On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 22:19:13 -0700, Frank Reichert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Good evening, Frank! > >Frank Gilliland wrote, in part, to Frank Reichert... > >I, Frank Reichert, previously wrote: >>>I sincerely doubt that academic historical research can show >>>anything more accurate than the fact that government exists as a >>>giant reservoir of power. Raw power, as such, is the very nature >>>of authoritarianism. Those who eventually control that 'power', >>>by default hold the authority. > >To which you replied: >> Authority is not the same as Authoritarianism. The difference is in >> how the government rules. A leader who holds authority doesn't >> necessarily need to rule by demanding unquestioning obedience at the >> expense of personal freedoms. > >My example was intended to show 'the "nature" of government'. It >is the nature of 'government' to accumulate and exercise power. Authority is essential for any government to govern. You can only eliminate government authority by eliminating the government. >The very nature of government attacks a segment of individuals >who wish to weld power over everyone else, or so history seems to >show, Your contradictory statement appears to be a mistake. I'm not sure what you are saying here..... perhaps you could rephrase it. > and this requires the control over government, and its >inherent power to do whatever government, or those in charge of >such government, wish to accomplish. History shows that it is ultimately the public who, one way or another, grants authority to its government. This is a fact that was recognized by the framers of the US Constitution. From "Principles of Constitutional Law": "In the light of the undoubted fact that by the Revolution it was expected and intended to throw off monarchiacal and aristocratic forms, there could be no question but that by a republican form of government was intended a government in which not only would the people's representatives make the laws and their agents administer them, but the people would also directly or indirectly choose the executive." >The points you raise below are important nevertheless... > >> I'm sure you know that the US government was designed so that power is >> seperated into three branches of government with a system of checks >> and balances, so that no one body can wield too much power. It >> currently appears that the Republicans have the potential to establish >> an authoritarian regime, since they control the White House and the >> Congress, and are quickly overthrowing the Supreme Court. But that >> will change soon and the balance will be restored, as it does from >> time to time. > >I would have to disagree essentially with this assessment, mainly >because I do not really see a substantial difference insofar as >what either political Party would do with the separation of >powers doctrine. The US Constitution was indeed written with the >obvious intent that no branch of government could easily gain >such control as to weld enough power to overwhelm the people in >which the Constitution was trying to protect. My point is that seperation of powers becomes impotent when all three branches are controlled by one party with a common interest. This is not a new concern; Madison acknowledged the potential for abuse by a political party in a letter to Jefferson in 1788; "Wherever there is an interest and power to do wrong, wrong will generally be done, and not less readily by a powerful and interested party than by a powerful and interested prince." But it was felt that such a partisan overthrow and subsequent abuse of power would not stand long against regular public elections of government officials. So far, that has been the case. >For example, I was rather amused by the magnitude of the John >Roberts nomination for Chief Justice. I was mainly amazed since >the debate, such as it was, seemed to centre upon hot bottom >'social issues' such as abortion, rather than the Constitutional >issues as in the case of the proper role of government and the >inalienable rights of individuals to be largely free to >government themselves. Other important issues regarding the >sovereignty of local, state and federal-level government didn't >arise either in the debate. Well, abortion is indeed a constitutional issue. More specifically, the issue is about whether or not abortion is a constitutional issue. Regardless, the Roberts hearings were mostly academic since both sides generally accepted that a conservative would replace a conservative. What I find amusing is the Republican opposition to Miers -- a thinly disguised campaign to paint her as a moderate in an attempt to wrangle Democratic support. >> I should also point out that the government isn't just a "giant >> reservoir of power". It has a purpose that is briefly described in the >> preamble to the US Constitution. > >Which is why I was paying acute attention to the John Roberts >nomination for Chief Justice. True. The US Federal government >certainly does obviously have strongly worded Constitutional >constraints, such as the 9th and 10th Amendments, that should >normally be interpreted in such a way, say, as to limit the >Federal government's ownership over property, and the propriety >of the federal government from interfering normally in affairs in >which the Constitution either explicitly disallows or forbids, or >does not give normative authority to excersise. I would have to agree; and I would say that one of the worst offenders of those amendments is the FCC. However, those amendments were added not only with regard to individual rights but also to the sovereignty of the states. Since the states maintain their own governments, your statement seems to be in conflict with your Libertarian position. >Anyone with any knowledge of the Bill of Rights to the US >Constitution would likely understand that what has been written, >has certainly been ignored, and burried heavily in the trash heep >of powers that the Federal government assumes today. Again