Recently, Republican Rep. Ron Paul of Texas took to the floor of the House to talk about Wikileaks, transparency in government, and the case of Daniel Ellsberg, the 
Pentagon Papers, and the New York Times. He spoke about how the Iraq War was based on lies. He asked how the U. S. government should prosecute a citizen of Australia for publishing classified U. S. documents that he did not steal. Paul also said the following: “Revealing the real nature and goal of our presence in so many Muslim countries is a threat to our empire, and any revelation of this truth is highly resented by those in charge.”
Paul posed a number of questions at the end of his talk:
Number 1: Do the America People deserve know the truth regarding the ongoing wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen?
Number 2: Could a larger question be how can an army private access so much secret information?
Number 3: Why is the hostility mostly directed at Assange, the publisher, and not at our governments failure to protect classified information?
Number 4: Are we getting our moneys worth of the 80 Billion dollars per year spent on intelligence gathering?
Number 5: Which has resulted in the greatest number of deaths: lying us into war or Wikileaks revelations or the release of the Pentagon Papers?
Number 6: If Assange can be convicted of a crime for publishing information that he did not steal, what does this say about the future of the first amendment and the independence of the internet?
Number 7: Could it be that the real reason for the near universal attacks on Wikileaks is more about secretly maintaining a seriously flawed foreign policy of empire than it is about national security?
Number 8: Is there not a huge difference between releasing secret information to help the enemy in a time of declared war, which is treason, and the releasing of information to expose our government lies that promote secret wars, death and corruption?
Number 9: Was it not once considered patriotic to stand up to our government when it is wrong?
Thomas Jefferson had it right when he advised ‘Let the eyes of vigilance never be closed.’ I yield back the balance of my time.
Source: Huffington Post
– Elaine Magliaro
Tony C.: “The DOI does not say that anywhere. You can read the whole thing in five minutes. Locke is not referenced in the Constitution; his writing may have influenced Jefferson but Locke is not part of it or the Constitution.”
The DOI AND the Constitution were constructed based the Lockean definition of tyranny. The Constitution also incorporates the Montesquieu definition via the separation of powers doctrine.
Tony C.: “You just invented the “property” bit out of thin air. There is no mention of property or violations of property rights mentioned anywhere in the entire DOI,”
Pursuit of happiness is Lockean shorthand for property rights.
Tony C.: “the only indirect allusion to property is “quartering of soldiers.” The entire DOI is about political issues. Not even the inalienable rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) guarantee anything like even a right to OWN property or any rights about what one can DO with one’s property.”
You need to read Locke’s 2nd Treatise, which Jefferson plagiarized throughout the DOI.
Tony C.: “Either you are incapable of understanding that a document might actually say something different than what you’ve been told, or you are a liar.”
While I disagree with Chan L.’s argument and his approach to argumentation in general, your statements regarding Locke as he relates to the DOI and the Constitution are simply wrong.
Tony C:
here you go:
“Property Rights
The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.
Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values.
Any material element or resource which, in order to become of use or value to men, requires the application of human knowledge and effort, should be private property—by the right of those who apply the knowledge and effort.
Just as man can’t exist without his body, so no rights can exist without the right to translate one’s rights into reality—to think, to work and to keep the results—which means: the right of property. The modern mystics of muscle who offer you the fraudulent alternative of “human rights” versus “property rights,” as if one could exist without the other, are making a last, grotesque attempt to revive the doctrine of soul versus body. Only a ghost can exist without material property; only a slave can work with no right to the product of his effort. The doctrine that “human rights” are superior to “property rights” simply means that some human beings have the right to make property out of others; since the competent have nothing to gain from the incompetent, it means the right of the incompetent to own their betters and to use them as productive cattle. Whoever regards this as human and right, has no right to the title of “human.”
