in words that you are egalitarian, but in action you are far, far away from being egalitarian. What you really want is a society where the privileges are reversed. You want to take away the privileges of certain groups and bestow favored treatment and privileges to those of your choosing. Anybody wealthy, successful, male, heterosexual or white will be denigrated and privileges removed and anybody poor, unsuccessful, female, homosexual or black will be given favored treatment and privileges. Oh, and if anybody lacks the education you have, they are fair game to be mocked and ridiculed. The way Skip has been treated is all the proof any objective person needs to see the truth of this.

  261. Gene H. You apparently do not understand what laissez-faire capitalism is either, or you would know that only free market solutions can cure free market problems, because government interventions create even greater resultant contraindications. Introducing socialism just becomes a game of chasing ones tail, by constantly increasing regulations and the necessary taxation, that never cure the initial problems, until there are not more free markets, to a point where government can no longer fund it’s on excesses.

    This is the exact point where many of the socialist/fascists economies around the world, developed over the last 50 years, are at; dying on the vine. It’s Citizens stuck between living off the government’s various redistribution of wealth social policies and attempting to revitalized free enterprise in a system that oppresses it through excessive taxation and regulation.

    Does this appear familiar to you as the various current events have unraveled over the last 35 years or so?

  262. Gene H wrote: “It is either willful ignorance, a lack of self-awareness, or political malice trying to sugar coat the hate for one who holds your views to claim to be an egalitarian. It’s counter-factual by your own example, hypocritical and a really bad joke.”

    Perhaps you lack awareness of the views of Thomas Jefferson, the man who penned those words, that it is self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. Jefferson recognized differences between blacks and whites, and between male and female, and he expressed those views in writing. You would be deriding him instead of me if he were here posting comments on this blog. You quote Jefferson’s words about all men being created equal, you even enshrine them, but you have little understanding of what they actually meant to the author who penned them. It must be quite disturbing to you that the author of these words “all men are created equal” was a slave owner who liked the idea of freeing slaves but thought it not possible because of their station in society. He wrote about both the superior and inferior aspects of the black race. Jefferson also did not think to give women the vote, and he also believed that property owners and the educated were the ones qualified to vote in governmental matters. I’m sure you will just go on about how Thomas Jefferson was not a true egalitarian, about how he was a hypocrite, or how he lacked self-awareness, or that he had political malice. You invent whatever denigration possible because logic and intellectual capacity are not on your side.

  263. David,

    You discredit yourself. If people think your positions are bigoted (and by the responses you get, that would be most of them) then just maybe you are a bigot.
    ___________

    Skipples,

    Sorry, but that’s not what the evidence shows. Some of the healthiest economies in the world with the happiest citizens? Have mixed economies. Those countries tended to weather the global economic downturn – which was caused by laissez-faire policy letting the financial services sector run amok by the way – better than countries with no economic controls. To be clear, the Nordic model simply works better than our cowboy capitalism. Even The Economist said just this year that the countries using the Nordic model were “probably the best-governed in the world”. See for yourself: http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21570835-nordic-countries-are-probably-best-governed-world-secret-their

    Sure, you can point to some countries with mixed economies that didn’t weather the downturn as well, but to a one those countries were also plagued with other problems ranging from grossly incompetent management to severe corruption to being unable to handle rapidly changing demographics in a responsive manner. There are lots of things that can impact an economy that have nothing to do with the selected model. But what is evident? Is that the whole CDS débâcle and the LIBOR scandal that drove the global economy off the cliff were the result of deregulation, malregulation, and or criminal collusion in and of derivatives trading.

    Not having constraints on systems where humans interact?

    Is a bad idea.

    That you don’t understand the truth of human nature is that man is wolf to man lies at the heart of your Pollyanna von Mises mates with Ayn Rand fever dream that totally free markets will save the world.

    They won’t. They can’t. They allow our self-predatory nature to run free.

    Laissez-faire economics would destroy the world if given global implementation.

    It’s doing a pretty good job of it already.

  264. davidm2575 1, December 28, 2013 at 9:18 am

    … Thomas Jefferson …
    =========================
    One of the problems of modern discourse and debate is what I call “driving to a destination by looking in the rear-view-mirror rather than by looking out the windshield.”

    The past is instructive, but should not be considered to be controlling where it has been proven wrong.

    The past is not the now, nor are the past and the now the future.

    Three words which, in a mature nomenclature, would not mean the same thing, nor would they be properly used interchangeably.

    What our nation needs now is not axiomatically the same as what it needed then, nor will the needs of the future be axiomatically the same as the needs of the past.

    The only exceptions are those things that are so true, so useful, and so good that they need not ever be changed.

    The exercise when developing valid governments is to protect and segregate what should not change from what should.

    Which requires intellectual honesty and other forms of honesty.

    Which are not composed of mere opinion compressed into hard ideology by reductionism.

  265. David,

    I’m a big fan of Jefferson. It’s you who debase him by saying you embrace his ideals and then espousing views that are contrary to those ideals. “Recognizing differences” does not translate to endorsing inequality – which is what you do indeed do on a regular basis. That makes you hypocrite in addition to being a bigot. You also obviously don’t understand Jefferson or the Declaration at all.

    If you don’t like that people come to these conclusions about you based upon your own pronouncements? Then maybe you should consider that you’re wrong. No one has made other people – including me – think that you are a bigoted hypocrite other than you, David. Your own words betray you and when your bigoted hypocrisy is called out you scream “You’re just a bigot against those with ‘traditional values’!” No sale. Anyone who knows anything about propaganda in modern American politics knows that “traditional values” is a wolf-whistle code phrase for “bigoted theocratic old pseudo-Christian white people”. I don’t care what your morals are so long as they don’t ethically infringe upon the rights of others. Your morals are your choice. If you feel like you have a right to force those morals – which are again subjective chosen value judgements that do not rely on either reason or externally validated rational objective standards – then you feel wrong. You don’t get to make moral choices for others. If you think you do? Guess which finger that gets you.

    Yeah. People get the impression you’re a bigot. They get it from the ridiculous crap you say.

    Any injury you feel is entirely self-inflicted.

  266. Wow, Dredd. That was actually impressive in displaying that you understand the Constitution is a living document. Well played.

  267. Gene H. 1, December 28, 2013 at 9:45 am

    Wow, Dredd. That was actually impressive in displaying that you understand the Constitution is a living document. Well played.
    =========================
    I screwed up the italics.

  268. David,
    You know what you have written, and you can do all the mental and logical gymnastics you want, it doesn’t change the facts. You oppose same sex marriage. That is discrimination against a class of people. If a woman wants an abortion, it is none of your business–or the government–as to why. People who oppose government regulation on themselves, such as you and several other commenters here, don’t seem to mind imposing it on others if it fits their own world view.

    Do you deny you are a professional counter-blogger as Mespo said? For someone who claims to be a full time businessman, you seem to have an awful lot of time on your hands to write long hypergraphic screeds. You are trying to use the propaganda technique advocated by dictators for as long as anyone can remember.

    One should not as a rule reveal one’s secrets, since one does not know if and when one may need them again.
    [snip] …when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it…even at the risk of looking ridiculous.

    – Joseph Goebbels (Diary entry for October 16, 1928)

  269. Mespo wrote: “disclosing personal information about anyone who doesn’t want it revealed is the universal taboo here and at every other responsible blog I know about.”

    And how are we suppose to *KNOW* that a person who reveals information about himself publicly does not want anybody to repeat it publicly to another participant? I think I’ve mentioned before about Professor’s Turley education at the University of Chicago and Northwestern University, and also about his current position at George Washington University, but I was never threatened with being banned for repeating that information. I’ve never even thought much about it because it is information that he readily makes available publicly.

    Unlike someone like you or Tony, Gene posts here under his real name. Gene constantly beats his chest about his superior education that has bestowed upon him the degree of Juris Doctor. He uses his education as a sledge hammer to silence any non-lawyer who might disagree with him on matters of law. His opinion is the EXPERT opinion, and the rest of us without law degrees are inferior to him. Therefore he feels justified to denigrate others and to disrespect everything about them. He is no different than a racist in Mississippi who might justify his constant denigration of a black man simply because the man belongs to the black race. Those who lack his educational opportunities are not even worth his pity much less his respect. He and other blog leaders actually brag about how meaningless we are to them. It was in this context that I mentioned his educational background, because a grown man with some college under his belt was being categorized as a fifth grader and he felt so unwelcome that he posted that he was leaving. Yet for some reason, you want to post now about how you would have banned me instantly for offering him advice? Sorry, but that makes very little sense. You should be calling for discipline of Gene for his denigrating and uncivil postings. A true egalitarian who loves an society based upon equal rights for all would be disciplining Gene, not me.

    Mespo wrote: “…had I been the deciding vote you would have been instantly banned and I have NEVER suggested this about a commenter before. I believe you knew exactly what you were doing and decided to push the line here using resources unavailable to most everyone except paid counter-bloggers.”

    My estimation of your intellect just plummeted further than I could have imagined. What are you talking about? Resources unavailable to most everyone except paid counter-bloggers? I am not a paid counter-blogger. I neither pay for any such resources nor am I paid to research such information. The resources I have available to me are exactly the same as a poor homeless man sitting at a computer terminal in the public library. Forgive me for having a good memory or paying attention to what people write.

    Part of the problem here is that you all know each other, but you are relatively anonymous to us. You have what many call “respect of persons.” Those in your circle are immune from criticism, while us peons had better quiet down or we will be shut down through authoritative action. It is exactly like what has been going on between the Obama administration and Ed Snowden. The main difference is that your stick of authority is not as big and fearsome as the Obama administration’s stick. I hope you figure out what you really believe about freedom of speech and the First Amendment.

  270. DavidM:

    You left out that they want the people they are denigrating to pay for the “privilege” of being denigrated and to say “thank you I deserve to be maligned and derided because I am successful.”

    I think Rand calls that the sanction of the victim.

    Just say “No” to collectivism.

    By the way, that was one of the finest examples of the English language I have seen on this blog.

    Excellent, both in substance and execution and accurate as well.

    I guess they dont get the nuance of your positions. Liberals are such binary thinkers.

  271. DavidM:

    I do hope you stay. While I disagree with some of what you say, it sure is fun to watch you say it. And you say it so well.

    The guest bloggers post under their real names so I am not sure what they are trying to hide.

  272. Otterray Scribe – Now you know what it fees like when you and your socialist Comrads when they are trying to impose various social policies by force and coercion on me. It is no better than DavidM trying to force his moral policies against you.

    I am not trying to force any social or moral policies on anyone else as I prefer persuasion, contracts and the various forms of self defense to achieve my goals.

  273. DavidM: Part of the problem here is that you all know each other, but you are relatively anonymous to us.

    On the contrary; I do not know any of these people except by their writing within this blog, and I have (thus far) never communicated with any of them in writing or otherwise outside this blog.

  274. Hey people, this is a blog, not a government operation. It is privately owned and operated. In point of fact, the First Amendment does not apply here except by the largesse of the blog owner. It so happens the owner of this particular blog, unlike Redstate, Daily Kos, Democratic Underground, Little Green Footballs, and dozens of others on all sides of the political spectrum–he tries honestly to apply the principles of the 1st Amendment; however, there are limits. In fact, the 1st Amendment itself has limits that are codified into case law by Federal Courts.

    There is an old adage which was proposed by the great psychotherapist Dr. Elvin Semrad. “If you ask yourself, ‘Should I do or say this, you probably shouldn’t’. ”

    David, don’t play dumb with the victim card. Privacy is privacy. If there is information online about me, that does not give you the right to post anything–or link to anything–about me that I have not shared here. I don’t care if it is online or not, it is still off limits unless I give you (or anyone else) express permission. That applies to everyone, commenters and guest bloggers alike. Civility is a ‘soft’ rule. Privacy is a ‘hard’ rule.

  275. DavidM, They yearn for an echo chamber w/ just simple variations on the same note. Thankfully, those who do have this goal have been told in no uncertain terms “by the highest authority on this blog” as someone called Mr. Turley, that is NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. But, some will keep coming @ you and “banning” is their goal. Folks like them banned rock n’ roll songs, comedians, etc. Back then they were conservatives. It’s “progressives” who now right speech codes, foster PC, etc. I’ve see a 180 degree turn in my 61 years in that regard. Hang tough. The “personal” stuff is their ace in the hole. I believe you when you say you only said something you learned on this blog. Going back and finding it would be helpful but they’ll still act like a wolf pack. At least it will be important to “the highest authority” who no doubt is scratching his head about his posse of late. Like any posse, you have your aces, face cards and a few 3’s.

