While I certainly like a lot of what Carter did/said and even more so post-presidency, I don't think it's appropriate to hold him up as some sort of patron ideal. The man's record in office is hardly spotless - to name a few notable examples, his government secretly supported the Pol Pot regime and vetoed UN resolutions against the Indonesian government for their actions in East Timor (while ultimately killed over 200,000 people by the time he left office), and he himself openly encouraged Americans to support William Calley, the commander who oversaw the platoon that committed the Mai Lai massacre.
|
In celebration of ihistorical ignorance
|
RobKelk:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taos_Revolt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wounded_Knee_Massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Labor_Wars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_massacre etc -- Sucrose Octanitrate. Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.  ECSNorway Wrote:RobKelk:"At the urging of William Findley, Congress modified this law on June 5, 1794, allowing excise trials to be held in local state courts. But by that time, U.S. marshal David Lenox had already been sent to serve the writs summoning delinquent distillers to Philadelphia." Looks like Congress were the good guys here, and that somebody in the Marshals' Office was the villain. ECSNorway Wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taos_Revolt"US officials ordered the execution of some of the captives in the plaza the next day in a "drumhead court martial", ..." This looks like military action to me, without civilian sanction - the local civilian officials were the first victims of the incident and there wasn't time to get instructions from Washington. ECSNorway Wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wounded_Knee_MassacreIndian Agents are not Congress. ECSNorway Wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Labor_WarsThe Governor of Colorado is not Congress. ECSNorway Wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_massacreAgain, the Governor of Colorado is not Congress. In this case, Congress instituted rules regarding child labor because of the actions of the Governor of Colorado - they're the good guys again. -- Rob Kelk "Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of the same sovereign, servants of the same law." - Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012 Ayiekie Wrote:While I certainly like a lot of what Carter did/said and even more so post-presidency, I don't think it's appropriate to hold him up as some sort of patron ideal. The man's record in office is hardly spotless - to name a few notable examples, his government secretly supported the Pol Pot regime and vetoed UN resolutions against the Indonesian government for their actions in East Timor (while ultimately killed over 200,000 people by the time he left office), and he himself openly encouraged Americans to support William Calley, the commander who oversaw the platoon that committed the Mai Lai massacre.Oh, he's hardly a "patron ideal"... but he also isn't the thief and murderer that khagler has claimed all politicians are. -- Rob Kelk "Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of the same sovereign, servants of the same law." - Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012 robkelk Wrote: Perhaps you've forgotten that Andrew Johnson (the President immediately after Lincoln) and Bill Clinton were both impeached, Impeachment for a US president is not a long term consequence, it just means that the President can be tried in the Senate to determine if he should be removed from office. Neither Johnson nor Clinton was removed. Quote:"because if you're not willing to rob and kill you can't get elected in the first place." Evidence within living memory indicates otherwise - Jimmy Carter was elected President, after all. And yet the IRS remained in operation all throughout his presidency. I won't dispute that he wasn't as bad as those who came after him, but "less bad" is not the same as "good." Quote:"As far as I'm concerned, if someone orders his men to go out and steal from people and kill any who resist, it doesn't make any difference whether his organization is called "Mafia" or "Congress."" Please cite any case where Congress has given such an order. Here you go: 1. Taxation 2. Inflation 3. Asset forfeiture 4. Eminent domain  khagler Wrote:Impeachment for a US president is not a long term consequence, it just means that the President can be tried in the Senate to determine if he should be removed from office. Neither Johnson nor Clinton was removed. With all due seriousness, is this satire? Taxation is theft? Then who or what will pay for the police/army/municipal water/some random government service your life depends on Inflation is theft? Properly managed, inflation can be used to increase a currencies competitiveness on the open market, making a country's exports cheaper to buy, rendering a long-term boost in the economy. Asset Forfeiture is theft? So drug dealers get to keep the fruits of their ill-gotten gains after conviction. Eminent Domain is theft? No, though I have no idea how the US system works.... ________________________________ --m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig? khagler Wrote:Here you go:Ah, the old "taxation is theft" canard. *ahem* You agreed to live in society, via your implicit acceptance of the benefits of society; such as benefiting from law enforcement, military protection, disaster avoidance and response, infrastructure construction and maintenance, education and health care (and so on and so forth). Taxation is your payment for services rendered. Refusing to pay taxes is theft (such as, say, moving your business overseas to avoid them) because you are taking from society and providing nothing in return. If you do not wish to pay taxes, you are perfectly free to go live somewhere there are no taxes. I hear caves in Somalia are going cheap this time of year. Inflation is an economic condition which has little, if anything, to do with elected representatives. It is a natural condition of the economic system we use to regulate the flow of goods and services through society. It is impossible to have an arbitrary money system without experiencing inflation (or deflation) in some measure. Arbitrary money systems have proven to be much more effective in managing the economy than any form of barter system. And before you bring up the gold standard or any sort of ridiculous notion like that understand that gold standards are just another form of