The source of property rights is the law of causality. All property and all forms of wealth are produced by man’s mind and labor. As you cannot have effects without causes, so you cannot have wealth without its source: without intelligence. You cannot force intelligence to work: those who’re able to think, will not work under compulsion; those who will, won’t produce much more than the price of the whip needed to keep them enslaved. You cannot obtain the products of a mind except on the owner’s terms, by trade and by volitional consent. Any other policy of men toward man’s property is the policy of criminals, no matter what their numbers. Criminals are savages who play it short-range and starve when their prey runs out—just as you’re starving today, you who believed that crime could be “practical” if your government decreed that robbery was legal and resistance to robbery illegal.
Man has to work and produce in order to support his life. He has to support his life by his own effort and by the guidance of his own mind. If he cannot dispose of the product of his effort, he cannot dispose of his effort; if he cannot dispose of his effort, he cannot dispose of his life. Without property rights, no other rights can be practiced.”
Tony C:
now you are just kidding around right?
“There is no mention of property or violations of property rights mentioned anywhere in the entire DOI, the only indirect allusion to property is “quartering of soldiers.” The entire DOI is about political issues. Not even the inalienable rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness)”
Bubbha:
“I know more about the DOI and the Constitution than you ever will. They are the core of my training. This is demonstrated time and again.”
you may know what a bunch of leftist law professors told you but that doesn’t make you right.
And a good many people knew the sun revolved around the earth and knew it very well. But they weren’t right were they.
Sucks when you spent all that time in school and then law school and then some little punk tells you you might be wrong about what you learned. I’d probably react exactly the same because deep down I know the punk is right. So I have to tell him he’s a sociopath or worse so I can hold on to the grand illusion created by lefty professors through my formative years.
Some ideas die real hard little fascist/socialist/Marxist apologist.
@Chan: Fancy rhetoric but no understanding of the DOI or Jefferson or Locke. It is about the individual not We the People. We the People in the sense that individuals came together to form a government that was meant to protect individual rights and property.
The DOI does not say that anywhere. You can read the whole thing in five minutes. Locke is not referenced in the Constitution; his writing may have influenced Jefferson but Locke is not part of it or the Constitution.
You just invented the “property” bit out of thin air. There is no mention of property or violations of property rights mentioned anywhere in the entire DOI, the only indirect allusion to property is “quartering of soldiers.” The entire DOI is about political issues. Not even the inalienable rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) guarantee anything like even a right to OWN property or any rights about what one can DO with one’s property.
Either you are incapable of understanding that a document might actually say something different than what you’ve been told, or you are a liar.
You’ve already lost, Mr. Makes Up Definitions. As to misunderstanding, the only misunderstanding here is by you and your twisted rationalizations to justify your greed. I know more about the DOI and the Constitution than you ever will. They are the core of my training. This is demonstrated time and again.
However, I equate individual rights to nothing other than individual rights as counter-balanced by the rights of others. Again, your right to make a profit does not extend to the right to make a profit at the expense of the rights of others. To allow profit damn the consequences is manifestly inequitable and therefor manifestly unjust, ergo manifestly unconstitutional.
See, it’s that last part you keep leaving out – counter-balanced by the rights of others – that shows exactly what a sociopath you really are. Equal rights means equal for everyone. Not just who can grease the most palms. What you seek is mercantile oligarchy. That’s fascism. You can try to paint me with that brush all you like, none will stick, because in the end I’m not just for a freer market than you, but a just and equitable market as well that respects the rights of the consumer and not just the producer.
Your true nature is revealed to all but you, Mr. No Empathy.
But keep twisting in the wind.
It’s funny.
In the same way a spoiled child screaming, “mine, Mine, MINE!” is funny.
Rationalize your failings as a human being, character flaws and totally greed distorted view on the Constitution some more.
Come on. Call me a fascist again, Rove. Be sure to make up the meanings of words to fit your premise.
Tell us about how the warmongering profiteer Bush was a lefty.
Tell us about how unrestrained markets will cure all of societies ills. If by “cure all of societies ills” you mean “make economic slaves of most of the population”.
Tell us about how Locke didn’t think unlimited accumulation wasn’t a problem he refused to address other than acknowledge it was a problem.
How are those clothes fitting you, Emperor of Greed? Kinda drafty, aren’t they? Sucks to be you.