  276. DavidM, They yearn for an echo chamber w/ just simple variations on the same note. Thankfully, those who do have this goal have been told in no uncertain terms “by the highest authority on this blog” as someone called Mr. Turley, that is NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. But, some will keep coming @ you and “banning” is their goal. Folks like them banned rock n’ roll songs, comedians, etc. Back then they were conservatives. It’s “progressives” who now right speech codes, foster PC, etc. I’ve see a 180 degree turn in my 61 years in that regard. Hang tough. The “personal” stuff is their ace in the hole. I believe you when you say you only said something you learned on this blog. Going back and finding it would be helpful but they’ll still act like a wolf pack. At least it will be important to “the highest authority” who no doubt is scratching his head about his posse of late. Like any posse, you have your aces, face cards and a few 3’s. It may be time to shuffle the deck again.

  277. davidm,

    “Others have been calling for me to be banned for awhile now, well before this intolerable post. Hatred is the motivation. Anybody with a modicum of intelligence can see that.”

    I’ll ask a second time: Who has called for you to be banned?

  278. “And how are we suppose to *KNOW* that a person who reveals information about himself publicly does not want anybody to repeat it publicly to another participant?”

    DavidM,

    You are lying again because as I pointed out Gene never disclosed that information publicly. As OS pointed out above you are a regular little Goebbels clone aren’t you?:

    “One should not as a rule reveal one’s secrets, since one does not know if and when one may need them again.
    [snip] …when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it…even at the risk of looking ridiculous.
    – Joseph Goebbels (Diary entry for October 16, 1928)”

    Tell us your “secret” David, your real name” and who knows what info we can find out on you?

  279. DavidM, Assuming the evidence hasn’t already been deleted by The Duke of Deletions, give me some info and I’ll help you find it. What was the topic of the thread? General time frame? Was it an epic thread or just a normal one? I’ll help you find it. IF IT’S STILL THERE. I believe you. And, my business is to read people. Although I did not see your comment I have a pretty good idea the subject of this alleged, cardinal sin. I don’t agree w/ all of your ideas, but unlike too many here, I will defend your right to say it. This is a classic setup by the henchmen, I’ve seen it before.

  280. “I believe you when you say you only said something you learned on this blog. Going back and finding it would be helpful but they’ll still act like a wolf pack.”

    Gee Nick, you’re the PI and one would think you would want to help your friend out. I am a little confused by your constant defense of David and his positions though. You’ve talked of having many close friends who are Black. What do you think they’d think when David has written about their being inferior intellectually to Whites? What would your wife think about being subservient to your wishes. You have often mentioned that you support Gay rights such as marriage, so what do your Gay friends feel about David’s position?

    But then you see David’s political positions are only points for discussion. His breaking the rule on investigating someones background and disclosing it is the issue at hand and perhaps you can “save” David by using your detective skills and finding the references he refers to……but don’t exist. As for your “escape” from being banned it was a rather close affair but somehow you managed to reform your ways and learned to behave civilly.

    As to the differences between you and David….he doesn’t whine. In true Goebbels fashion he outright lies and denies. Then again you’re just a private dick, while David is a very skilled propagandist, but then so was Goebbels who ended up murdering his wife and children before blowing his brains out. I see in the far distant future a far more peaceful ending for David’s existence then Joseph’s, but David’s techniques are indeed those of his spiritual mentor.

  281. “This is a classic setup by the henchmen, I’ve seen it before.”

    Nicky,

    The “Henchmen” you speak of were chosen by Professor Turley to be his guest bloggers. You speak of your respect for JT, but you must have little respect for his judgment if that is how you see us. Face it Nick, you came to this blog with a chip on your shoulder and when you found you lacked the skills to keep up you imagined it was a “cabal” against you, when in fact it was your own bad behavior that caused you to be rebuked. You got the message and you stopped behaving like an ass, while still retaining the right to believe as you please. You don’t like Gene or me because we can out think you. Now Elaine is a different story because not only can she out think you, but she is a woman and despite your protests to the contrary you have a “thing” about smart women.

  282. davidm,

    You disclosed personal information about Gene of which I–another guest blogger–had no knowledge. Can you tell us how you came by this information…and why you chose to post it in a comment on this blog?

  283. nick,

    Who said davidm didn’t have a right to say what he wants/thinks? Disagreeing with someone and/or posting a counter-argument means you’re attempting to take away david’s right express himself???

  284. Side note:

    That post of concern DavidM reposted was almost word for word, the best I can recall, was posted on another thread within the last 3 months on this msg bb.

    It looked to me just another waste of time reading & nothing GeneH would embarrassed by so I saw no need to save it/report it.

    Just another standard type attack for some, that changes no ones opinion on anything.

    Yes, I understand this dispute is about privacy policy on this msg bb, so even if we see something that should not have been posted in the 1st place we should not then repost it.

  285. DavidM, Don’t answer questions, this isn’t a courtroom or interrogation room. Just find the evidence, if it hasn’t vanished already. I’m paying idealist forward, he taught me to always be myself, and how to deal w/ this elite Sloth Team 6.

  286. “DavidM: Part of the problem here is that you all know each other, but you are relatively anonymous to us.

    On the contrary; I do not know any of these people except by their writing within this blog, and I have (thus far) never communicated with any of them in writing or otherwise outside this blog.”

    Tony is absolutely correct. He and I only know each other from the blog and have never communicated outside of the blog. This is mostly the case with all the regular commenters here. I don’t know Tony’s last name even, or if his first name is really Tony. Yet I do know and respect the TonyC who comments here because of the intelligence and insight he has displayed, that is what counts.

    As for you David, the “problem” that you complain of is true of you. You are an “anonymous” person here and so can only be judged on the basis of what you write. As OS and as Mespo (Mark Esposito is a guest blogger here) have stated you are seemingly a professional propagandist simply based on your writing here and the techniques they exemplify, but other than that you are just another anonymous blogger. Now your defender Nick has in the past vilified people who post anonymously, but in your case since he shares exactly the same political views as you do, he makes an exception.

  287. Elaine:

    I just found out from a South Dakota State Rep. that he pays for his own Alec subscription but the state has many subscriptions to legislative orgs. like Alec from all sides of the political spectrum. In fact he says Alec is the least expensive of them all which is why he can afford it.

    Seems to me Alec is only one of many such orgs which try and influence the legislative process.

    How come you didnt report on the multiple orgs which do the same work as Alec? Are they in agreement with your beliefs?

    I think you ought to do a story on all such orgs, just to be fair and balanced of course. :)

  288. If not responding to incessant rants from an angry, negative, paranoid, man is “improving my behavior” then that may be the case. But there has always been an ebb and flow during my tenure in that regard. I’m in the Christmas spirit and doing pretty well right now. Thanks for noticing.

  289. Actually Davidm2575, the reason I am “trying to leave” the blog is because of the deceitful and malicious methods and other BS tactics used by people like Gene & Tony. Additionally, I have given them enough information to think about. There intelligence and wisdom is obviously much lower than they perceive, which is interesting because they are both extremely bright and articulate.

    Actually Gene and Tony C made me dig farther with additional logic, examples and methods to advance the causes of liberty and I thank them for making all the erroneous comments used so often by the anti-capitalists, that made me work harder.

    As an example with Bill Benson’s prosecution and the 16th Amendment issue. Benson was giving people copies of the notarized documents he used in his book “The Law That Never Was.” that proves the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified. Of course, the government fascists didn’t like this, because people around the country were trying to use it for their defense in many court cases. Of course, the fascist prosecuted Benson and low and behold, the Judge would not allow the notarized documents as evidence in the case, which is by the way, is not an uncommon practice by the corrupt judiciary, from bottom to the top. The fascists even went as far as disbarring his attorney in California for trying to stand up to the corruption. Not uncommon either. My buddies Attorney in Jacksonville just got hit with a $5,000 fine for using what the Judge deemed a Frivolous Defense, even though it is not on the list of Frivolous Defenses, that is required to be posted by the IRS. Go Figure!!!!!!! His attorney is a tax lawyer and was Attorney of the year here in Florida a couples of years back, so he’s a good attorney and knows the issues well.

    Specially, Benson was denied the use, of the specific evidence as defense, that proves his contention that the 16th amendment failed passage and that Philander Knox committed fraud, when he approved the Amendment in 1913, as Secretary of State. Doesn’t the words describing this man; Attorney, Banker and Politician, just bring tears to your eyes.

    Of course, Gene or Tony, I don’t remember who made the reply, failed to mention this to the readers. Sadly this is the norm with most of their posts. If they’re not misleading the readers, they’re just using different methods to ratfcuk the discussion.

    FYI: Philander C. Knox – was an American lawyer, bank director and politician who served as United States Attorney General, a Senator from Pennsylvania and Secretary of State. He served in the Cabinet under three presidents.

  290. Benson is a convicted felon and the FRE serves to eliminate evidence based on probative quality, i.e. eliminate bullshit. But of course, he said what you wanted to hear so finding him a fraud must be some kind of conspiracy instead of courts serving the public interest of protecting them from fraudulent advice that if taken would land a person in the pokey. :roll:

    Also, if you don’t like that trained critical thinkers can dismantle what you say with ease, then perhaps you have the wrong audience for what you are a sellin’, Skippy.

  291. hsk, If you stick around long enough, you hear the same “critical thinker” “logic” meme’s over and over and over again. They use the boilerplate meme, declare victory, and then go back to Dungeons and Dragons or Betty the blow-up doll.

  292. Gene H. wrote Laissez-faire economics would destroy the world if given global implementation. It’s doing a pretty good job of it already.

    Give me some specific examples Gene and I love the term “if given”. What you really mean is “if allowed” by the ruling oligarchy. Lucky for you Gene H. you system is most likely secure, as the ruling oligarchy is not likely to lower their guns and coercive tactics against the Citizens to give them such liberties.

    Also note that when greater elements of laissez-faire economics existed, i.e. less taxation and regulation, I didn’t say total, the majority of the Citizens of, not only the U.S., but also the world, had the greatest wealth per capita and although imperfections occurred, wealth and prosperity was better, and the levels of poverty were much less, than the mixed econ system has given us today; despite having had to throw off the chains of despotism they left behind to come to America and other places were there was greater liberties.

    You can take you silly little happiness index and survey and give it to the elementary students through public education to try to brain wash them into believing it has any relevant meaning. Isn’t that what public education is really about???

  293. “I’m also still basking in the glow of my “fake trip to Italy.” Those were some intelligent accusations!!”

    Aw Nicky,

    Lighten up I was just “ball bustin”. You know what “ball bustin” is don’t you? You’ve used it as an excuse many times and even claimed to be a master of it.
    Seems to get under your skin though when others do it. Can’t take it?

    “I’m not fielding any personal questions on this topic currently.”

    I think that’s a good idea Nicky since they might reveal aspects of your personal views that may be at odds with what you’ve written here.

  294. Nick,

    Good to see you’re back… It’s been fairly calm here without the tactile banter…. It kinda reminds me of sophomore logic….. Or family infighting…. There’s a time and place for everything…. Take from this what you wish….

  295. “Give me some specific examples”

    Of humans being a self-predatory species, Skipple?

    Turn on the news. Any station. Read a history book. Try understanding it too. Look at an encyclopedia.

    What mitigates this tendency from running amok is social pressure brought to bear by cultural convention as enforced by government in the form of laws and regulations.

    If you don’t understand that basic truth about human nature by now?

    Then you never will understand human nature.

  296. Gene H. Critical thinker? Like a blow job isn’t sex and that’s depends on what the definition of is, is? The only thing you’ve shown the reader is that you are most likely part of the corruption and problem with this country.

    Gene H. wrote: Benson is a convicted felon and the FRE serves to eliminate evidence based on probative quality, i.e. eliminate bullshit. Everyone knows Genie, how the system is supposed to work, so thanks for telling the readers what they already know. You do this a lot btw.

    Another great term Genie, “probative”: Having the effect of proof, tending to prove, or actually proving. When a legal controversy goes to trial, the parties seek to prove their cases by this …

    So let’s do some “real” critical thinking by asking ourselves some critical questions. 1. Did the Prosecution prove that the documents were fraud? No, since they just happen to be missing from the Public Records in DC. Well that’s interesting. 2. So did the Prosecution go to the various State Capitals, as Benson did, to get information that would have proven the fraud; Nope, they just got the Judge to deny due process. It would have been way to much work to get the true documents, to prove the government case: much easier just to deny due process, right Gene.

    “Think” about it Gene. What would have happened if Benson & Beckman would have won the case and thus proven to the world that 6th Amendment was not properly ratified?