arbitrary money system as susceptible to inflationary pressures as any other, and a remarkably terrible one at that. The dual systems of asset forfieture and emminent domain are much like taxation, in that their existence is a cost for living in society. Asset forfeiture is a punishment for engaging in a crime (ie, seizing the assets of drug dealers, tax evaders and so on) and emminent domain is a principle which prevents individuals from hoarding valuable resources to the deteriment of society as a whole (if you have the only source of potable water in a town and refuse to share it for a reasonable fee you can bet your ass the state will seize it, and well they should). None of these acts, by the way, require murder to enforce. As evidenced by the fact that the US does not have the death penalty for tax evasion. ------------- Epsilon Hey khagler, are you a Soveign Citizen? Dartz Wrote:With all due seriousness, is this satire?I hope so, because the only other alternatives are that it's a troll, or it's a series of rationalizations being used to attempt to justify prejudice. (Unsuccessfully, I might add, since Epsilon has already shown that the rationalizations are demonstrably false.) -- Rob Kelk "Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of the same sovereign, servants of the same law." - Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012 Quote:The dual systems of asset forfieture and emminent domain are much like taxation, in that their existence is a cost for living in society. Asset forfeiture is a punishment for engaging in a crime (ie, seizing the assets of drug dealers, tax evaders and so on) and emminent domain is a principle which prevents individuals from hoarding valuable resources to the deteriment of society as a whole (if you have the only source of potable water in a town and refuse to share it for a reasonable fee you can bet your ass the state will seize it, and well they should). I agree with most of your points except on asset forfeiture, but that is more due to implementation details (Not enough Due Process protections, documented abuses of the system) rather than an overarching disagreement with the concept. It's stories like these that make me leery of the current implementation; (from http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/looti ... erica.html) Quote:Police stopped 49-year-old Ethel Hylton at Houston's Hobby Airport and told her she was under arrest because a drug dog had scratched at her luggage. Agents searched her bags and strip-searched her, but they found no drugs. They did find $39,110 in cash, money she had received from an insurance settlement and her life savings; accumulated through over 20 years of work as a hotel housekeeper and hospital janitor. Ethel Hylton completely documented where she got the money and was never charged with a crime. But the police kept her money anyway. Nearly four years later, she is still trying to get her money back.E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?" B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
Well, I did say it was a very widespread belief, as several very good citizens have demonstrated. Your government school teachers would be proud.
Some years ago I came across an amusing yet accurate example of what the "social contract" would look like if it were actually a contract: SOCIAL CONTRACT between an individual and the United States Government WHEREAS I wish to reside on the North American continent, and WHEREAS the United States Government controls the area of the continent on which I wish to reside, and WHEREAS tacit or implied contracts are vague and therefore unenforceable, I agree to the following terms: SECTION 1: I will surrender a percentage of my property to the Government. The actual percentage will be determined by the Government and will be subject to change at any time. The amount to be surrendered may be based on my income, the value of my pro- perty, the value of my purchases, or any other criteria the Government chooses. To aid the Government in determining the percentage, I will apply for a Government identification number that I will use in all my major financial transactions. SECTION 2: Should the Government demand it, I will surrender my liberty for a period of time determined by the government and typically no shorter than two years. During that time, I will serve the Government in any way it chooses, including military service in which I may be called upon to sacrifice my life. SECTION 3: I will limit my behavior as demanded by the govern- ment. I will consume only those drugs permitted by the Govern- ment. I will limit my sexual activities to those permitted by the Government. I will forsake religious beliefs that conflict with the Government's determination of propriety. More limits may be imposed at any time. SECTION 4: In consideration for the above, the Government will permit me to find employment, subject to limits that will be determined by the Government. These limits may restrict my choice of career or the wages I may accept. SECTION 5: The Government will permit me to reside in the area of North America which it controls. Also, the Government will permit me to speak freely, subject to limits determined by the Government's Congress and Supreme Court. SECTION 6: The Government will attempt to protect my life and my claim to the property it has allowed me to keep. I agree not to hold the Government liable if it fails to protect me or my property. SECTION 7: The Government will offer various services to me. The nature and extent of these services will be determined by the Government and are subject to change at any time. SECTION 8: The Government will determine whether I may vote for certain Government officials. The influence of my vote will vary inversely with the number of voters, and I understand that it typically will be minuscule. I agree not to hold any elected Government officials liable for acting against my best interests or for breaking promises, even if those promises motivated me to vote for them. SECTION 9: I agree that the Government may hold me fully liable if I fail to abide by the above terms. In that event, the Government may confiscate any property that I have not previously surrendered to it, and may imprison me for a period of time to be determined by the Government. I also agree that the Government may alter the terms of this contract at any time without my permission. ---------------------------------- --------------- signature date Copyright 1989 by Robert E. Alexander. May be distributed freely. |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)