I would also like to point out to anyone who is reading this that Bubbha equates individual rights with greed and Facism. Ever wonder why he does that?
I’ll let you figure it out.
Bubbha:
you actually don’t. The Declaration doesn’t mean that some people are able to take other peoples money and property to be redistributed by the state.
Go read John Locke. Also some taxes are necessary for roads and national defense and police and fire. Although you could make a case for a private fire department.
And yes Bush may have voted republican but he was a lefty at heart and the Patriot Act was a left wing idea. Since I think fascism and socialism are pretty much the same, think Gestapo or Stasi.
Fancy rhetoric but no understanding of the DOI or Jefferson or Locke. It is about the individual not We the People. We the People in the sense that individuals came together to form a government that was meant to protect individual rights and property.
Your ideas are like that old whore in the movie 1984, looks good from a distance but up close, enough to gag a maggot.
Tony,
Thanks.
Chan,
Then your nephew is the one who got screwed. What law school did he graduate from? Fred’s Mobile Law School run out of the back of van at the corner of Daft and Insipid? This just goes to show that the guy who finished last in his class still gets a degree. If he thinks the words of the Constitution don’t have meaning, then I weep for any prospective employer or client.
Words have meaning, but that the guy who makes up definitions to suit his premises says they don’t isn’t exactly a surprise. The self-rationalizing contortions of a sociopath know no end. Like the hilarious statement that the criminal asshole Bush – who ramrodded the manifestly unconstitutional Patriot Act and suspended habeas corpus – is a “lefty”. You might as well have claimed up is down or that Hitler was just “a misunderstood artist”. This kind of nonsense is nothing new for you either. But to be clear: the one who has the demonstrated history of making things up as they go along would be you, dancing greed monkey. I stand upon the firm foundation of the Constitution as informed by the Declaration of Independence. You stand upon a muddy foundation of your ignorance and weak justifications for your greed and lack of social conscience. It is no surprise that muddy feet find no traction when trying to climb stone. It is the inevitable outcome.
@Chan:
Let’s use a few of your words here:
1. A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control—i.e., under objectively defined laws.
The government is authorized to rataliate with force to ensure the objectively defined laws are obeyed. That does not mean the laws defined are about force; only some of them are. For example, theft seldom involves force, the same goes for breach of contract, fraud, graft, etc, but the government is authorized to use deadly force to bring such criminals to justice.
So we have to distinguish what an objectively defined law is supposed to mean. Back to you:
2. [T]he government is not the ruler, but the servant or agent of the citizens; it means that the government as such has no rights except the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific purpose.
Fair enough. So the citizens decide what should be laws.
3. A private individual may do anything except that which is legally forbidden; a government official may do nothing except that which is legally permitted.
Also fair. So if you believe this stuff, why would you have a problem with citizens voting to have a national health care system administered by their government and paid for with taxes?
Switching gears to a working system: Something like 95% of Medicare recipients love their Medicare; certainly that is something the citizens want. And since the vast majority of those Medicare recipients have children that would otherwise be saddled with the bills, I feel confident in predicting that if said children were aware of what Medicare is paying and had to contemplate what eliminating Medicare would cost them, a super-majority of them would support it. The highest threshold of votes in our constitution is 2/3, if something over 3/4 of Americans want a government program, shouldn’t they have it?
The reason for switching gears is that the same should go for citizens as a whole: If the elderly love Medicare, so would the young. We should have a single payer system. By your quoted rules of government, the citizens should decide, and the government should be able to provide and prohibit anybody else from providing.
The same goes for Social Security. It is not a Ponzi scheme anymore than any insurance program is a Ponzi scheme. Insurance is not a savings account; my premiums go to pay the claims of others. The same is true for Social Security: It was designed as an insurance program, hence the name. Why should this be any different than Medicare? If the people want it, why not have it?
When it comes to roads and infrastructure, police and courts and public schools, why should it be any different? If the majority of people are convinced these are best done collectively and best run by the government, what’s wrong with that?
People can vote to tax themselves, so they can take collective action and prevent poverty and starvation (including their own), so they can prevent greed from ruining the lives of others, so they can demand that the rich pay more taxes than the poor.