    No more Federal Individual Income Tax. The fascists are not going to let that happen Genie, it’s the second platform of their manifesto. But go on believing that especially the Federal Judiciary, that when they deny due process, they are trying to provide truth, justice and enhance the American way.

    http://betweentheheadlines.net/public-information-on-insurrection-from-within/#more-170

    This is a very interesting read on this very topic – for those of you who are really critical thinkers. lol

  297. **annieofwi 1, December 28, 2013 at 8:46 am

    Seems like those evil socialist European countries like Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Germany, are all doing pretty well and have a population that enjoy their socialistic tendencies.
    **

    **Gene H. 1, December 28, 2013 at 9:31 am **

    The people of Austria in the 30’s made the fatal mistake of believing Hitler’s Socialist German was a good model so they joined Hitler’s Socialist.

    Then as now the world’s Central Bankers & their centralized planning scams have perfected their 3 card Monty scams of pulling capital from some economies & pushing it into others.

    AKA: Credit default swaps, interest rate swaps, etc.

    Or one could think of nations/economies as a bunch of jars & jelly beans. The amount of jelly beans remains basically the same, the only difference is some days the US dollar is falling or raising against other currencies so the Federal Reserve, BIS, IMF & other Central Banks they move some jelly beans from one jar to another & then back again as they play “God” with all our lives.

    (“Doing God’s Work”, Quoting Goldmansachs)

    The very limited “Ron Paul” audit of the FRS is now a matter of public record showing a small widow into their constant scamming us & the world’s gen pop.

    So I complete reject the fantasy the socialist ** Nordic model** works.

    If people are not close minded & can set their long held beliefs aside for a few minutes & consider a different blueprint.

    Govt, Banking, Insurance, Military(LE),Energy make up the bulk of USA expenses.

    The govt has to keep the Wallst debt fraud scam going to fund Wallst banks/insur’s expansion of global empire at the expense of our USA sovereignty.

    In my view what has to happen eventually is the Commercial Banking & the Insurance Industry has to be turned into 1000’s coop type public utilities, allow only enough profits for administrative cost.

    Look at the Social Security program, had their funds been invested into normal Home/Biz loans there would be no question of solvency today!

    Yes, this type plan has a socialist bent to it, but currently as it is banks/insur are under a fascist monopoly type system protected by govt force.

    I’ve long suggested that when people consider the govt’s proper size/role & the amount of real taxes they pay they use the example of a piece of lumber used in their homes.

    From the land/forest that the govt taxed where the log was 1st cut, to all the steps in between, to when it’s permanently installed in the homes & property taxes are owed against it every year from now on.

    Workers/Citizens don’t just pay that amount they see on their income tax form/sales taxes/etc… They pay a greater price for all the taxes, bank, insur, FRS expense other workers, citizens, biz owner paid on that product from the beginning of production to the end user & they keep paying.

    There’s more I could write on these subjects, I’ll spare us all.

    But I doubt this nation can make any progress for now as I’m one of only a few that writes anything close to what I wrote above.

    And the red/blue teams are headed off in completely different directions & can’t even consider citizen owned/controlled non-profit banks/insur co’s some what on the model South Dakota’s state bank.

    Hell, we can’t even agree on a honest currency system, basic property title ownership rights or the rights to expect private contracts be honored by the govt. Talk about a 3rd world Banana Sh.. hole the USA has become.

    Well, at least some seem to be catching up to what is & isn’t.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-12-27/world-according-ron-paul

    (I’ll post this so I can then see the typos lol)

  298. AY, I’ve been back for a couple weeks now. With Christmas I was busy w/ family, but I’ve been around. The record will reflect that. Happy New Year, AY. I know the Holidays are tough. I had a friend of my brother, who was like a brother, commit suicide on 12/23/81. I pray for his family every year. He suffered from horrible depression and was unfortunately just prior to the meds that may have changed his life.

  299. Nick,

    Would I expect anything less from you…. But I’m not taking the bait…. Good fishing elsewhere….

  300. Oky,

    “The people of Austria in the 30′s made the fatal mistake of believing Hitler’s Socialist German was a good model so they joined Hitler’s Socialist.”

    Full stop. The people of Austria in the 30’s made a mistake thinking that Hitler was going deliver socialism when he was a fascist.

    The rest of what you wrote is a primitive scree against central banking which, while I understand your frustration with the Fed, does not translate into universal truths about the utility of central banks in economies of scale.

    _______________

    Skipples,

    If you want to pay to apply for cert for Benson’s case to be heard by SCOTUS because you are personally dissatisfied with the ruling?

    Be my guest.

    It’ll be denied again, but you knock yourself out, sport.

  301. For chrissake, I’m just expressing empathy from my heart, I swear on the souls of my children that’s what I’m doing. If that is offensive, I apologize. My God, what is happening here??

  302. **Gene H. 1, December 28, 2013 at 12:10 pm **

    GeneH,

    It appears to me over the past few decades the govt is handing out felonies to some animals in animal farm like they’re handing out candy canes at Xmas.

    Look at this case if you’re confused. :)

  303. Oky,

    No, not really where appropriate. The S&L fiasco of the 80’s sent over 2000 bankers to prison. The CDS deal? Zero. The reason? Purely corruption and abuse of prosecutorial discretion.

    I won’t even mention not punishing our domestic war criminals.

    Follow the root causes of dysfunction by first properly quantifying the problems. Injustice is the result of disparate causations, but it is also in itself a cause for other results if allowed to grow unabated. Systemic malfunction, especially in complex systems, often have common causations, interrelated causations and parallel exacerbating effects.

  304. **The rest of what you wrote is a primitive scree against central banking which, while I understand your frustration with the Fed, does not translate into universal truths about the utility of central banks in economies of scale.**

    My neck got Red because I will bend over & do the work that’s need done.

    I have not one ounce of shame over that nor should I!

    Now on the other hand all those Phd’s/titles to privilege, they are the ones that had their bloody hands pulling the levers that made this mess.

    So I have no problem shunning them for the shame they’ve brought upon their family’s name.

    As I recall once there were some “Let Them Eat Cake” hubris types that had a lil dust up with some primitive types.

    Let us hope cooler heads will rectify this out of control situation long before this country has it’s own Let them Eat Cake moment.

  305. Injustice is the result of disparate causations, but it is also in itself a cause for other results if allowed to grow unabated. ” (Gene)
    :mrgreen:

  306. **Gene H. 1, December 28, 2013 at 1:41 pm **

    Like the words I hear in a song the crazy guy says something like: There must a door where I came in at.

    Referring to the fact he just somehow slipped into his insanity & if he could only find that door he could cure his insanity.

    So regardless if my bucket of ideas hold any water or not, society has to find the door back out of it’s mass insanity it’s currently in.

  307. Oky,

    A primitive understanding does not necessarily make one a primitive person. Just uninformed. There is no brake on inflation without a mechanism to check it. That is just one of the roles a central bank performs in a large dynamic economy.

  308. AY, I have a special place in my heart for parents who have children die. My mother lost twins, shortly after birth, when I was 4. All I remember were the emotions, the sadness and anger. It was never spoken about. I have an aunt who had two teenage sons die from a congenital blood disease. Finally, I have a friend who struggles through every day of her life. When she was 7, her sister died of cancer @ age 4. I worked w/ this girls dad. She has had 2 children die, the second after 3 heart surgeries @ Lucile Packard Hospital @ Stanford. She lived in KC but flew out to Stanford for 3 long stays @ a Ronald McDonald House to get the best surgeon in the country for this condition. The best was not good enough. Her first died @ childbirth.

    You have been pretty tough on me in your own way. I do not lash back @ you, I will never get angry @ you, I will always pray for you and all people who have children die. It’s not supposed to happen that way. That’s my background. I’m pretty much an open book here. I not only lay my thoughts and opinions out, I lay my heart out too. I’ve been tough on your buddies @ times and you don’t like that. I understand that, I am Italian, we understand loyalty. However, I do not have an angry bone in my body toward you, AY.

  309. Elaine M. 1, December 28, 2013 at 11:32 am

    davidm,

    You disclosed personal information about Gene of which I–another guest blogger–had no knowledge. Can you tell us how you came by this information…and why you chose to post it in a comment on this blog?
    ========================
    This blog is certainly a target of Sauron, whom they have pennamed “the NSA.”

  310. GeneH,

    I don’t see the link now, but I posted a zerohedge chart a week or so ago showing there were no more economic down cycles in the US before the creation of the FRS then after.

    The only major difference was this continued massive inflation that the Fed is creating.

    IE: Insurance doesn’t reduce risk, it massively increases risk.

  311. My oh my, poor misunderstood Spinelli, ever the victim, never the abuser. How many times has he had to scramble to paint a prettier face on his comments? Quite often from what I’ve seen here on the Turley blog.

  312. Spinelli has a way of bringing in personal issues (another commenter’s personal loss) and directing them toward his victims, when he is caught in his own game, he valiently attempts to appear innocent and “concerned”. His big heart and compassion are in his own imagination only, from what I’ve observed about this man.

  313. Oky,

    And I’ve said that I find zerohedge to be wholly disreputable.

    I might add that correlation is not causation. The 1st Fed wasn’t established as a response to inflation but to war. Hamilton’s argument was that such a bank would be indispensible in the event of a national crisis such as a war and was necessary won the day. Like I said, there are more than one reasons to have a central bank, but I agree that it doesn’t need to be a private institution.

  314. **And I’ve said that I find zerohedge to be wholly disreputable.**

    I’ll take note of that. That’s ok by me, but you don’t mind I’ll keep using them. :)

    I don’t know what I’d call them they’re target info I’m looking for & they’ve a sense of humor.

    (I don’t feel comfortable doing/posting dark humor here on this msg bb)

  315. GeneH,

    Some of the best info on the Fed has come from Paul Volcker in recent years.

    But we can hear him parsing his words carefully.

    Dec, 2009, Europe, Paul Volcker

    Paraphrasing: The operation of commercial banking is such that it takes just a little more then an honesty paper boy to refill the ATMs.

    Also, he was furious at his grandson for even thinking about getting into the banking biz.

  316. oky1:

    “And the red/blue teams are headed off in completely different directions & can’t even consider citizen owned/controlled non-profit banks/insur co’s some what on the model South Dakota’s state bank.”

    Sure I can, we had them in the 19th century, they were called mutual aid societies. i am all for that type of free market “innovation.”

  317. nick:

    Who is that annieoffal chick who seems to be your very own personal internet stalker? She is on your a$$ like a diaper.

  318. Bron, I can’t comment on who she is for risk of violating the cardinal sin. But, it does appear she has an ax to grind, doesn’t it? Many, if not most, of her comments are about me. And, lol on the diaper comment. I never heard that and I have a pretty good repertoire. Hope you had a nice Christmas.

  319. Gene H. 1, December 28, 2013 at 1:08 pm

    “Give me some specific examples”

    Of humans being a self-predatory species, Skipple?

    Turn on the news. Any station. Read a history book. Try understanding it too. Look at an encyclopedia.

    What mitigates this tendency from running amok is social pressure brought to bear by cultural convention as enforced by government in the form of laws and regulations.

    If you don’t understand that basic truth about human nature by now?

    Then you never will understand human nature.
    ===============================
    One of the exercises of the ages has been “to find” some of those who are not “subject to human nature.”

    That takes herculean efforts, and never is successful, so the second of the various exercises of the ages kicks in: invent some humans who don’t have human nature (in “literature” and in “religion” for examples?).

    Send in the clowns super-heroes.

    Which also takes a herculean effort, so, The Story Flow had to become an industrial strength dynamic, which it did is (The Deceit Business).

    “Practically everyone” in the blog wrestling match games points to some social system malady, which is kosher, because there are many such maladies, and it is most-often relatively easy to verify the existence of that malady, or not, so … that it not a big problem.

    “The problem roots” all stem from a “curiosity” concerning who caused the malady (“which one of my enemies did this”) or the scientific effort “when, why, how, who, and why?” did this malady originate …

    And so forth with vigor …

    Stay thirsty my friends.

  320. Bron,

    The govt/Fed/Wallst have us all locked in pretty tight with their issuance of currency at their whim & control/favoritism of this current income tax system, ie: global corporate/503s,etc., but there still are a few ways left to apply pressure.

    I’ve seen you’re post, that you’re also attempting to back out of their current systems the best you can as are we.

    Our credit union & one insurance companies gives us a small bit of relief.

    We’ll soon see what the polecats fresh game is in a few weeks.