I would agree, but only to the point that the public has allowed such violations to occur. >What bothers me here is that speaking from either the so-called >left or right wing of American politics, in terms of actual >government power, the above issues are almost never seriously >addressed by anyone in power. Which goes back naturally to what >I defined last time as the nature of government as ultimate >power. It doesn't matter very much to point out that the >government's own Constitution forbids such accumulation of power. >What really matters is that the present Government exercises such >power nonetheless, regardless of whether or not the Constitution >allows it or not! > >That's the real issue. In short, I would like to point out here >that the Constitution ultimately protects no one, from anything, >or everything, including the radical abuse of power in which >government at all levels has a propensity to do. It is >absolutely nature for government to do such things as it >currently does everyday, including confiscating our rights, >liberty and property. > >There are other ways to deal with this, which I don't have the >time to entertain tonight. But in dealing with these issues we >must have an educated and informed electorate, and people who >really do value their own liberty over their lives, families and >property. Since today, and over the last several decades, we >have lived under an intense climate of fear, we have found >ourselves basically living under an environment of surrendering >what precious little liberty we have left under this 'altar of fear'. Personally, I believe that one of the major faults of the current government is the lack of representation. Originally, the concern was that there would be unfair representation if the states were to allot too many representatives, so the minimum of 30k/rep was established. Some visionaries in the young government had the foresight to see that the reverse condition could pose a similar problem. They subsequently proposed the very first amendment to the Constitution which would have established a maximum number of constituents per representative. This amendment failed to pass. The result has been that the House is now nothing more than a second Senate -- the power of each representative has increased while the representation of the individual constituent has consequently diminished. If there is any single act that could significantly improve the government in every respect it would be the adoption of that very first proposed amendment. >So, I postulated yesterday: > >>>My postulation is that the United States federal government today >>>is the greatest threat to individual liberty and the threat to >>>the very extinction of America as a bastion of liberty, for which >>>it has long been known to be identified. Forget about the >>>so-called Islamic threat, the Al-Quieda opposition to our very >>>existence as a free society. The greatest threat to our own way >>>of life, individual freedom, and the choices we choose as >>>individual comes from the fact that the bastion of government >>>power has grown exponentially because of a plethora of false fears. > >And, to which you replied: >> That's a rather cynical statement, but my own opinion isn't much less >> cynical; it is my contention that the biggest threat to our freedom is >> public credulity. > >Well, I for one, would like for you to elaborate just exactly >what you mean by 'public credulity'? Don't you have a dictionary? > What, other than raw and >abject power of government, threatens us anyway? That has to be one of the most absurdly naive presumptions I have ever heard. If you don't have the intelligence to imagine what life would be like with a powerless government then perhaps you should pack your bags and visit a land where that is the case. I have. I was a Marine in Beirut in the early '80s. Trust me when I say that any country with a government that has no power is just anarchy with a paper hat. > Maybe I can >answer at least some of that question here briefly: If you are going to answer your own question then it's clear that you are not asking a question but merely stating your opinion. However, I will address your opinions: >1. The government is formed and controlled entirely by well >financed elitests that really control the minions who represent >our politicians and those appointed to key sectors of government; > >2. The 'Public' (as you noted above) derives its' sense of >reality based largely upon a mega-media that is designed by those >with the clout and capital to form public opinion, including the >network news, and most main sourced media outlets such as >newspapers, magazines, and other sources of opinion; and, > >3. Our pathetic and largely controlled Educationm combine in >America today has regimented an entire generation of Americans in >such a fashion to spawn a politicised and socialized response. >This is probably one of the most important assets contributing to >authoritarianism and control over a given population. Any given >population, historically, take your pick. At any rate, the >outcome has become obvious in various venues, including hiring >for jobs in the work force today. Like I said before -- the problem is public credulity. Elitists wouldn't have much influence if people were willing to evaluate the issues logically instead of emotionally. But emotions are much easier to control than facts and logic. So we have political campaigns that rely heavily on buzzwords, catch-phrases and aesthetics; focusing on religious values, patriotism, fear, and even the "kick-ass" mentality that is so unique to the US. Ever wonder why Reagan was called the "Feel-good president" and people still adore him despite the fact that his administration was riddled by some of the biggest scandals in US history? Public credulity. >A recent CBS News documentary revealed that corporate hiring of >the new generation of Americans has serious problems, namely: > > a. Those entering the work force were trained to think >'communally', that is, they