The Declaration of Independence is not binding law, but it illustrates the thinking of the Founders: The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness means the signers of the Declaration agreed that people do not have any automatic right to earn a profit by killing other people or endangering their lives, by removing or restricting their liberty, or by creating misery for others in general.
Consider the colonists fought and died to uphold the Declaration, they apparently agreed.
Understanding the reasons for the creation of the various departments of government the founders would probably have thought OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health) was necessary and legal; the FDA (Food and Drug safety) was necessary and legal; the SEC (Securities safety) was necessary and legal, and on and on. They were not psychic seers, we could not expect small town farmers to anticipate the need for these institutions. (More is the pity, perhaps they could have designed in better ways of controlling the corruption.)
So given your own foundational arguments I do not understand why you are against what you are against. The potential for collective socialist economics enforced by government OR free markets OR some combination of those divided by industry is built into the Constitution from the start. No founder believed men could do whatever they want to earn a profit, or screw over anybody they wanted.
When the majority of people believe that some practice (by a company or an individual) is harming others for profit, be they customers, workers, investors, or the public, they have every right to constrain that practice and make it illegal. Over two hundred years, there has been ample reason to do so, because people driven by greed have been endlessly inventive in finding ways to earn a profit by harming others.
What I present here is the obvious logical conclusions of your own precepts. Following those conclusions produces the government programs and the associated costs we have today; or the vast majority of them.
So you quote these founding principles with great regard: why are you against the obvious result?
Bubbbha:
I just wanted to give ekeyra some reasons for government.
Individual rights means individual rights.
Nice use of the NKVD method of argumentation. If you re-read my post you will find nothing in there about corporations. But corporations are owned by individuals if you get right down to it. They don’t create themselves and they don’t run themselves. Individuals do.
Maybe the brainwashing you had in law screwool made you stupid. My nephew just graduated from law school and they taught him there is no original intent and the Constitution can mean whatever you want it to mean. In other words you make the shit up as you go along. Hmmm, I am seeing a pattern, its pretty much the same with you.
Your funny and clueless. But at least you are consistent, consistently wrong.
Taxes also go to pay for immoral wars. How do you think that lefty Bush was able to pay for the wars?
@Buddha: Couldn’t have said it better myself.
“If physical force is to be barred from social relationships, men need an institution charged with the task of protecting their rights under an objective code of rules.
This is the task of a government—of a proper government—its basic task, its only moral justification and the reason why men do need a government.
A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control—i.e., under objectively defined laws.”
Except the objectivity of the laws have been corrupted to remove the threat of penalty from industry. This was accomplished by graft – paid for by industry and accepted by sociopaths in government – that led to an ever escalating deregulation that has been going on since Reagan.
A law with no consequence isn’t a law.
It’s a suggestion.
“The source of the government’s authority is “the consent of the governed.” This means that the government is not the ruler, but the servant or agent of the citizens; it means that the government as such has no rights except the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific purpose.”
Except corporations aren’t real people nor are they citizens nor did our Founding Fathers ever intend for them to have rights commiserate to that of natural citizens. Like the right to unlimited political speech and an ever expanding personality (in the legal sense of the term). They are a construct that the criminal and sociopathic hide behind to avoid punishment for bad acts that if they committed as a private citizen would get them life in prison or worse.
“The fundamental difference between private action and governmental action—a difference thoroughly ignored and evaded today—lies in the fact that a government holds a monopoly on the legal use of physical force. It has to hold such a monopoly, since it is the agent of restraining and combating the use of force; and for that very same reason, its actions have to be rigidly defined, delimited and circumscribed; no touch of whim or caprice should be permitted in its performance; it should be an impersonal robot, with the laws as its only motive power. If a society is to be free, its government has to be controlled.”
Yes. Just not controlled by corporations, but by We the People as in ALL the citizens, not just the wealthy individuals and corporations. We the People – Where the control resided until deregulation. Corporations making the rules – as they do now without restraint by the rule of law and in some cases restrained by laws that they themselves write and write with no teeth – is simply fascism and an undemocratic form of oligarchy. Oligarchy is inherently anti-democratic and inherently unconstitutional.
