Are You a Strict Supporter of the Constitution?

[torchbearer]

QFT! You're preaching to the choir. The path of Diogenes is a lonely one!

should i consider open a site for a libertarian hermitage to lone pine?
i mean people would have to negotiate with locals for land, but i could list all property for sale.
i don't control my families land, so i can't sell. but there are places for sell here and some could be come places for multiple residences.
if the interest is there, we could make it happen.

 

[torchbearer]

+rep
The path of Diogenes is a lonely one!

it doesn't have to be lonely. all us hermits can have our gaults gulch. we just have to want it. and find a place where it works.

 

[torchbearer]

in the mood for

 

[osan]

I support freedom and nothing less. The US Constitution is less.

 

[muzzled dogg]

I am a strict Constitutionalist. Representative governance to determine laws of the land is preferable to a King owning all of it and making the serfs do all the work.

some would argue that private, rather than public ownership of govt is more efficient



i think he may be right

 

[Travlyr]

some would argue that private, rather than public ownership of govt is more efficient



i think he may be right

Sure, I don't have a problem with people wanting to seek their most preferable form of government, yet I disagree with Hoppe. Representative government to determine the appropriate laws of the land is what I prefer. Not a Democracy but a representative Republic worked much better than kingdoms of the past when honest sound money was respected. Nothing is perfect in an imperfect world. Representative rule of law to determine property rights, natural rights, contract law, and a system of justice to seek restitution for victims of rights violators works for me.

BTW, am I the only one that finds it interesting that Hans-Hermann Hoppe worked for the State most of his life yet advocates for Statelessness? Why?

 

[otherone]

Representative rule of law to determine property rights, natural rights, contract law, and a system of justice to seek restitution for victims of rights violators works for me.

as long as nullification is included, then I'm on board...

 

[Stevo_Chill]

i have a place that is self-sustainable. i think i will go there and hope the rest of you the best of luck.
The path of Diogenes awaits.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

as long as nullification is included, then I'm on board...

throw in micro-Nullification and secession and I'm in too.

 

[Travlyr]

as long as nullification is included, then I'm on board...

throw in micro-Nullification and secession and I'm in too.

State nullification creates competition. Individual nullification is more difficult and individual secession becomes problematic as some people have no morals. For example, the Loomis Gang of the past and our modern day problem the Khazars.

The Loomis Gang was eventually defeated by the laws of the land, and the Khazars can eventually be defeated if people would embrace strict adherence to the supreme laws of the land. Unfortunately, until then, the Khazars get to run wild and control society.

 

[Travlyr]

I support freedom and nothing less. The US Constitution is less.

Freedom comes from complete and total separation of money and government.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

State nullification creates competition. Individual nullification is more difficult and individual secession becomes problematic as some people have no morals. For example, the Loomis Gang of the past and our modern day problem the Khazars.

The Loomis Gang was eventually defeated by the laws of the land, and the Khazars can eventually be defeated if people would embrace strict adherence to the supreme laws of the land. Unfortunately, until then, the Khazars get to run wild and control society.

I don't agree with "supreme laws of the land". Too easy for people like the Khazar to gain control of a national system of law and use it to destroy everyone. Micro-secession and nullification are solid legal defenses against such fascists and tyrants as those who currently control the levers of power.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Freedom comes from complete and total separation of money and government.

+1

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Sure, I don't have a problem with people wanting to seek their most preferable form of government, yet I disagree with Hoppe. Representative government to determine the appropriate laws of the land is what I prefer. Not a Democracy but a representative Republic worked much better than kingdoms of the past when honest sound money was respected. Nothing is perfect in an imperfect world. Representative rule of law to determine property rights, natural rights, contract law, and a system of justice to seek restitution for victims of rights violators works for me.

BTW, am I the only one that finds it interesting that Hans-Hermann Hoppe worked for the State most of his life yet advocates for Statelessness? Why?

Hoppe never worked for the State. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Hermann_Hoppe#Academic_career) He is, however, a former Marxist. He changed his mind for the same reason most libertarian converts do-he discovered the fundamental contradictions and immorality of Statism.