worked under the constraints of >forming a 'consensus' amongst their peers, and could not function >on their own independently of a peer group to validate or >invalidate their thoughts and ideas, if even they could form such; > > b. Individuals entering the work force today cannot think, >behave or perform independently outside of a group setting. When >asked to perform on their own, they simply become apathetic or >dispondent; > > c. When given tasks to perform, individuals in the youngest >generation look for reinforcement from a missing peer group that >no longer exists to support their notion for self worth, or self >esteem. > >I think perhaps you can see where I am coming from. It's not >really difficult to move from this mindset to one of absolute >relativism, including the so-called rights guaranteed by the >Constitution of the United States, which also, in this mindset >must be viewed in a relativistic fashion. And, in saying this, I >also want to point out that I am not trying to victimize our >young people. Those too in my own generation, granduating from >high school in the 1960s, were also carefully and methodically >being programmed in such a way to accept a communal relativism >idea as a given lifesytle for acceptance into the so-called 'main >stream' of modern American society. That's always been the case as a matter of perception. What you don't see reported on the news very often are those who -can- and -do- think independently. I can assure you that they do exist, and in great numbers. Or did you miss the ruckus that happened in Seattle just a few short years ago? >So, last time, I wrote the following: >>>Therefore, we have a plethora of 'wars' to justify the >>>incremental surrender of our most basic human rights. Yes. I can >>>name several of 'em. We've got a lot of wars that 'our' >>>government is waging on our behalf. The War on Drugs. The War >>>against Terror. The upcoming War on Obesity! The War on Poverty. >>>This list of course goes on, and some tunning in here tonight can >>>probably add a few more such wars that the federal government is >>>supposedly waging on behalf of the people. > >To which, you replied: >> The word "war" makes for better PR. > >Sure it does. It rallies the troops of the New World toward >thinking in a collectivist environment for resolutions to >problems that only exist under a pretext of formed imagination. .......uh, I was just referring to emotionally appealing buzzwords, not establishmentarian propoganda. And I've heard your argument before but I can't remember if it was said by George Orwell, Lyndon LaRouche or Charles Manson...... >So, I wrote last time: > >>>Truth is, all such wars have the cumulative effect of requiring >>>all of us to give up incremental freedoms and liberty over our >>>own lives, families, property, and the way we choose to live our >>>lives. For me, this is entirely unacceptable! > >And again, to which you replied: >> That entirely depends upon how these "wars" are executed. Most are >> being executed haphazardly. > >I believe you may have entirely missed my entire point! WHY ARE >WE AT WAR AT ALL? Because we are told we are at war? Look back >just two paragraphs above. The reason we have such wars is to >ensure that we are scared shitless and MUST give up our rights >and individual freedom in order to fight the damn war! That's >the entire purpose for every single war we have waged in the last >four decades of the American civilization! It is! Prove me >wrong if you believe you can. Why? You are absolutely correct. It's an appeal to fear -- a logical fallacy based on emotional manipulation. If people weren't so gullible these "wars" wouldn't fly (including the war in Iraq). > Every single war, from the 'war on >poverty', the 'war on drugs' the 'war on incorrect thinking', the >'war on terror', and I can add several more, I'm sure you can >too, including the upcoming war on Obesity for God's sake!, the >'war on tobacco products'. All of these wars if you believe in >individual choice, freedom, liberty and so forth our absolutely >ludicruous! THERE ARE NO SUCH WARS! At least wars that I will >cetainly not volunteer to surrender my own freedom to their call >for obedience. > >To raise your last statement about 'how these 'wars' are executed >-- well damn. What wars? They are certainly NOT my wars! I >don't give a damn how they are executed at all. There simply are >no such wars, and I have no compelling reason whatsoever to >surrender my liberty to support such a fallacious or non-existent >war in which I have little or no concern. Well, whether you choose to believe in the existence of these "wars" or not is up to you, but I can assure you that they do exist. They may be wars against abstract concepts, and they may be right or wrong from any individual perspective, and may be devised and executed in ways that do not resemble war in any conventional sense of the word, but they do exist. And you should be -very- concerned about how they are executed. For example, the so-called "war on terror" is responsible for the loss of some constitutional rights. The "war on drugs" has the side-effect of minimizing the punishment for more serious crimes. Etc, etc, etc. But that's how they popularize an unpopular policy -- they call it a "war". >And so, last night I wrote: >>>The Federal government, at least as it exists today, has to go! >>>Perhaps I should even go further here and even suggest that >>>GOVERNMENT at all levels, as we know it today, has to go! >>>We can never have real genuine Liberty over our own lives, >>>families and property when totalitarianism and authoritarian >>>government is allowed to exist within our midst! Totalitarianism >>>and Authoritarianism at all levels of government must be >>>completely destroyed and irradiated for a free people to exist. > >And, to which you replied: >> Anarchy is not the answer. If there is no government to protect our >> freedoms then those freedoms will be taken by others who have less >> idealistic motives. > >I didn't say that, now did I? Effectively, yes