“Under a proper social system, a private individual is legally free to take any action he pleases (so long as he does not violate the rights of others), while a government official is bound by law in his every official act. A private individual may do anything except that which is legally forbidden; a government official may do nothing except that which is legally permitted.”
As long as we are talking about individuals, this isn’t a problem, but we are talking about enterprises – groups of people – engaging in systematic criminal activity for profit and violating the rights of individual citizens while hiding behind the corporate veil. Like sending our troops to war in a country that didn’t attack us so the Vice President’s company and the President’s family can make a profit and protect their business partners the Saudis – the people who manned and funded the 9/11 attack. Allowing criminals and sociopaths to circumvent the law via graft was never the original intent of the corporate form, but under deregulation that has become the de facto function of the corporate form.
You also neglect that our government has the following functions other than law enforcement as defined by the Constitution:
establish Justice, – which cannot be had if citizens have inferior rights to a legal fiction or if a certain class of criminal goes unpunished simply because they steal with a pen instead of a gun. Justice requires equity. It is indispensable to the concept of justice. Not regulating corporations – what you suggest – is inherently inequitable and therefor inherently unjust. The guy who steals 20 million from a boardroom chair should do the same time as the guy who uses a .38 to hold up the corner liquor store.
insure domestic Tranquility, – you can’t have tranquility for long if the people see a government corrupted by industry giving corporate criminals preferential treatment. Two tiered legal systems always fail and it’s prime facie abhorrent to the Constitutional requirement of Equal Protection.
provide for the common defence, – But only for legitimate targets of war, not targets of opportunity for big business. Invading Iraq had nothing to do with justice for 9/11. It was not a defensive action. Iraq didn’t attack us. Saudi Arabia operating out of Afghanistan did. But big business had their boys in the White House, didn’t they? Bought and paid for, they marched our troops into combat for their P/L statements instead of getting us justice by reducing Saudi Arabia to rubble and liberating their people from theocratic oppression.
promote the general Welfare, – which much to your chagrin involves taxing you the individual and businesses to pay for infrastructure and basic services that build the strength and stability of all Americans. Like education and health care and roads and water treatment and social security and anti-poverty programs targeting children. All those things you bitch about your taxes being spent on because you lack empathy and the resultant social conscience to see not just their value but their necessity.
and secure the Blessings of Liberty – for each and every person (not legal fictions) that is an actual natural citizen, not just the company or super wealthy individual that gives the biggest “campaign contribution”.
Our government as defined by the Constitution has more duties to citizens than just mere law enforcement whether you like it or not. The reason it is failing at all of those duties is corporate corruption and a lack of accountability. End of story.
This is the means of subordinating “might” to “right.” This is the American concept of “a government of laws and not of men.””
And that sure as Hell doesn’t mean that corporations using their economic might to circumvent the law or corrupt it to their benefit are right either. As a country of laws, not men, the law must apply equally and to all by terms of the Constitution – including businesses and the legal fiction of corporations both private and public.
You’re talking out of both sides of your mouth there, Janus.
Just like a good lil’ propagandist.
Or a sociopath.
I hope this gives pause for thought . . . although you’ve already demonstrated the only thing you think about is yourself and your potential profits.
ekeyra:
Bubbha and Tuny C are wrong about pretty much everything except that you need a government. I say the smaller the better but you do need a government.
“If physical force is to be barred from social relationships, men need an institution charged with the task of protecting their rights under an objective code of rules.
This is the task of a government—of a proper government—its basic task, its only moral justification and the reason why men do need a government.
A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control—i.e., under objectively defined laws.”
“The source of the government’s authority is “the consent of the governed.” This means that the government is not the ruler, but the servant or agent of the citizens; it means that the government as such has no rights except the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific purpose.”