    I see here a tea party type guy announced his running in the Repub spring primary against an incumbent neo-con type governor.

    It may just another fake out for the voters?

    With what Obama has done I doubt there will be hardly a demo polecat left standing in office in OK after Nov 2014.

    That may not be good as these Repub polecats have been writing laws just as bad for the people/the real local business as the Demos used too.

    But hey got the 10 commandments carved in stone at the capital building, like that was a real pressing priority. LOL

    Maybe it was the polecats way of a plea to the citizen: Please don’t kick our butts, remember what the 10c say. :)

    Keep pushing I guess.

    Got ta go.

  321. Gene Wrote: Skipples, If you want to pay to apply for cert for Benson’s case to be heard by SCOTUS because you are personally dissatisfied with the ruling? Be my guest. It’ll be denied again, but you knock yourself out, sport.

    Yes Gene, we all know they are corrupt. There is a long list of cases they will not hear, despite their requirements, of upholding the Constitution, to do so. I thought the case on the right to Redress of Grievances, We the People vs US was pretty interesting, as it abrogated a very important right, outlined in the 1st Amendment, in just one case; perhaps a record. Essentially, one corrupt Judge, because the appeal to a three panel Court was denied for a ridiculous reason and the appeal to the SCOTUS was not heard, has changed our rule of law. The reason they gave was that “we must rely on the original court decision more often because it is setting a bad precedent to hear all appeals “. How is that for arrogance and corruption. They’re not even hiding their indiscretions anymore. Most Americans are however, lost in the matrix, trying to make sense of decades of lies and corruption, not wanting to believe the facts.

    Many do however know, that the legal community has long been the lackies for the banksters. Just remember, they will throw you to the wolves, if needed or desired.

    So Genie, my question to you, is how would your proposed system change a system likes ours, that is fraught with these levels of Judicial corruption, so that justice could be restored?

  322. Nick Spinelli doesn’t tolerate turnabout very well. I won’t speak about him and the behaviors he engages in elsewhere because it would violate this blog’s rules. Commenters here already know what he is about, because he has done the very same things, but in a less invasive way here to Turley commenters.

  323. Skipple,

    Judicial impropriety is more of an issue than judicial corruption simply by operation of most higher judicial posts being appointed versus elected. The 900 pound gorilla of corruption is the campaign finance and lobbying systems that allow the monied to dictate law and policy. That’s where the primary corruption has its home. I’d rather focus on the gorilla first and deal with the monkeys later. If you mitigate the ability to influence the pols who appoint the suspect judges, you mitigate the suspect judges.

    You want to rage against the judiciary? Okay. I’m the first to admit it has flaws, but when the issue is corruption and malfeasance of office, the judiciary is a pale comparison to Congress and the Executive.

  324. Genie or Dredd wrote: his answer to my question: “Give me some specific examples” Of course he didn’t answer my specific question and diverted as usual to a generalized question.

    Dredd wrote: “Of humans being a self-predatory species, Skipple?
    Turn on the news. Any station. Read a history book. Try understanding it too. Look at an encyclopedia. What mitigates this tendency from running amok is social pressure brought to bear by cultural convention as enforced by government in the form of laws and regulations. If you don’t understand that basic truth about human nature by now? Then you never will understand human nature.

    Dredd and Genie, you fail to understand that it has always been government agents, anti-capitalists themselves, not capitalists, that have caused every single major atrocity throughout history: 260,000,000 people were killed by their own governments in the 20th century alone.

    Gene H. wrote: “What mitigates this tendency from running amok is social pressure brought to bear by cultural convention as enforced by government in the form of laws and regulations.”

    Say What???? Gene H. You and your Comrads don’t see the ridiculous and irrational nature that the legalization of the initiation of force and coersion bares on society. You are embracing a system the does exactly the opposite of what you think it does and you think that lassie faire, does the exact opposite of what it really does.

    The initiation of force is wrong and legalizing it has caused more death and destruction than any other single concept in history. My eighteen your old nieces even understand the concept.

    I also am getting really tired of your lies about not wanting to have a rule of law. I’ll sign on the dotted line right now.

    It is very seldom that private enterprise creates major problems.Of course the do though, the BP oil spill was one. So don’t buy BP gas anymore and you can punish BP and it’s share holders. How about the government regulation of the various nuclear plants around the world. How is that working out for the folks in the pacific???

    Or how bout government regulations of Bernie Madoff etc, etc. etc.

  325. Gene H:

    yes but the judiciary seems to ignore, tolerate or even encourage the corruption. And many think they are elected to make the laws.

  326. annieofwi:

    Ball busting? Nick is pretty benign if you ask me. He pokes at Gene and Mike but they poke him too.

    Did he do something to you? Your interest in him seems to be more than him busting balls.

  327. annieofwi:

    I notice you dog him every chance you get. You either have a school girl crush on him or he did something to you. At least that is my perception.

  328. Bron,

    That was funny, but if you’ve got a problem with law coming from judicial process I think you’d better take that up with the Founders when they decided on using the English common law tradition as a basis of our legal system. The judiciary is the weakest of the three branches of government. If the legislative branch has any problems with law that results from court rulings? Even SCOTUS rulings? They can overrule it with new law any time they like. So long as the law is worded in such a way to pass Constitutional review, there won’t be any problem with it either.

  329. Gene H.
    How do you get any realistic campaign freeform passed? The majority of those in elected, feed off of it. That is why I believe we have to do and end around game on them, which I will discuss later. I’m tied of blogging today.

  330. werent the courts first set up to make sure the laws congress passed were legal?

    They are all in it together. It is all about power.

  331. Hskiprob

    You have a point about government being the largest killers of the 20th century, though to a greatly lesser degree some corporations have caused incaculable damage to many individuals, an example being the Bhopal tradgedy.

    That is why it is incumbent upon doing whatever reasonable means available to prevent governments or their leadership from becoming trecherous dictators and forestall any attempts at aggression against individuals or societies.

  332. Darren,

    Although I did think about Bhopal, I think both you and Skip miss a very salient fact about war. Its most common cause is economic. Even when there are ideological drivers, they are usually conjoined with economics. There were distinct economic underpinnings to almost every war in our history from the First Barbary War (safety of shipping) to Vietnam (Fruit of the Loom), to the First Gulf War/Second Gulf War/Invasion of Iraq (Big Oil/Oil Services/MIC welfare wars). Just to name a few. Wars have often been about money, but industrialized war? Has been a plague since WWI and WWII where companies found out how profitable a large scale conflict can be and the I part of the MIC has done everything they can to manipulate policy to their financial benefit since, i.e. drive hawk policy.

  333. DavidM,

    I am on vacation and was only recently informed of this thread and the controversy over your comment regarding the background of Gene H. I have been speaking with our Guest Blogger team and how to respond to the comment. I was surprised and greatly disappointed in your use of personal information from Gene’s education to a description of this life as “childless.” It was petty and beneath both you and this blog. As you know, we have a civility rule on the blog and do not like any personal attacks. However, the worse type of attacks (and frankly the most creepy) is to research someone’s background and incorporate it in such comments. As you know, we have gone to great lengths not to ban people from a blog committed to free speech. Indeed, in past cases of concern, we have had people conform to your principles of civility and contribute greatly to our site. You bring a different perspective to the blog and I was floored when you departed from your past critiques with this type of low-grade jab. I realize that there have been heated exchanges in this thread and I do not want to see it continue. We have something special here in maintaining a place for civil discourse. While you may have been carried away in the heat of the moment, it was a serious lapse of judgment to publish such background information. Until a commenter elects to put background information on the blog, civility and maturity demand a level of restraint in such matters. I asked for the posting on the personal background to be deleted. It was gratuitous and indefensible.

    Let’s be clear going forward please for everyone on the blog. If you are searching for information on other people to use on this blog, don’t. If you cannot live with that reasonable limitation, then you should move on to another blog. Likewise, we are not interested in information or conflicts that people have on other blogs. Please do not incorporate or extend arguments from other blogs. Most of us do not like other blogs. We like this blog because it is not characterized by this low-level personal nonsense. We certainly do not want to be a new front for old fights. So this is a personal request. I really really do not want to ban anyone. I ask as a personal favor for you to avoid the personal exchanges. Even if someone acts in a juvenile fashion and personalizes a discussion, let it go. We are adults. Ignore the trolls. Don’t feed them. You will find most people have little interest in these personal fights or attacks. Otherwise, there are thousands of sites that seem to thrive on personal attacks and cheap shots. We just do not happen to be one of them.

    Jonathan Turley

  334. Gene:

    I understand where money is too often a significant motivating factor in back-door lobbying, yet the ultimate decision to prosecute or not a war lies in absence of a coup the responsibility of the government.

    Government leadership can choose to support or deny any assertion to declare war. Corporations cannot declare military actions, if government leaders succumb to these unwarranted pressures that is still a problem that lies wtih the government. This is why we as a species must take great measure to assure and check that governments be prevented from engaging in reckless and barbarous military expeditions.

  335. And how exactly do you do that when the will of the electorate has been replaced by the will of the corporatist oligarchy in making policy, Darren? This is part of what I was talking about when I made my comment to Oky at 1:41PM. In a complex system, not all interactions or causal connects are linear. Many are geometric (even fractal).

  336. Prof,

    Good to see you…. I think you speak volumes…. This is truly one of the last frontiers of free speech…. Except for the twerk with WP assmit….. There are no general moderations of post pending approval….

    Let’s all celebrate the Gregorian new year as it approaches…. And resolve to be informative rather than spiteful…..

  337. Gene

    Regardless of who makes up the composition of the offices and persons are that constitute the statutory and constitutional government, it is still the government nevertheless, as as mentioned before ultimately responsible for prosecuting war.

    How they so far in the United States these individuals had obtained their office, they were still elected by the voters (save the federal court system). How ever the voters were influenced is another issue.

  338. It’s less in the electoral rigging that track lay Darren than in the lobbying. Lobbying sets policy in addition to influencing law. War is nothing but an option of policy. Yes, the government ultimately has their hand on the trigger, but who calls the shot really? Knowing that Saudi Arabia manned and funded 9/11, is it rational policy to invade Iraq? Who had nothing to do with 9/11? Or is it using policy manipulation to turn the government into little more than corporate mercenaries for hire – with the bonus of the taxpayer footing the bill?

    I tend to go with the later.

  339. jonathanturley wrote: “You bring a different perspective to the blog and I was floored when you departed from your past critiques with this type of low-grade jab.”

    I admit that my post departed from my usual critique style that attempts to stay on topic, but Gene had it coming to him. This was not personal with me, but rather I came to the defense of another person he had denigrated to such a degree that he had announced his departure from the blog. A third commentator who observed the exchange wrote, “Gene H wins again. They come, they post, he posts, they go.” I do not believe that this incident represents the kind of blog you want here.

    In good conscience, I could not remain silent while watching Gene mistreat another human being in this way. It would be like watching Rosa Parks being arrested for not sitting in the back of the bus, and here I am just sitting by and watching it happen. No, I had to speak up.

    Gene constantly berated this person, mocking his lack of education, his poor grammar, and he was petty enough to mock his name, asking what kind of parents would name their child Skip, and he purposefully misspelled his name, not a few times, but many, many times, calling him Skipples, and Skippy, and other banal epithets. Gene refuses to acknowledge any value whatsoever in what Skip posts. For all intents and purposes, Gene treats him like a piece of trash. Gene ignores our requests to be more civil and respectful toward others. Gene even defends his right to be uncivil in discourse, and brags about what a master he is at it. So in defense of Skip, I decided to address the matter in an ad hominem style that Gene has posted to others hundreds of times.

    Gene immediately deleted my post without time to speak to anyone else about it. I have no doubt that you agreed with his decision and stand behind it, but I also know that he did not delete the post in response to your request. You simply supported his unilateral action. Nothing wrong with that, but your public rebuke to me made it look like Gene was following your direction in removing my post.

    I have no problems with your rules about privacy, but I do have a problem with you giving a free pass for incivility to a guest moderator who is among the most uncivil bloggers I have ever witnessed. I am shocked that you would rebuke me publicly for one post that was done in the same style and manner as Gene’s hundreds of posts, yet you remain publicly silent about Gene’s many infractions of uncivil discourse.

    At some point, you should consider that Gene’s style is counterproductive to a free speech blog. I have a pretty thick skin, but you will never have a balanced blog with both conservatives and liberals able to have civil dialogue about the issues you hold dear as long as you blindly support sycophants like Gene. I do not perceive your goal here is to have a blog where only far left wing zealots feel comfortable. If your goal is to be non-partisan with agreement on liberty and freedom issues, then to be inclusive of everyone, you will need to address the uncivil manner in which Gene conducts himself. He always gets personal and attacks the person rather than the subject under discussion. We have addressed the problem with him ourselves, but his reply is along the lines of how he is the expert on logical discourse so our critique is illogical and wrong.