you did. You can't take away power from the government with the belief that everyone will behave themselves because they won't. The problem is that the people in the government aren't behaving themselves. No matter how much (or how little) power a government has, there will always be corruption. That's just a fact of life. But the government -must- have the power to work; the solution is not to remove the power but to remove those who abuse that power. >I never suggested 'Anarchy' is the answer. I clearly suggested >however that individual Liberty, Personal Responsibility and a >free society IS the answer! The ONLY answer! By your own answer >here, you seem to suggest that it is impossible for free >individuals to govern their own affairs, their lives, their >families, their property, and their finances, without inviting >anarchy. Well, skip back one or two paragraphs, and I suggest >that is exactly what you just wrote! You'll have to quote me on that because I don't remember writing anything of the sort. On the contrary, I don't have any problem at all with personal responsibility and a free society. And I firmly believe that every person should have the right to do whatever he/she wants to do provided it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. It's very idealistic; and I, too, am an idealist. But I am also a realist and I know that freedom is not free. On that subject I could write a book but I won't. For the sake of brevity I'll simply say that the public decides what that price will be. I just wish that the public would make that decision with a little more intelligence. >And, if that is really your answer, then God help us all! I have >to have YOUR consensus before the decisions that I make for my >home, property, family and life are valid. And, if that is >really your answer, then welcome to the world of collectivism and >authoritarianism! I know we've been through the mill here in >this discussion tonight. But I hope you will give some of my >thoughts here some serious consideration. > >I guess I can summarize most of this best by simply saying: > >1. I DO NOT WANT or entertain your decisions for my own life, >family or private property, uncless of course, I choose to ask >you for it, and accept your solutions; > >2. I am not engaged in any 'war' whatsoever against anyone, >unless I declare one myself, then I will take personal ownership >over such a war, and wage it myself. I will not involuntarily >make you a principle in such a war. Such wars include dictating >what others choose to do with their own lives, families, private >property, or social lifestyle > >3. The (any) government has no control over my personal and >private dicisions (see #1 above), and has no business or >authority to do so unless I exhibit aggression or exhibited >damage against anyone else, thereby invoking government >protection against my choices or acts of aggression toward others. I see that you have thoroughly misconstrued my remarks and villified me as the enemy of your beliefs. That's ok, since everyone is allowed to vent once in a while. But I would ask that the next time you feel compelled to make assumptions about my positions you might confirm them with me -before- going on a tirade. >Lastly, you wrote: >> The terrorists simply want the US to quit doing it's dirty deals in >> foreign affairs and imposing it's values on other cultures. I can >> understand their reasons, but their methods leave much to be desired. > >That's partially true, of course. > >However. There methods are probably best described as despirate. > Are you willing right now, tonight, to strap a bomb around >your waste and walk into a crowded shopping mall and kill >yourself for a higher good, to defend your own people against a >vastly enormous world power? Such actions are despirate actions >by individuals and societies that can't win a conventional war >for freedom against a moster superpower who has the ultimate >weapon to inalliate millions by the push of one button. > >Yes. US foreign policy is not my own, either. And, I will >emphatically suggest that I will NEVER take any ownership over US >foreign policy as it has existed over the last six or more >decades. I'm not at war against Saddam Hussain. We need a >government that represents an equal, non-hostile presence. > >You know, if we really go back to the basics of the US >Constitution, and if we live by example for all the world to see, >based upon that declaration, then we have far more to give to the >world than employing brute military force to accept what I would >certainly call 'American Imperialism' as it exists today. Agreed. >I will not be a hypocrite and pretend to support something I >believe to be both inherently evil and wrong. I believe the US >federal government, is presently both evil and wrong. I will not >be a willing part of the atrocities this government inflicts upon >us as American citizens or the rest of the world that is a >recipricant of American Imperialism in all its sordid and morbid >reflections. I wish there was a way to simply opt out! I really >do. So. Call me a traitor! I don't care. I wouldn't call you a traitor -- I would call you a -quitter-. > But I am NOT a >traitor. I do believe as an American I am patriotic to our real >cause and origin as a nation. It's too bad that that simple >words as written within our own Constitution no longer have real >value or substance to our own fibre, or being, as a nation. They have meaning to you, apparently. They do to me, too. >And for that, I can't and won't apologize. Apologize for what? Believing in the Constitution? There's no need to apologize for that. On the other hand, what you -should- apologize for is your conjectural rant making me out to be some sort of government-programmed zombie. I am -not- one of the many sheople that follow every command given to the herd by the government, and personally I resent the implication. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list Libnw@immosys.com List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