“The fundamental difference between private action and governmental action—a difference thoroughly ignored and evaded today—lies in the fact that a government holds a monopoly on the legal use of physical force. It has to hold such a monopoly, since it is the agent of restraining and combating the use of force; and for that very same reason, its actions have to be rigidly defined, delimited and circumscribed; no touch of whim or caprice should be permitted in its performance; it should be an impersonal robot, with the laws as its only motive power. If a society is to be free, its government has to be controlled.
Under a proper social system, a private individual is legally free to take any action he pleases (so long as he does not violate the rights of others), while a government official is bound by law in his every official act. A private individual may do anything except that which is legally forbidden; a government official may do nothing except that which is legally permitted.
This is the means of subordinating “might” to “right.” This is the American concept of “a government of laws and not of men.””
I hope this gives pause for thought.
The only times in human history we have seen forms of anarchy are in the wake of revolutions and then only briefly. In the end, some of other form of government always replaces it, but it is some form other than anarchy (or even market anarchy which is in specific what McHomeSchooled proposes).
The reason for this is simple: anarchy doesn’t work in forms. It’s inherently unstable and civilization requires stability. If you want to see what anarchy looks like? I mean really looks like? Watch the film or read the book by Cormac McCarthy, “The Road”.
That is the true face of anarchy. It’s not even as pleasant as the “Mad Max” cartoon version of anarchy. It’s grim and life is cheap, brutal and short.
If there are no rules and no one to enforce them, what makes you think that a market mechanism is going to mean jack shit to the guy willing to shoot you in the face to take your stuff?
Tony saying your idea doesn’t work is simply reality. If it wasn’t, we’d see at least one anarchist state in existence by now instead of the plethora of other forms that have arisen over time instead. The closest thing to an anarchist state in existence today is southern Somalia. You may have heard of it. That place where warlords and religious zealots are trying to kill everything that moves and doesn’t bend to their will. They recruit children and force them to fight. Rapists patrol the refugee camps. The guy with the gun makes the rules and if you don’t like it, a hasty bloody exit can be arranged. If anarchy is what you want, please feel free to go there. You’ll either quickly learn the folly of advocating anarchy or you’ll be dead in a ditch somewhere. If you’re lucky, you’ll be shot before you are raped.
Anarchy – in any of its forms – is the philosophy of children and sociopaths. While it’s pretty clear ol’ Chan has no conscience, you might, McHomeSchooled. Maybe someday you’ll grow out of your anarchist phase. You would have already if you were well-rounded enough in other areas of study to realize the true implications of life in groups without rules.
It sure as Hell isn’t liberty or happiness.
TONCY C:
“And Chan L, btw.”
?
btw:
bite the wong?
And Chan L, btw.
@ekeyra: The majority of people are simply not sociopaths. The 1% that are, and the next 1% that nearly are, will enslave you. That is the system you propose; the smartest, luckiest, most ruthless murdering asshole in your county will murder and assault his way into the top spot, and a lot of wannabes will die trying to beat him to the top spot.
That is the system you propose. No matter what you think of the current system, ****I**** do not live in the system you propose. I have escaped the crime-ridden slums of my youth and haven’t been assaulted or coerced in three decades. Whatever flaws our current system has, for the majority of citizens nobody is *literally* point a gun at their head and threatening to kill them for their money.
No matter how much you work on an anarchic system, to make it actually work as good as the current system you will have to organize the citizens into a cooperative that will stop whatever you want to call the equivalent of armed gangs of sociopaths enslaving the population.
Government is an invention, it rose from anarchy, and there is a reason it has become so popular: Because nobody can imagine living a decent life without it, including you, because all your B.S. is unrealistic fantasy that ignores the reality of how people think, act, and emote and ignores how reality works things out.
ekeyra:
re: money
right on. I could clam shells as money if they had value to someone.
They should change it to full faith and force of the US government. Have faith or we will force you.
Buy gold and silver and bury it in the backyard so Bubbha and his gang cant steal it from you.
And you damn sure know they will claiming its for the good of the tribe. Funny how he calls us greedy but you and I would slit our wrists before we stole a dime from another human being. He would do it in a heart beat and rationalize it as being for the good of the many even if there were no disaster.
Blouise:
It wont work I already tried it. Also hard to package properly.