    I also would like to point out that there are always two sides to a dispute, and you have chosen to hear only one side of it. I research many issues of study, but I do not research people like Gene. I mentioned nothing that Gene has not chosen to make known to us publicly. Nevertheless, I agree that my post was not flattering toward Gene and did not present him in a positive light. For that, I abide by your decision to remove my post. I would ask, however, that you apply the same standard of morality toward the posts offered by your guest blogger Gene H. The blog leaders should be held to the same standard of ethics as the rest of us.

  340. And yeah, you did mention information I had not disclosed here nor did I give you permission to disclose it.

    Two can play that game you know.

    But I won’t do that.

    I could. Quite easily.

    But I won’t.

  341. If you want some parity?

    Perhaps you could find someone in your group of conservative friends with better kung fu than mine, but considering what science tells us about the conservative brain, I kinda doubt it. I am like water.

    It’s not my fault your ideas are so easy to dissect, David.

    Come on. Tell us again how homosexuals should be denied fundamental rights because it conflicts with your “traditional values”.

    Tell us how blacks are inferior.

    Tell us how women should be subservient to men.

    It’s a hoot.

  342. Or better still . . . tell us how the Kochs are fine upstanding people who only care about the best interests of the public.

    *giggle*snort*guffah!*

  343. Many former liberals, i.e. leftists and even Marxists have renounced progressive ideology and become actual 18/19th century liberals; who believe in free markets and free people. This is really the essence of conservatism. Are their brains also constructed in such a fashion?

    Since science is just beginning to figure out how the brain functions, it is a bit premature to jump to any conclusions regarding function and structure.

    That line of thinking is very similar to what racists do with skin color and what the Nazis did with various cranial features.

    Leave it to a progressive to become embroiled in biology to denigrate an individual.

  344. Should not David be allowed to further elaborate on his previously stated positions, Darren? They are, after all, what is at issue. He claims he has not had a hearing of them despite the record showing that he has clearly had a hearing of them. He couldn’t make his case before so in frustration he lashed out in an unacceptable manner. Sad but true. That doesn’t preclude him from having all the column space he wants to try to prove them right. Does it? If his arguments have merit, they’ll withstand critical scrutiny. Even ridicule. But if they don’t? Such is the Tao of things in a marketplace of ideas.

    Surely his ideas are not so good that they should be accepted as true without challenge. Or even ridicule. Does not the ridiculous merit ridicule? Yeah, verily, tis so.

    If one is willing to advocate a position, one should be willing to accept when it is challenged no matter the form of the challenge. Ideas survive on the merits. The rest is show business.

  345. Bron,

    How many conservatives does it take to screw in a light bulb?

    Two, but they have to be really tiny, the bulb must be made in America, powered by coal and they must use the missionary position.

    How many liberals does it take to screw in a light bulb?

    None. They prefer scented candles.

    How many Libertarians does it take to screw in a light bulb?

    It depends on whether Ayn thinks they are worthy of light or not.

    I got a million of ’em.

  346. Gene H:

    “A study at University College London in the UK has found that conservatives’ brains have larger amygdalas than the brains of liberals. Amygdalas are responsible for fear and other “primitive” emotions. At the same time, conservatives’ brains were also found to have a smaller anterior cingulate — the part of the brain responsible for courage and optimism.”

    That is interesting because conservatives want more freedom and autonomy from government control. Not exactly in line with fear and hardly pessimistic in thinking the individual can do a better job of taking care of himself than government could.

    The brain is plastic and the study from UCL doesnt look at childrens brains only adult brains. So the variation in size could be from life experiences.

    As I said above, it is a little too early to tell. But then leave it to a lefty to think emotions make the man and that man has no free will.

  347. Emotions are indeed part of what makes a man. Even their absence. Free will however? Was never part of the contention and is an entirely separate issue.

  348. **Bron 1, December 28, 2013 at 8:44 pm **

    Gee Bron,

    And all this time I thought it was my having b-alls 2x larger then my brain computing capabilities to operate that made me this way. :)

  349. Professor Turley, thanks for stopping by, but

    I can imagine Rodney Dangerfield himself saying you’re a tough act to follow.

    Which started my mind to wondering, of all the legal documents I’ve attempted to discern why is there so little humor written into those laws/documents. Is the Law only meant for Robots to read & not for humans to enjoy?

    Where in the US do we find Judge Roy Bean’s poetic justice today? (smile, it only hurts a little!)

    ** Before founding Langtry, Bean had also secured an appointment as a justice of the peace and notary public. He knew little about the law or proper court procedures, but residents appreciated and largely accepted his common sense verdicts in the sparsely populated country of West Texas.

    Bean was often deliberately humorous or bizarre in his rulings, once fining a dead man $40 for carrying a concealed weapon. He threatened one lawyer with hanging for using profane language when the hapless man referred to the “habeas corpus” of his client. Less amusing was Bean’s decision to free a man accused of killing a Chinese rail worker on the grounds that Bean knew of no law making it a crime “to kill a Chinaman.”

    By the 1890s, reports of Bean’s curmudgeonly rulings had made him nationally famous. Travelers on the train passing through Langtry often made a point of stopping to visit the ramshackle saloon, where a sign proudly proclaimed Bean to be the “Law West of the Pecos.” **

    http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/judge-roy-bean-dies

  350. On second thought it could be I’ve just missed the humor written into those laws/regs because they all read about the same:

    The Laws Sez, ya the Laws, the guys with the Guns, Badges & at the Judge’s disposal :

    Listen you lil sheeet you comply or were going to pound you in the head with a club & it’ll be 10 years, $10,000 fine or both if we’is feeling particularly ornery that day.

    Ya it could be they are writing that Dark Humor I spoke of earlier. :)

  351. DavidM, This is the way it goes. The gloating goes on but you’re still here, my man. They can hammer away and the B, C team are under constant scrutiny. But, I’ll say again YOU ARE STILL HERE. Keep up the fight. You’re a successful man. And, when you cut through all the horseshit, gloating and bullshit, that’s why they despise you. Losers hate winners.

  352. I respectfully submit perhaps some Anger Management class, Diversity Training, & some fresh new comedic material.

    You know, lots more carrot & way less stick.

    The Tax Donkeys out here are happier that way & work harder. :)

  353. If you can’t take the heat . . . whine about what a winner you are?

    No, no. That’s not it.

    If you can’t take the heat . . . everyone else is a loser?

    Nope. Not quite.

    If you can’t take the heat . . . cry?

    Apparently some think so, but no.

    If you can’t take the heat . . . get out of the kitchen.

    Bingo.

  354. Looks like someone got deletion fever. A comment I made to DavidM, and responded to by Gene the Dancin’ Machine, was arbitrarily deleted. Despicable violation of free speech by someone who just made a comment about free speech and”wear a cup.”

  355. DavidM, The comment that was deleted said you need to hang tough. When you whittle away all the horseshit, smugness, nastiness, and bullshit, it come down to you are successful and some of those attacking you are not. Losers hate winners.

  356. Unreliable news sources! LOL

    Oh, I’m so anger at the Birchers for exposing CIA ties to a known propagandist oufit, but what do I know, I must be bat Sheet Crazy to not trust those aholes. :)

    Ya… Right.

    (Don’t Drone me Bezos!) lol

    **Washington Post Urged to Disclose New Owner’s CIA Ties

    Alex Newman
    The New American
    December 28, 2013

    The Washington Post, one of the premier mouthpieces for the establishment, is facing a tsunami of criticism and calls for full disclosure after the newspaper’s new owner, Amazon CEO and Bilderberg luminary Jeff Bezos, secured a $600 million contract with the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency for “cloud” services. According to critics, theWashington Post boss’s CIA ties represent a serious conflict of interest that, under basic ethical standards in journalism, must be disclosed to readers — at least whenever the paper is reporting on the “intelligence community” and its activities. So far, however, the Post has not publicly announced whether or not it will acknowledge what analysts say is a cut-and-dry conflict of interest. **

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/washington-post-urged-to-disclose-new-owners-cia-ties.html

  357. “I mentioned nothing that Gene has not chosen to make known to us publicly.”

    DavidM,

    You are lying and feel you can get away with it because we don’t want to expose what you have already done. You may have balls David, but you are a liar nonetheless.

  358. “Many former liberals, i.e. leftists and even Marxists have renounced progressive ideology and become actual 18/19th century liberals; who believe in free markets and free people.”

    Bron,

    This is true which is why I loathe 19th Century progressives like Teddy Roosevelt who were racist imperialists.

  359. Mike Spindell wrote:
    “You are lying and feel you can get away with it because we don’t want to expose what you have already done. You may have balls David, but you are a liar nonetheless.”

    I do not lie. You are a false accuser and an oppressor. Put away the finger that points in judgment upon another. It is not good for your health. Pay attention to what your Hebrew prophet said, that it may be well with you:

    “Then shalt thou call, and the LORD shall answer; thou shalt cry, and he shall say, Here I am. If thou take away from the midst of thee the yoke, the putting forth of the finger, and speaking vanity;” Isaiah 58:9

  360. However, let’s go back to those issues you “want to discuss”, David.

    Like why homosexuals should be denied equal protection and equal rights because it conflicts with your “traditional values”.

    And how black are inferior.

    And women should be subservient.

    And how a couple of billionaires trying to privatize the government for their personal financial gain are really just swell upstanding folks and fine Americans.

    You claim you didn’t have a fair hearing of your ideas?

    Convince me you’re right.

  361. David writes in response to Mike: “Then shalt thou call, and the LORD shall answer; thou shalt cry, and he shall say, Here I am. If thou take away from the midst of thee the yoke, the putting forth of the finger, and speaking vanity;” Isaiah 58:9″

    *************************************
    What a curious response from someone who professes to not be religious or, IIRC, does not have a religion. For such a person, Biblical quotes should be irrelevant.

  362. Did I mention your assertion that the wealthy should have greater voting rights than the rest of the citizenry, David?

    Convince me of that one too.

    _______

    OS,

    Yeah, I noticed that too. Curiouser and curiouser.

  363. OS wrote: “What a curious response from someone who professes to not be religious or, IIRC, does not have a religion. For such a person, Biblical quotes should be irrelevant.”

    Mike Spindell is Jewish. (Oops. Am I allowed to disclose that information?) My quote is no more odd than my quoting an empirical study to a scientist. Hopefully the passage has meaning to Mr. Spindell.

    I am a theist who belongs to no religion. Nevertheless, I have great respect for the Jewish religion and their Scriptures. I think I have stated this many times. The foundation of Western civilization has its origin in Judaism.

  364. hskiprob 1, December 28, 2013 at 4:37 pm

    Genie or Dredd wrote: … Dredd wrote: “Of humans being a self-predatory species, Skipple?

    Turn on the news. Any station. Read a history book. Try understanding it too. Look at an encyclopedia. What mitigates this tendency from running amok is social pressure brought to bear by cultural convention as enforced by government in the form of laws and regulations. If you don’t understand that basic truth about human nature by now? Then you never will understand human nature.
    =====================
    It is not difficult to find out who wrote what (CTRL F works on most browsers to initiate a search algorithm for finding text on a page).

    I did not write what you said I wrote.

    For one thing, I have never referred to you as “Skipples.”

    For another thing, I tend to refer to everyone by their own self-selected blog handle.

  365. “The foundation of Western civilization has its origin in Judaism.”

    I’m not sure Plato, Socrates, Hippocrates, Sophocles or Aristotle would agree with that assertion. There is a difference between the articles “the” and “a”.

  366. DavidM says: At some point, you should consider that Gene’s style is counterproductive to a free speech blog.

    That doesn’t follow; a free speech blog should allow one to express their opinions, even insulting opinions or racist opinions, as you have oft expressed. Gene (or I, or Bron, or Nick) can be insulting of others comments within this blog without trying to research each other and bring information in from outside this blog.

    DavidM says: I have a pretty thick skin,

    Apparently not. Your skin is so thin you felt compelled to seek advantage by Googling for trumping ammunition on Gene, or however you obtained it.

    The point of the “thick skin” is that attacks do not penetrate it and the owner is not wounded by attacks, or barely scratched. It is a metaphorical allusion to toughness and invulnerability. As Gene has said, I think you became desperate or frustrated and chose to seek advantage elsewhere, because to you, winning by any means necessary is the only rule you follow.

