J. Ashley:  Has anyone posted any comments in support of your caveman
anarchy?  Ha, ha, HA!  — J. A. A. —
>
On May 16, 5:42 pm, Jonathan <[email protected]> wrote:
> I find it extremely interesting that the only comments on John's New
> Constitution come from those who are able to poke holes in it. I have
> yet to see anyone post any comments in support of his diatribe.
>
> On 05/16/2011 01:41 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> > Do this MJ:  Spend nearly 15 years of your life pinning and polishing
> > a New Constitution.  On the day of the referendum, the voters will get
> > to decide whose has the most appeal to them.  Your ideas of the worth
> > of my document don't matter.  ï¿½ J. A. A. �
> > On May 16, 2:11 pm, MJ<[email protected]>  wrote:
> >> Again you attempt to change the subject.
> >> Whether I read or have read Atlas Shrugged is irrelevant ... just like the 
> >> remainder of your response.
> >> Regard$,
> >> --MJ "It is not the business of government to make men virtuous or 
> >> religious or to preserve the fool from the consequences of his own folly. 
> >> Government should be repressive no further than is necessary to secure 
> >> liberty by protecting the equal rights of each from aggression...[when] 
> >> governmental prohibitions extend beyond this line they are in danger of 
> >> defeating the very ends they are intended to serve" --Henry GeorgeAt 07:44 
> >> PM 5/12/2011, you wrote:MJ:  You should read 'Atlas Shrugged.'  Government 
> >> could NEVER
> >> orchestrate an entire economy, the way "the law of supply and demand"
> >> can.  Our biggest problem with government is that those out-of-touch,
> >> career politicians have zero real-world experience.  They actually
> >> BELIEVE that they are necessary to determine how everything on Earth
> >> gets done.  Within four total years of the ratification my New
> >> Constitution there won't be a single "career path" politician in
> >> Washington!  ï¿½ J. A. A. �
> >> On May 12, 1:47 pm, MJ<[email protected]>  wrote:
> >>> At 08:18 PM 5/11/2011, you wrote:Dear Jonathan:  No!  Only "schemes" that 
> >>> have the strings being pulled
> >>> by government would be socialist.  My New Constitution includes these
> >>> and other protections to require "fairness" (not... equality) from
> >>> businesses:
> >>> Government REQUIRING any business, individual, collection of individuals 
> >>> that serves ANYTHING other than securing EVERYONE's right to life; their 
> >>> own life; self-ownership serves to provide advantage to some at the 
> >>> expense of others AND necessarily interferes with the use of one's 
> >>> private property -- you know, socialism.
> >>> You STILL do not see how you are endorsing and promoting what you claim 
> >>> to be eliminating."Businesses and professions shall be fair to their 
> >>> employees and to
> >>> their customers.  The wages, benefits and perks, as well as the
> >>> charges that are made for goods and services, shall not be
> >>> discriminatory nor exploitive of any person, group nor class, nor
> >>> shall such be overly influenced by the profit motive of those who
> >>> perform no actual work on an ongoing basis.  Fair and honest business
> >>> practices require that management be forthright with employees and
> >>> customers without coercion."
> >>> This is socialism in any of its many forms.
> >>> Take 'discriminatory' -- which necessarily occurs whenever more than one 
> >>> person seeks an available position ...
> >>> What about the discrimination against the Business Owner that occurs when 
> >>> people choose NOT to work for him?And... "Only laws, rules, regulations 
> >>> and procedures that are in the
> >>> best interest of the People and the world environment shall be passed,
> >>> enacted or enforced, and no business contrary to such shall be allowed
> >>> to prosper."
> >>> MORE Socialism in any of its many forms.
> >>> Regard$,
> >>> --MJ"Daily experience proves clearly to everybody but the most bigoted 
> >>> fanatics of socialism that governmental management is inefficient and 
> >>> wasteful" -- Ludwig von Mises in "Economic Freedom and Interventionism," 
> >>> 1990.
> >> --
> >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> >> For options&  help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
> >> * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> --
>
>       Freedom is always illegal!
>
> When we ask for freedom, we have already failed. It is only when we
> declare freedom for ourselves and refuse to accept any less, that we
> have any possibility of being free.
>
> "Why should we bother with 'realities' when we have the psychological
> refuge of unthinking patriotism?"
> Gary Leupp - Professor of History, Tufts University

-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Reply via email to