 

[Travlyr]

I don't agree with "supreme laws of the land". Too easy for people like the Khazar to gain control of a national system of law and use it to destroy everyone. Micro-secession and nullification are solid legal defenses against such fascists and tyrants as those who currently control the levers of power.

The Khazars have successfully nullified the laws of the land for themselves (diplomatic immunity) and seceded from lawful governance demonstrated by their out-of-control counterfeiting, killing, and controlling.

When the Khazars are forced to obey the "supreme laws of the land" like everybody else, then order will be restored, honest sound money will be traded, and the senseless imprisonment and killings will stop.

That's the fight Ron Paul and his supporters are fighting. Listen to his speeches. End the Fed - Sound Money - Enforce the Constitution - Stop the Wars. Obey the Constitution. He says it all the time.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

This makes no sense.

The Khazars have successfully nullified the laws of the land for themselves (diplomatic immunity) and seceded from lawful governance demonstrated by their out-of-control counterfeiting, killing, and controlling.

When the Khazars are forced to obey the "supreme laws of the land" like everybody else, then order will be restored, honest sound money will be traded, and the senseless imprisonment and killings will stop.

That's the fight Ron Paul and his supporters are fighting. Listen to his speeches. End the Fed - Sound Money - Enforce the Constitution - Stop the Wars. Obey the Constitution. He says it all the time.

It makes perfect sense. Having a monopoly on the last say in any legal conflict by force is tyranny. Since my idea of rational law probably conflicts with yours in many ways, I have the natural right to secede from your justice system-just as states have the natural right to resist tyrannical federal law. Unlike the atheist and those of distorted faith, I start with the assumption that God is the ultimate authority over me, not any government of fallible, arrogant men.

We agree about the Khazar, though. These are ruthless, lawless people with no regard for human life. Ron Paul's cause is right-but it is only the beginning. You and I are on the same general trajectory towards a greater liberty-only I take it all the way toward liberty, while you stop a ways earlier. There is no reason we need to be in conflict so long as we respect each other's right of self-ownership and choice of how we want our lives ordered. Peace and fair trade with all, entangling alliances and tyranny towards none.

 

[PierzStyx]

If being governed by teh Constitution is thuggery, well then voting for Ron Paul is voting for more thuggery.

 

[PierzStyx]

I support freedom and nothing less. The US Constitution is less.

Being governed by law is not less. Proper law ensures freedom and does not diminish the rights of the individual. The problem you think you have a "right" to do whatever you want. That simply isn't true. Many times what you want is antithetical to true liberty as it damages the powers of others to properly exercise their true rights. The Constitution balances the need for a government to protect the rights of every single person while maximizing the ability to protect those rights against those who would stomp upon them. Lawlessness is not liberty but a step on the road to tyranny.

 

[Sam I am]

We need to discover the answer together as a country by allowing taxpayers to directly allocate their taxes. And if all you can bring to the discussion is "taxes are theft" then don't bother.

Is everyone required to pay a certain amount into taxes? If not, What's stopping someone from just not paying taxes, and benefiting anyway from publicly accessible benefits such as roads and police?


What if someone decides they want their taxes to go to project A, but project A doesn't get enough revenue to even begin. I agree that maybe then you shouldn't do project A, but what happens to the money that the taxpayer allocated to it? does he get it back? If he does, why don't just people always allocate their tax toward projects that won't succeed?


What If if I want Project A, Project B, and Project C, but I think that Project B has a greater need for my money, and allocate more to Project B. What if I'm wrong, and Project C fails as a result? Do you really want to play these kind of games with your hard earned money?

 

[Xerographica]

Sam I am, those are good questions.

Yes, everyone is required to pay a certain amount of taxes.

How do donors to non-profit organizations deal with issues of uncertainty? How do investors handle risk?

If you didn't want to play games with your hard earned money then you would give your taxes to the government organization that offered the best return on your investment at the lowest risk. Infrastructure, public education perhaps? Government research programs would probably be the most risky.

For more info you can check out these links...

• Libertarianism and the Free-rider Problem
• Unglamorous but Important Things
• The Opportunity Costs of Public Transportation
• Pragma-socialism