    That is how sociopaths think. And the only thing they respond to is threats of force and force itself, in this case being threatened with banning. That is not just true in politics writ large, it is true in communities as small as this, numbering in the mere hundreds (of writers).

    Which is a good example: Because even on something as free as speech, you cannot be trusted to play by the rules when losses are threatened, even when those losses have no material value whatsoever and are nothing but your pride or your ego. Instead of surrender or walking away from the verbal battle, you have to win no matter what it takes.

    If you cannot behave in the freest “market” imaginable with nothing whatsoever at stake, why should we think you would behave in a free market with money and lives at stake? We should not think that; and that is why we have to set rule after rule, law after law, to constrain those that think like you.

    DavidM says: but you will never have a balanced blog with both conservatives and liberals able to have civil dialogue …

    What in the world makes you think that balance is the goal? Nothing in Dr. Turley’s post claims that as a goal, at best his goal is civil discourse.

    IMO, the type of “balance” you seek is equal “respect” for good ideas and bad, but that should never be the goal of any debate or argument. Those that demand respect and politeness are frequently those whose ideas cannot withstand criticism, or that wish to dictate a point without anybody arguing against it or calling it bullshit.

    “Balance” is counter-productive, as may be politeness and respect if, as they often do, their practitioners mistakenly cross the line into deference and a failure to challenge the basis for spurious claims. The point of debate, like the point of science, is to discriminate between good ideas and bad, ideas that work and ideas that fail.

    Some ideas deserve to be vilified, some ideas are stupid, misguided, and misinformed, unintentionally based on lies and deceit, or grounded in fantasy, or intentionally deceptive and promulgated to deliver selfish gain.

    Some ideas and some persons have proven they do not deserve respect, or politeness, or civility. I consider you one of them.

  367. Hey Gene H.
    Why do you just pick on the Kochs?. How about the Rockefellers who hide their tremendous levels of wealth behind an expanse of Trusts and Corporations?

    Is it because the Rockefellers and the ruling oligarchs are fascists and the Kochs are more libertarian?

    Critical thinking is not the same as biased thinking. Do you just assume because the Kochs, are wealthy, they do not care about others?

    Do you really consider those who favor lassie faire over a mixed economic model, as more greedy and less caring of their fellow Citizens?

  368. Otteray Scribe 1, December 29, 2013 at 9:01 am

    David writes in response to Mike: “Then shalt thou call, and the LORD shall answer; thou shalt cry, and he shall say, Here I am. If thou take away from the midst of thee the yoke, the putting forth of the finger, and speaking vanity;” Isaiah 58:9″

    *************************************
    What a curious response from someone who professes to not be religious or, IIRC, does not have a religion. For such a person, Biblical quotes should be irrelevant.
    ==============================
    Some atheists/agnostics are very good bible, koran, vedas, etc. scholars.

    The reason is that they have the professional ability to set their own whatnot aside when studying text to determine what it says first, then perhaps what it means, second at least.

    Whether the text is “true” or not is not a primary concern of such scholars.

    But yes, quoting a scripture is not the same as understanding it, and also not what makes one a scholar of that scripture.

  369. Skip says: Do you really consider those who favor lassie faire over a mixed economic model, as more greedy and less caring of their fellow Citizens?

    I certainly do. A combination of more greedy, less caring, and less intelligent.

  370. Skip,

    You assume that disdain for the actions of one set of plutarchs doesn’t translate to disdain for plutarchs or plutocracy in general. That would be a bad assumption. Get back to me when the Rockerfellers are funding the Tea Baggers and try to make government their own private fiefdom though. I’ll heap plenty o’ scorn upon them.

    “Do you really consider those who favor lassie faire over a mixed economic model, as more greedy and less caring of their fellow Citizens?”

    Yes, I do. Because they put profit above principle, social responsibility and civic duty. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t whine so much about not being free to exploit anyone or anything however they see fit so long as it complies first with their profit motive. QED that makes them more greedy and less caring of their fellow citizens than someone who understands the value add to a social structure, a political structure and an economic structure of a strong safety net and proper regulation. What does or does not entail proper regulation was dealt with extensively here and is a separate discussion.

  371. “But yes, quoting a scripture is not the same as understanding it, and also not what makes one a scholar of that scripture.”

    The same can be said of law, OS. Knowing the letter of the law without proper context is a recipe for getting it wrong. Much like that convicted fraudster Benson did with his bogus tax avoidance scheme.

  372. Dredd: Most true atheists (by which I mean people that do not believe in anything supernatural), and I am acquainted with dozens, are critical thinkers, which means they do not believe what they read or are told unless it fits in with a coherent and logical model of reality. That is how they became atheists in the first place, and came to recognize that 95% of humanity is just wrong to believe in the supernatural, which includes as a subset any supernatural deity, or supernatural justice or punishment.

    As critical thinkers, we do not feel compelled to reject any large collection of stories and ideas in its totality. We are free to pick and choose amongst the pieces and find bits we like without believing the supernatural premise. Just as a bad song, book or movie can have a few clever or moving or funny lines, the Bible has many quotable lines.

    It should, it is based on many centuries of verbal traditional stories refined by thousands of tellings to be memorable and pithy. Why deny ourselves that human legacy just because some ancient group hijacked it for their own selfish gain?

  373. Gene H wrote: “Much like that convicted fraudster Benson did with his bogus tax avoidance scheme.”

    Tax evasion scheme, not tax avoidance. There is a legal difference.

  374. Q: Who ruined a nice Chicago family man’s CHRISTMAS VACATION w/ a load of shit?

    A: Al Capone

    B: Cousin Eddie

    C: Gene “The Whiner” Howington

    D: Ernie Banks

    Answer: B and C, but cousin Eddie had more class and dressed better.

  375. I do believe “bogus” and “fraudster” covered that, David. The difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion as a term of art is one is based in legality, the other is not, however both seek tax avoidance ergo a tax evasion scheme is merely an illegal tax avoidance scheme. Which again is covered by the non-art but yet easy to understand terms “bogus” and “fraudster”.

  376. nick,

    If you don’t like that part of the GB job is reporting policy violations, I suggest you take it up with the owner.

  377. Again, if you don’t like that part of the GB job is reporting policy violations, I suggest you take it up with the owner, nick.

  378. We often fight over definitions, so I thought it would be interesting subject in regards to our posts, Tony and I commented to each other on:

    Tony C. wrote to my reply “that nowhere in the Constitution is the authority given to government to regulate marriage: He wrote Skip: You are wrong. Governmental authority is derived from the people. Government has the authority to regulate marriage for the same reason government has the authority to regulate murder, theft, assault, fraud, or anything else: The people gave it the authority to regulate. You won’t find its authority to outlaw rape or murder in there, either, but it has that authority.

    I won’t comment on his lack of understanding of the phrase unalienable rights, as I have already done that, but on his understanding of the term regulation, which he is also lacking.

    Historic Research: “Well Regulated” best described by: Brian T. Halonen, Researcher published at constitution.org
    The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
    1709: “If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.”
    1714: “The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world.”
    1812: “The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.”
    1848: “A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor.”
    1862: “It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding.”
    1894: “The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city.”

    The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people’s arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd Amendment it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

    So well-regulated meant, well functioning and leave it to government to believe that they, politicians and Judges are the ones given the authority to perfect the behavior of our Citizens, as individuals and in our associations.

    So how is government the ability to make marriages “well-functioning.” I know the answer. Licensing and regulation stopped Bernie Madoff and made wall Street function better, it will of course work with marriages. It stops food posing outbreaks, it stops child prostitution, slavery, poverty, crime, etc; etc. etc.

  379. An income tax is a disgrace to the human race. If you read the various debates in all the legislative bodies, the average man was surely not supposed to be burdened by the aggressive nature of government to steal their wealth at gun point.

  380. Gene H. Really?
    You cannot understand the simple concept, that if you do not have profit, it is impossible to provide a benefit to others.

    Try building a house for your family without the excess money to do so.

    Take the average Citizen, he cannot contribute to the poor if he has no excess money left over to contribute. Bill Koch cannot build a private school unless he has profits to do so.

    It is as if you believe all business people are unethical, because the seek profits to improve their lives and the lives of others.

    Greed in not giving back to your fellow Citizens when you have the ability to do so but you must have the ability to do so, to be able to give back.

    Not all capitalists are greedy Gene H. and I would suggest that it is not capitalists that are impoverishing the average Citizen in this country.

  381. I am not sure where “well regulated” in its historic context comes into play regarding marriage. I agree with the concept of “well regulated” as meaning “in good working order,”

    The main purpose of the state regulating marriage is twofold. First, it serves a record keeping function. For example, if it weren’t for marriage records, the study of genealogy would be infinitely more difficult. Second, it is an enforceable contract, providing for both rights and responsibilities. It has nothing to do with sex, reproduction, or who is responsible for taking out the trash. It does provide an enforceable contractual guarantee for issues of custody, support, inheritance, health care, and hospital visitation rights, to name a few.

  382. Not on his CHRISTMAS VACATION. It was all about you, not the policy. If I, hsk, DavidM, Bron, or a few others had personal stuff revealed about us it would not have been reported, certainly not on a FAMILY CHRISTMAS VACATION.

  383. I think Gene believes as I do that unethical and greedy business people are unethical and greedy. That doesn’t mean that we believe that all business people are unethical and greedy. The banksters of Wall Street have helped to impoverish the citizens of this country.

  384. No, nick. It was about the policy. Had David done that to another poster, even you, I’d have done the exact same thing.

    By the way, uncontrolled shouting can be a symptom of a much greater underlying problem.

    You should get a doctor to look at that.

  385. Skip says: So how is government the ability to make marriages “well-functioning.”

    Exactly as it has done, by making marriage constitute a standardized contract with thousands of particulars, by clarifying that marriage gives the participants both hundreds of privileges (like visitation during illness, protection from testifying against a spouse, power of attorney in medical decisions and so on) and hundreds of obligations as well (such as sharing property equally, being jointly liable in lawsuits, and so on).

    The law makes marriage well-regulated by resolving disagreements and misunderstandings and various puzzling situations that have come up, over time, about specifically what “marriage” means to society and what it does not mean to society, what it permits and does not permit, what is a responsibility of marriage and what is not, what is a privilege of marriage and what is not.

    Marriage is a state defined by society, with rights and privileges to be honored and protected by society, using the police and courts of law paid for and operated by society. As such, society has the right to determine and clarify, to any extent it deems necessary, precisely what it will honor and protect under the label of “marriage,” and indeed what requirements it will impose upon people to enter that societal contract to be called “marriage.” That includes licensing, for a fee if we deem it necessary. A marriage entails a certain level of obligation of society to honor and protect it, responsibilities which on average costs a non-zero amount of money to execute, and a licensing fee is not an unreasonable demand in return for the protections and privileges afforded.

  386. “I do not lie. You are a false accuser and an oppressor.”

    “Pay attention to what your Hebrew prophet said, that it may be well with you”

    David,

    You did lie when you stated that you only used information Gene had already revealed and that is only one example of your lying here. As for quoting me Hebrew prophets there is really no need……but you knew that already didn’t you. It is curious though, as I come upon your comment this morning that you chose to “rebuke” me by bringing my religion into it. Now as I have said your
    writings, especially the “big lie technique used in them are reminiscent of Goebbels, so perhaps you and he share some other proclivities. Just speculation of course but then he too felt some members of the human race were inferior to others based solely on their heritage. However, that is merely speculation on my part and I’ll bet that some of your best friends are Jewish.

  387. “You cannot understand the simple concept, that if you do not have profit, it is impossible to provide a benefit to others.”

    I think you don’t understand what profit actually is, Skupper. As Tony has pointed out before, profit is excess money taken as reward. Or as properly defined “a financial gain, especially the difference between the amount earned and the amount spent in buying, operating, or producing something”. It is perfectly possible to build a house and break even. I have zero concern over Koch’s ability or inability to exercise his charitable inclinations nor do I trust him to have them and exercise them in the interest of the general welfare. We’ve tried the “let charity handle it” mode of social welfare. It didn’t work on scale or uniformly. Just so, not everything can or should be done for profit. For example, health care insurance. Every penny of profit those private companies take is money that could, and many would argue should, be spent on patient care instead.

    Profit is not a God given inalienable right and is unjust if it harms others, harms society as a whole or deprives others of their rights.

    People who think otherwise worship money.

    Which is such an appealing humanistic compassionate state of mind.

    Or not.

  388. That’s a lie and more people than your narcissistic mind could ever comprehend, know that. Now, let’s end this. We’ve both said all that needs to be said. Mr. Turley would want this back and forth to end, I want it to end, Lord knows most everyone does. How ’bout you?

