America came the closest, but reverted to Old World ways somewhere along the line, probably circa 1913 with the Federal Reserve Act which followed the 16th amendment.

Oh what a shock, Proph is a fed-truther/gold bug. Never saw that coming.

Of course you didn't.

You never read my posts.

It doesn't surprise me that these are the labels you prefer to use. Are those what MSNBC and dailykos have been using, lately?

Gold.

Maybe you should learn to write better.

b

And use smaller words, right?

LOL.

2 shows nightly?

b

Maybe take a writing class and learn how to use bigger words more effectively.

b

So basically this is just Proph trying incorrectly to use big words and flailing blindly to find a philosophy to dress up the fact that he is crying like a three year old who is told to share his toys because he doesn't want to pay is 2.8% effective Federal Tax rate

Proph just longs for the good old days, when rich white men had all the power instead of only most of it!

What?

Whenever I solely work within my own purview, people don't understand. The philosophy is apparently too broad for them to encompass.

Indoctrination claims are mistaken as insults, even when the accusers only see one side of an issue, seemingly never acknowledging unintended consequences.

I probably shouldn't have answered Dude, then?

You like income taxes? In fact, you think income taxes actually hinder "rich white men"? Oh, my!

Are you aware of the history behind it?

How about the devaluation of the dollar since the Fed's inception?

Maybe you're oblivious to the influence corporations have in writing "laws" and regulations?

I thought there was a philosophy that fits that mold.



LOL. No really. Maybe you can even get your own sitcom.

Why does the above quote bring up the image of Stuey?

You'd have robbed us of the comedy gold you have let loose within this thread.

b

This is hysterical.

YOUR ENTIRE BELIEF SYSTEM IS ONE BIG HYPOTHETICAL.

Yeah, pre 1913 America fits your views of what Libtopia would be like.

1. Federal govt forces Native Americans to either assimilate or live on reservations.

2. Homestead Act.

3. Multiple economic depressions (1873-75, 93-97).

4. No labor legislation, children working 10 hour shifts in mines and factories.

5. Then those pesky national child labor laws kicked in around the turn of the century.

6. The gilded age! The richest white men got even richer! Gotta be your favorite part.

7. Jim Crow laws are always fun. African Americans during the late 19th century lost many of the civil rights they had enjoyed during the Reconstruction.

A more useful hypothetical is considering that Peace is life, liberty, and property. Nobody has those three things without peace.

The Constitution is perfect in describing tranquility as insured, rather than assured because peace can never be forced, coerced, or even persuaded. Peace is an entirely self-evident natural right. When the domestic tranquility is broken, a responsible response is correct.

Keep in mind I am not debating the morality of peace and violence here, but briefly asserting that from a philosophical perspective, all of the principles in a human-made mutually-beneficial self-governing document connect with one principle and that is peace.

To you, maybe. (You want to be blue, then?)

I live by it, and haven't had any troubles thus far. (Other than wasting my time trying to help others who prefer the status quo, because it's all they've ever known. But, if I get through to at least one of you, is that time really wasted?)

Don't disillusion yourself.

You want to know why you "living by it" here has different outcomes than you "living by it" in Somalia? A strong democratic government, with ample checks and balances, and ample legal protections.

If you think your "living by it" here would go just the same as it would elsewhere with a drastically reduced presence of a public centralized authority...well, then you really need to get out more.

~~~

Any comments on the numbered points I gave about pre 1913 'Murica? The place you IDed as being as close to what you would like contemporary 'Murica to look like as you could find?

Err, no.

You might need a peaceful existence to enjoy being alive, or whatever vague feelings you surround the word 'liberty' with. But enforcement of property 'rights' is anti-peace.

The landlord wants 'peace' when he's collecting his rent, but he sure don't want peace when it comes time for the evictions. The loan shark wants peace when he's collecting interest, but sure doesn't want peace if the payment stream drys up. The factory owner wants peace when he's raking in the profits, but sure doesn't want peace when he thinks he can get more profits by calling a lockout.

Let's imagine a real dictatorship (not the US). The peace under a dictatorship is the 'peace' of submission and subjection. Let's think back to the 'peace' of the Jim Crow era... the 'peace' to run a racist hotel. Consider in general: Peace without Justice.



Peace is overrated. Some people devote their lives to disrupting peace where there is no justice (see above). Some people dabble in it as a hobby (like me).

but....it was more peaceful then. Really, it was. Not even hypothetically.

b

You are not considering the potential manifest for peace in posterity, while taking the discussion out of the frame of absolute philosophical principles and back in to the incomplete frame of political principles.

Considering true* philosophical peace for every individual can only be obtained by every individual seeking and knowing peace without force or coercion. The only thing we have to go on is what is found to be self-evident and hypotheticals that involve potential overcoming history.

Cliffs: The moral arc of the Universe is long....

* a self-evident truth

Regardless, insuring the peace is not a faulty government principle.

Imagine that... Proph sees himself as the 'Prophet of Profit'.

LMFAO Mr. interwebs-addiction saying he's trying to 'help others'... we're all in ANARCHY now !!!1!

This is a buncha gibberish.

There ain't no "absolute philosophical principles". You can't coherently project your personal 'morality' onto reality (the universe). This is the same self-evident malarky those pushing 'Natural Law', 'Objective Morality' and/or faith-based absolutism prate about.





O'Reilly.

Peace is the goal. I agree.

How is this achieved with systematic infringements on property, though? Do you honestly not realize the hypocrisy of taking someone's property in an effort insure what can never be accomplished, when you suggest that peace "can never be forced, coerced, or even persuaded"? If everyone respects each others' rights, peace will follow. Influencing people with force to coerce peace creates more friction and conflict than it prevents.

My Old World reference earlier came from Bastiat's The Law, but I didn't expect any of you to catch it. (Though, I had certainly hoped to be proven wrong!)

If you can't see the current crumbling, you must have your eyes closed. (Just this morning on CSPAN, legislators were having a meeting about deteriorating -- literally, crumbling -- infrastructure to debate funding. Yet, there's plenty of money to bomb "extremists" overseas in the name of "safety." Speaking of "extremists," don't visit TOR's website! Is this considered an extremist forum, now, with that link?)

Slavery was more or less "fixed", but "tariffs," taxes, have grown exponentially. I simply advocate fixing this last flaw.

Is this another "capitalism is evil" post? Except this time you throw so many revisionist misconceptions out there that I would have to waste days researching in order for me to debunk them all. (And to do that, because of your stupid remarks that even you probably don't believe? No thanks!)

Besides, you'll ultimately ignore the corrections like you did previously. This is nothing more than a trollish attempt to persuade me to waste my time.

I do not affiliate with any of those entities and I can describe the contents of my garbage can in my kitchen specifically. Can the logical fallacy and the violations of personal conscience in the ideas I have shared be described specifically?

Please note I am discussing the ideas from which the government's principles rest upon, not the historically events connected with government. I would need an explanation why if having good ideas is not related to the potential to create good outcomes; and are the cause of bad outcomes.

I have asserted government cannot solve violence and it is fallacious to assume it should have solved it's own if the people involved had not. This deserves a refutation of similar quality facing criticism.