  389. Skip wrote: “So how is government the ability to make marriages “well-functioning.” I know the answer. Licensing and regulation stopped Bernie Madoff and made wall Street function better, it will of course work with marriages. It stops food posing outbreaks, it stops child prostitution, slavery, poverty, crime, etc; etc. etc.”

    The Constitution reserves rights not enumerated within it to the States and the people. This is why marriage traditionally has been a State issue.

    So take the situation of a man who makes promises to a woman, to love her and cherish her above all others, and to care for her and provide for their household in raising the children. He earns an income outside the house while she bears children and guides the household. Then in five years, after having four children, he leaves her penniless and takes up with another woman. Are you trying to tell me that the State government has no interest whatsoever in bringing justice here by making the man continue to provide for her and their children?

  390. It has been brought up repeatedly by more than one commenter that marriage is about sex and having children, because of something called ‘natural law’ and body parts fitting together.

    Sorry, but if marriage is necessary to have a child, 40.7% of American women never got the memo. As many as 48% of first-born children are born out of wedlock.

    Sources:
    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/almost-half-of-first-babies-in-us-born-to-unwed-mothers/

    http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/unmarry.htm

  391. “Q: Who ruined a nice Chicago family man’s CHRISTMAS VACATION w/ a load of shit?

    A: Al Capone
    B: Cousin Eddie
    C: Gene “The Whiner” Howington
    D: Ernie Banks

    Answer: B and C, but cousin Eddie had more class and dressed better.”

    Nick,

    Where did you get the idea that anyone “ruined” JT’s Christmas vacation? Certainly not from personal communication. I know that because me and the other GB’s have been in touch with him a lot since Christmas and he in no way expressed the idea that his “Christmas” vacation had been ruined.

    However, you made that up because you were looking for some way to attack Gene and given your rather limited creative faculties you came up with this lame attempt at acerbic humor. You should stick to being a dick, Nick, and leave the creativity to other members of your family that actually have a talent greater than snooping on people.

    What is the difference between the two private Sam Spade and Nick Spinelli?

    One is actually a nuanced and interesting character, who surprises the audience by not acting in a stereotyped manner.

    The other is Nick Spinelli.

  392. Elaine:

    nope, the government did so by not letting some of the banks fail. As they rightly should have. Their assests would then have been distributed to more efficient institutions.

    This is exactly what started to happen before Paulson convinced Bush to bail out Paulson’s Wall St. buddies. A purely socialistic move by government. No libertarian economist that I know of supported that move and no Objectivist philosopher I know supported the bail-out either.

  393. nick,

    Sorry, but that is simply counter-factual. If someone posts personal information about you without your permission? I’ll be the first to knock the comment out and report the problem. I’d suggest you get someone to do that for you as a test, but that would kind of defeat the whole “without your permission” part of the equation. However, if you don’t think I’ll report violations against other posters? Ask Smom or AY. I’ve gotten between them and others involving policy disputes. I’ve even taken steps about policy violations for posters who didn’t (and still don’t) know I had done it.

    So unless you just want to call me a narcissist again, I suggest you end this now. You’re the one persistently on the attack. I have not abdicated any right to self-defense nor have I been asked to. In fact, you’re attempting to insert yourself (again) into something which is quite simply none of your business.

    So if you want to end it?

    Don’t reply and it’s over.

    Try it.

    You’ll get what you want.

    Unless, of course, “wanting it over” isn’t really what you want.

  394. Gene H wrote: “No, nick. It was about the policy. Had David done that to another poster, even you, I’d have done the exact same thing.”

    May I remind you that in the past, you and others ridiculed my educational background, yet nobody was reported for it. Your hyperbolic comments even led another commentator to think erroneously that I had never earned any college degrees.

  395. Rafflaw, wrote: There are no end runs around the law. At least if you believe in the rule of law.

    First, since I am constantly writing about the abrogations of the rule of law and he knows it, it is obvious that I must therefore believe in a Rule of Law. I would actually like several of you folks to observe it rather than supporting it’s many abrogations.

    So the 2nd portion of your comment warrants the reply; “that’s another stupid comment Rafflaw.

    Second, it is highly unlikely, since I did not give the meaning or an example to what I meant from the phrase “an end run around the law”, that you would therefore have any understanding of what I mean by this. I however could be wrong so I surely would like as reply for you.

    So the second portion of you comment also warrants the reply: “that’s “probably: another stupid comment Rafflaw. but I reserve final judgment on this, based on your reply.

    Are not attorneys supposed to be as Gene H. notes, critical thinkers?

    Would it not have been better to ask the question: what do you mean by the phrase hskiprob, “an end run around the law”, rather than trying to make an assumption, that you probably don’t know what I means by this.

  396. nick:

    Are you revealing personal information about Gene by saying he dresses poorly? I think you should be reported.

    I think you are wrong though, I imagine Gene H wears tailored shirts and $500 dollar English last shoes which he has made to order. He probably gets his suits from his personal tailor in Hong Kong and I am guessing he drives a Benz or a Beamer, a Rolls would be too flashy and wouldnt put him down with the kause.

    That is how all rich socialists are, they live high and massage their guilt by making other people pay to support the poor. Tony C is probably worse, he probably has a Rolls.

  397. Some want to end the warfare when it appears they have lost.

    As for marriage, if it concerns itself primarily with procreation, then God help those who are beyond childbearing years and wish to marry, are their marriages not legit?

  398. David,

    It’s not my fault you said you majored in biology and yet couldn’t differentiate between a species and a sub-species. I didn’t doubt you have a degree in biology. I simply took you at your word. It’s also not my fault you don’t have a law degree yet insist on playing at knowing what you are talking about.

    Again, heat, kitchen.

  399. Bron,

    Wouldn’t own a Rolls. They’re pimp-mobiles. Well built, sure, but tacky.

    Also, I consider a robe on Sunday after a holiday perfectly acceptable attire.

  400. Elaine M wrote: “That doesn’t mean that we believe that all business people are unethical and greedy.”

    No, you are not talking about all business people. You are talking about me. Your colleagues have called me a liar, a sociopath, a psychopath, a bigot, a phony, a fraud, a homophobe, a hater, a fake, a lover of money, a sophist, illogical, greedy, selfish, uncaring, uneducated, without understanding, lacking intelligence, etc. etc. etc. Do you really think such epithets are appropriate in a public forum that is not about me?

  401. Bron, WTF is it about people who always NEED[that’s not shouting it’s emphasis] to have the last word? Is it a breastfeeding issue? Now, that’s just a question! I have no knowledge of ANYONES breastfeeding habits other than my own. I’m just trying to understand the pathology. I mean I know I’m correct. Most everyone just wants this to end, but there’s something in this guy that just can’t let things go.

  402. DavidM, Always take note of the “law degree” not lawyer. There are 2 main reasons people who spend all the time, effort, and money to get a law degree and then are not lawyers. I mean there are many reasons, but there are 2 main ones.

  403. Does anyone really think a person should be able to disclaim their stated positions and complain when others take them to task for those positions or draw conclusions about them based upon said statements?

    If one does not like the impression others get about them from their stated positions, then perhaps they should revisit their positions.

  404. Mike Spindell wrote: “You did lie when you stated that you only used information Gene had already revealed and that is only one example of your lying here.”

    I told the truth. My knowledge about Gene and his educational background was revealed previously by Gene himself. You should get your facts right before you go off half-cocked condemning someone else and bearing false witness against them.

  405. Bron,

    The banksters of Wall Street and some of the financial instruments they created helped to devalue the pension funds of millions of Americans.

    *****

    The Guardian March 20, 2002

    Enron: capitalism in a nutshell (Part 5):
    Ripped off at work, ripped off in retirement
    by Anna Pha
    http://www.cpa.org.au/z-archive/g2002/1084en1.html

    Excerpt:
    “It’s unconscionable that hard-working, dedicated workers were forced to
    sacrifice their life savings to prop up a failing company”, said Edwin
    Hill, President of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
    (IBEW), testifying before the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation
    Committee in December 2001. “Those who ran the company into the ground
    certainly aren’t wiped out financially — just the workers who made their
    success possible.”

    “Little did those of us working hard every day to make the company
    successful know what was going on at the top of Enron”, Bob Vigil, an
    electrical machinist working foreman, told the Senate Committee.

    “We trusted management’s glowing reports of strong financial growth and
    opportunity. Then in October 2001, Enron’s house of mirrors came crashing
    down.”

    Bob is one of almost 1000 members of IBEW Local 125 who worked at Portland
    General Electric (PGE) in Oregon, which was taken over by Enron in 1997. He
    worked there for 23 years. The shares in his retirement savings account
    automatically converted to Enron stock at the time of the takeover. Now
    they are almost worthless.

    Tragic losses

    Bob Vigil gave examples of some of the devastating losses suffered by other
    PGE workers:

    Tim Ramsey, age 55, 33 years with PGE, lost US$995,000;
    Roy Rinard, age 53, 22 years with PGE, lost US$472,000;
    Al Kaseweter, age 43, 21 years with PGE, lost US$300,000 plus,….

    “There was a time not so long ago when we all thought [Enron CEO] Ken Lay
    was just the most wonderful person in the world”, said Shane Yelverton “but
    now we’re hearing all this stuff: that he was selling off stock, even while
    he was telling us not to sell our stock. It’s disgusting.

  406. No, David, it wasn’t. I’ve never told anyone in this forum publicly where I went to school and when. So keep lying all you like. It’s a shovel of your own making.

  407. “CHRISTMAS VACATION! FAMILY MAN! Wait a minute, “It’s like tryin’ to tell a stranger about rock n’ roll.”

    Nick,

    Now knowing your rather limited mental perspective, your vicious streak and your bad attempts at acerbic humor I know that remark was directed at Gene, because of David’s comment. I really think you don’t want to get into family issues because when it comes to that, you are also vulnerable, being far less successful than your mate.

  408. OS wrote: “…if marriage is necessary to have a child, 40.7% of American women never got the memo. As many as 48% of first-born children are born out of wedlock.”

    Not saying that it is necessary, but that marriage is an institution that defines the relationship between man and wife, who naturally produce offspring that create other family relationships. Go to your studies, and you will find that children born out of wedlock have a higher likelihood of engaging in crimes, drugs, and other social ills. In recent times, thanks to feminism and the homosexual agenda, marriage has been on the decline and ultimately societal ills reminiscent of barbarism will increase, school violence will increase, etc.

  409. davidm2575
    1, December 29, 2013 at 11:30 am

    Elaine M wrote: “That doesn’t mean that we believe that all business people are unethical and greedy.”

    No, you are not talking about all business people. You are talking about me. Your colleagues have called me a liar, a sociopath, a psychopath, a bigot, a phony, a fraud, a homophobe, a hater, a fake, a lover of money, a sophist, illogical, greedy, selfish, uncaring, uneducated, without understanding, lacking intelligence, etc. etc. etc. Do you really think such epithets are appropriate in a public forum that is not about me?

    *****

    You’re telling me who I’m talking about. You presume to know my thoughts now? What have your discussions with “my colleagues” got to do with the comment of mine that you quoted?

    I have no idea what kind of businessman you are. I don’t go snooping into the private lives of people who comment on this blog. I let their words speak for them.

  410. “I don’t go snooping into the private lives of people who comment on this blog. I let their words speak for them.”

    Yep.

  411. davidm wrote: “Not saying that it is necessary, but that marriage is an institution that defines the relationship between man and wife, who naturally produce offspring that create other family relationships. ”

    *****

    Not all married couples “naturally produce offspring.” Not all married couples choose to have children. Should such marriages be dissolved because they don’t produce the children that help “create other family relationships?”

  412. “May I remind you that in the past, you and others ridiculed my educational background, yet nobody was reported for it.”

    DavidM,

    May I remind you that you are an anonymous blogger. We don’t know your real name and in truth your picture may not be you and your initials might not be DM. Since you are anonymous your educational claims are open to question, especially because your writings give lie to those claims. When an anonymous individual presents purported “facts” about themselves as proof of a position, then their claims are fair game for questioning. Even Nick will tell you, that since he has questioned the motives of anonymous commenters in the past.

  413. annieofwi wrote: “then God help those who are beyond childbearing years and wish to marry, are their marriages not legit?”

    In most cases, it would be best for them if they did not marry, but the complications that would arise by making such illegal are not practical.

    Furthermore, as I have outlined in the past, there are two primary reasons for marriage. 1) Gender diversity resulting in complimentary unity, and 2) Reproduction resulting in a family. Lacking reason 2, there still remains reason 1. In some situations, that might be sufficient enough a reason, but in many situations it is not.

  414. Gene H wrote: “Also, I consider a robe on Sunday after a holiday perfectly acceptable attire.”

    LOL. Now you have created an image in my mind of a wealthy Hugh Hefner type.

  415. “In most cases, it would be best for them if they did not marry”

    Oooo. Substituting your own subjective morals for the objective ethical rights of others. How very exciting.

  416. Gene H. wrote; It is perfectly possible to build a house and break even. I have zero concern over Koch’s ability or inability to exercise his charitable inclinations nor do I trust him to have them and exercise them in the interest of the general welfare.

    Really? So, as an example, if a buy a used motorcycle for $5,000, do some work on it such as a new paint job, add some cool parts to it and sell it for $7,500 deducting parts, labor and time of $2,000 thus profiting. $500, that I do not have the Right to this profit? That I should only sell it for $7,000 and forgive the gain?

    Who does if not me. Corrupt politicians and Judges?

    My point is that as long as I don’t harm others, which as you know, is the foundation of libertarianism, as every member of the LP must sign an agreement under oath, “that they will not initiated force or fraud against others or their property,” that I cannot give to others without this profit. I’m not greedy for desiring the profit, I’m only greedy if I do not contribute to the welfare of society with my excess profits, because I must also feed, clothe and shelter myself and family before giving to others.

    I guess I could give all my money away and be homeless or perhaps as we have today, let government take so much profit from average people, they can not longer afford homes or feed themselves.

    You must trust yourself before you can trust, that not all people are bad actors. If we have a system that promotes bad actors, that perhaps this is part of the problem. We have legalized the initiation of force and coercion in every aspect of human endeavor and believing that that this will not have a profound effect on the psychology of our Citizens is in my opinion, missing an element of human nature in that we as humans do not like to be ruled by others and we do not like our property taken form us without our consent, believing that each one of us, has just as much authority, to spend our money as we feel necessary and proper.

    Thinking that those in government are more trustworthy than your neighbors, friends, family, fellow townspeople and countryman working in voluntary association has been a fools errand. It apposes the nature of human beings of self determination, liberty and responsibility. There are few that like being ruled over by others, and those who do, I do not think you would want them in the determination.

    I can wait to see how you can twist this one. You guys never cease to amazes me though. Twist away.

  417. Yes, older widowers–by all means–should marry again. But widows past their childdbearing years should be discouraged from doing so. Let them live alone. After all, they’re only lowly women whose only duty in life is to produce offspring…and to do those other “female” things like cooking, cleaning, and attending to their husband’s needs.

  418. So they should be denied the ceremony in which they pledge themselves to one another in love ? Really? Wow, that’s cold.

  419. Elaine M wrote: “I don’t go snooping into the private lives of people who comment on this blog.”

    Neither do I. The problem is that someone is lying about me, and you believe the liar.

    If you line up with your buddies who speak disparagingly about me, you are as guilty as being the passenger of a car being used by your friends in a bank heist.

  420. And should they be denied the legal protections of marriage, just because thy will no longer produce offspring? I hope you haven’t given any older lady such advice who might actually think you care about them.

  421. Nick,

    There may be many reasons…. Don’t you and David have others to prick…. There are other sites I am sure you would be welcomed upon…. Quit making it personal…. And maybe it won’t be personal….

  422. Skipper,

    You seem to have mistaken the position as anti-profit. I have no issue with most things we do in society and its economy being done on a for profit basis. I just don’t think that one model is the silver bullet solution to every problem or need. Again, you – like Bron, choose to ignore that a mixed economy depends on capitalism. Just not laissez-faire capitalism. No need for me to twist. You’re doing a fine job of it yourself. In fact, Chubby Checker just called and asked if you were available for lessons.

  423. davidm,

    I am guilty of nothing. I asked you earlier in this thread to explain how you found out that information about Gene–information about him of which I had no knwledge…and I have been a regular on this blog for many more years than you. Still, you haven’t responded to my request. Why is that?

  424. annieofwi
    1, December 29, 2013 at 12:14 pm
    Elaine, when our wombs are out of commision, we should just fling ourselves on the pyre, it seems.

    *****

    Yes…onto the pyre–along with uppity women who dare express their opinions and who believe they should not be subservient to men!

  425. DavidM:

    “No, you are not talking about all business people. You are talking about me. Your colleagues have called me a liar, a sociopath, a psychopath, a bigot, a phony, a fraud, a homophobe, a hater, a fake, a lover of money, a sophist, illogical, greedy, selfish, uncaring, uneducated, without understanding, lacking intelligence, etc. etc. etc. Do you really think such epithets are appropriate in a public forum that is not about me?”

    Welcome to the club, although I havent ever been called a homophobe at least not that I remember.

    I can tell you it really bothered me for awhile too, it is definitely used to stifle speech. It is how the left keeps conservatives in the public eye in control too. But after awhile you realize that someone who needs to use those epithets while arguing really isnt much intellectually. It is quite intellectually lazy to be sure.

    I personally doubt Gene H, Tony C, and others could refrain from using those words. They think they are entitled to them because of their “superior” ideas.

  426. Mike Spindell wrote: “May I remind you that you are an anonymous blogger. We don’t know your real name and in truth your picture may not be you and your initials might not be DM.”

    What does this have to do with it? I am in exactly the same position. I don’t know that what Gene has revealed about himself is true. I don’t know for sure that he is using his real name, or that he really attended the colleges that he claims to have attended, or any other information that he has chosen to reveal about himself. I just rely on his word about it, despite how his interaction stretches credulity.

  427. Bron,

    The Scam Wall Street Learned From the Mafia
    How America’s biggest banks took part in a nationwide bid-rigging conspiracy – until they were caught on tape
    By Matt Taibbi
    6/21/12
    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-scam-wall-street-learned-from-the-mafia-20120620

    Excerpt:
    Someday, it will go down in history as the first trial of the modern American mafia. Of course, you won’t hear the recent financial corruption case, United States of America v. Carollo, Goldberg and Grimm, called anything like that. If you heard about it at all, you’re probably either in the municipal bond business or married to an antitrust lawyer. Even then, all you probably heard was that a threesome of bit players on Wall Street got convicted of obscure antitrust violations in one of the most inscrutable, jargon-packed legal snoozefests since the government’s massive case against Microsoft in the Nineties – not exactly the thrilling courtroom drama offered by the famed trials of old-school mobsters like Al Capone or Anthony “Tony Ducks” Corallo.

    But this just-completed trial in downtown New York against three faceless financial executives really was historic. Over 10 years in the making, the case allowed federal prosecutors to make public for the first time the astonishing inner workings of the reigning American crime syndicate, which now operates not out of Little Italy and Las Vegas, but out of Wall Street.

    The defendants in the case – Dominick Carollo, Steven Goldberg and Peter Grimm – worked for GE Capital, the finance arm of General Electric. Along with virtually every major bank and finance company on Wall Street – not just GE, but J.P. Morgan Chase, Bank of America, UBS, Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, Wachovia and more – these three Wall Street wiseguys spent the past decade taking part in a breathtakingly broad scheme to skim billions of dollars from the coffers of cities and small towns across America. The banks achieved this gigantic rip-off by secretly colluding to rig the public bids on municipal bonds, a business worth $3.7 trillion. By conspiring to lower the interest rates that towns earn on these investments, the banks systematically stole from schools, hospitals, libraries and nursing homes – from “virtually every state, district and territory in the United States,” according to one settlement. And they did it so cleverly that the victims never even knew they were being ­cheated. No thumbs were broken, and nobody ended up in a landfill in New Jersey, but money disappeared, lots and lots of it, and its manner of disappearance had a familiar name: organized crime.

    In fact, stripped of all the camouflaging financial verbiage, the crimes the defendants and their co-conspirators committed were virtually indistinguishable from the kind of thuggery practiced for decades by the Mafia, which has long made manipulation of public bids for things like garbage collection and construction contracts a cornerstone of its business. What’s more, in the manner of old mob trials, Wall Street’s secret machinations were revealed during the Carollo trial through crackling wiretap recordings and the lurid testimony of cooperating witnesses, who came into court with bowed heads, pointing fingers at their accomplices. The new-age gangsters even invented an elaborate code to hide their crimes. Like Elizabethan highway robbers who spoke in thieves’ cant, or Italian mobsters who talked about “getting a button man to clip the capo,” on tape after tape these Wall Street crooks coughed up phrases like “pull a nickel out” or “get to the right level” or “you’re hanging out there” – all code words used to manipulate the interest rates on municipal bonds. The only thing that made this trial different from a typical mob trial was the scale of the crime.

    USA v. Carollo involved classic cartel activity: not just one corrupt bank, but many, all acting in careful concert against the public interest. In the years since the economic crash of 2008, we’ve seen numerous hints that such orchestrated corruption exists. The collapses of Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, for instance, both pointed to coordi­nated attacks by powerful banks and hedge funds determined to speed the demise of those firms. In the bankruptcy of Jefferson County, Alabama, we learned that Goldman Sachs accepted a $3 million bribe from J.P. Morgan Chase to permit Chase to serve as the sole provider of toxic swap deals to the rubes running metropolitan Birmingham – “an open-and-shut case of anti-competitive behavior,” as one former regulator described it.

    More recently, a major international investigation has been launched into the manipulation of Libor, the interbank lending index that is used to calculate global interest rates for products worth more than $3 trillion a year. If and when that case is presented to the public at trial – there are several major civil suits in the works here in the States – we may yet find out that the world’s most powerful banks have, for years, been fixing the prices of almost every adjustable-rate vehicle on earth, from mortgages and credit cards to interest-rate swaps and even currencies.

    But USA v. Carollo marks the first time we actually got incontrovertible evidence that Wall Street has moved into this cartel-type brand of criminality. It also offered a disgusting glimpse into the enabling and grossly cynical role played by politicians, who took Super Bowl tickets and bribe-stuffed envelopes to look the other way while gangsters raided the public kitty. And though the punishments that were ultimately handed down in the trial – minor convictions of three bit players – felt deeply unsatisfying, it was still a watershed moment in the ongoing story of America’s gradual awakening to the realities of financial corruption. In a post-crash era where Wall Street trials almost never make it into court, and even the harshest settlements end with the evidence buried by the government and the offending banks permitted to escape with no admission of wrongdoing, this case finally dragged the whole ugly truth of American finance out into the open – and it was a hell of a show.

  428. Bron,

    Control is an illusion. The ideas that count and what says more about a person’s character than the ideas and ideals they espouse? Only action. If you’re upset that certain ideals don’t withstand scrutiny or make others think unfavorably of you, again, perhaps the positions should be revisited.

  429. Elaine M wrote: “I asked you earlier in this thread to explain how you found out that information about Gene–information about him of which I had no knwledge…and I have been a regular on this blog for many more years than you. Still, you haven’t responded to my request. Why is that?”

    Maybe it is because you are a woman. :-)

    Or maybe it is because I explained already that Gene revealed that information publicly. Oky said he saw that information practically verbatim and therefore thought nothing about what I wrote, virtually skipping over it. So I have a good memory. Does that give anybody the right to crucify me for it and make false allegations? A few even thought I was a paid counter-blogger, can you imagine that? It is truly unbelievable how gullible the leaders of this blog are.

  430. Goody …. I have been sitting back and reading and laughing but finally something I can comment on:

    “Elaine, when our wombs are out of commision, we should just fling ourselves on the pyre, it seems.” (annieofwi)

    *****

    “Yes…onto the pyre–along with uppity women who dare express their opinions and who believe they should not be subservient to men!” (Elaine)

    *****

    Does that mean that as soon as the womb gives up, we can get a divorce, grab 50% and take a cruise?

  431. “davidm,

    I am guilty of nothing. I asked you earlier in this thread to explain how you found out that information about Gene–information about him of which I had no knwledge…and I have been a regular on this blog for many more years than you. Still, you haven’t responded to my request. Why is that?” (Elaine)

    I came to this blog about a month after you … I have no idea where Gene went to school.

  432. You don’t need to know, David.

    Only our host needs to know as being a GB carries the requirement of using your real name. You, however, hide behind anonymity like a shield. It is your right to post anonymously. It is even a legally protected right to engage in anonymous political free speech. It is your right and if anyone posted, say, your real name, where you live, what business you own, where from and what your degrees are in or any other personally identifying information here about that you did not choose or consent to share? I would be on them in a heartbeat, taking the same action against them as I did against you when you chose to violate the policy here. That you choose to use that right of anonymity to