After the Fall

It happened, as many predicted. The economy and the U.S. dollar collapsed, cities encountered major civil unrest. Many people have perished, food is scarce and what there is, is unaffordable. Our lives have changed forever, but it’s time to rebuild our great nation to bring peace and prosperity back into our lives. We must make freedom and liberty our way of life and eliminate government force that we endured over the last two centuries. Federal and State governments, as we knew them are gone. They became the most hated people on earth, those who weren’t killed, fled into obscurity. It’s now up to a very small number of people to take the lead and form a new system of governance that will be totally different than what we had. It will no longer be a government, but volunteers selected by the people to manage the needs of the people.

Let’s begin by developing the new guidelines by which the new National Management Selections will work under. This will be written in the new U.S Constitution. There will be 50 members (one from each state) selected for the new National Security Management Committee. They will be responsible for managing the budget and actions of our Armed Forces. The NSMC will convene once a year to establish a budget and vote to approve it. They will be paid one weeks regular wages plus travel, lodging and subsistence. This payment will be made from the individual States NMS payment fund. The members will serve one term of four years. That will end their eligibility for national service.

There will then be 50 members (one from each state) for the new National Foreign Affairs Committee (NFAC). These members will convene on an as needed basis to vote on treaties and trade agreements with other nations. They will be paid regular wages plus travel , lodging and subsistence for each day they convene through the States NMS fund. These members will serve one term of six years. That will end their national service eligibility.

There will then be 1 member selected from a pool of 50 (one from each state) to act as National Management Spokesperson. The NMS will negotiate treaties and trade agreements, direct our military in the defense of the nation when called upon. The NMS will speak to the people twice per year. These speeches will cover all treaties and trade agreements that will be voted on by the NFAC. He will also report the status and cost of the military budget and any other pertinent issues that may arise. He will hold no authority over the National Management Committees. The NMS will serve a term of two years, which will end his eligibility for national service.

There you have it. A very limited form of government based on volunteerism. While there are smaller details to work out as far as how the volunteers are selected, that will be accomplished by the new State Management Selections, which will be covered in a future article. The National Management Selections will have no power to pass or enforce laws. In the event of an attack or potential attack by a foreign enemy, The National Security Management Committee will convene at a secret location to decide on the use of the National Armed Forces. They will inform the National Management Spokesperson, who will attempt to speak with the foreign enemy to reach a peace accord. The NMS will then speak to the people. If the use of the National Armed Forces is necessary, the NMS will direct their actions. The National Armed Forces can only be activated for defensive purposes only.

The people of the United States will have all unalienable rights protected. These rights include the right to free speech, free press, freedom to assemble, freedom of religious choice, and the freedom to keep and bear arms in any manner a person chooses, both in private and in public. The right to Habeas Corpus and the right to a trial by jury. The right to travel freely and own property free of taxes. The right to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure of both person and property. No laws shall be passed infringing on the rights of the people. All laws passed must be of moral discipline, murder, rape, assault, theft or any action by one person that negatively affects the liberty and freedom of another person or persons. All laws will be passed and enforced at the state and local levels.

We must be prepared for after the fall. With a solid plan ready to protect the freedom of America’s citizens, one that is easy to understand by all, is imperative. If we are not ready, we will have no choice between the angel or the beast. While this is just a draft of what a new form of governance could look like to replace our failed governments, it is a beginning. It is a plan based on liberty and freedom, a plan to eliminate corruption of those who speak for the people. But there is much work and discussion to be had in perfecting it. We must be ready to defend liberty and freedom….. after the fall.

Live Free!

G!

About these ads

Comments

  1. Good morning, Gman. I’ve missed you! Hope you had a pleasant Memorial Day (and thank you for your service, seriously).

    Okay, niceties over … let’s get the ball rolling. Let me play devil’s (or BF’s) advocate here:

    There will be 50 members (one from each state) selected for the new National Security Management Committee.

    Really? And who selections the National Security Management Committee? You? Why do we need it?

    The NSMC will convene once a year to establish a budget and vote to approve it.

    Really? And who established that, you again? Why do “we” need a budget established by others? I don’t see the “freedom” in that move, Hojo.

    This payment will be made from the individual States NMS payment fund. The members will serve one term of four years. That will end their eligibility for national service.

    Sounds like King Gman is making all the rules to me? And where does this “fund” come from? I may not want to contribute. Why should I? I’m a free man and refuse to be coerced into anything, never mind funding your idea of government.

    There you have it. A very limited form of government based on volunteerism.

    Volunteerism? Where was that little tidbit of information? Suppose 100,000 apply for the job? I saw “selected” not volunteered.

    While there are smaller details to work out as far as how the volunteers are selected

    Irrational! Irrational! Young Will Robinson … volunteers and selected isn’t a small detail, my friend. Who does the “selection?” I’m a free man, I don’t need no stinking volunteers to be selected to rule over me. Remember, Gman, the devil is in the details!

    The right to Habeas Corpus and the right to a trial by jury.

    I have no peers, my friend. I am a unique free man and refuse to be judged by others who assume to be “like” me. Remember, I am plutonian and as such can only begin to be judged by fellow plutonians (and even then, they have no right to do so). Take your despotism and fish it somewhere else, thank you.

    We must be prepared for after the fall.

    And the Colonel thinks I’m from Pluto? This is why more and more people are taking the crazy tea party less and less serious … but I still love ya, Gman.

    • Charlie

      I suggest you read the article again. More slowly this time. Especially note the last sentence of the first paragraph.

      While details are missing the focus of your attack was addressed at the beginning.

      • You mean this one: It will no longer be a government, but volunteers selected by the people to manage the needs of the people.

        Okay, explain how volunteers “selected” by “the people” to “manage” the needs of “the people” is anything different than what we have today.

        And I meant to change my moniker for this exchange. Call me “Charlie Colbert” …

      • For sure, much slower :)

        • It’s now up to a very small number of people to take the lead and form a new system of governance that will be totally different than what we had.

          You’re going to have to enlighten me, fellas … because the only different I’m seeing from Gman’s batshit crazy hypotethical and what we have today is it appears to be a bit more fascistic … but that’s about it.

          • I know you can write, but your reading skills are lacking :) If you were to actually look at it with an open mind not cluttered with communistic idealologies, you would see, that at the Federal level, they have no power over the people, they are tasked with managing a specific area and that’s all. They cannot pass laws or enforce laws. Hence, the Federal govt is out of our lives (for the most part).

            • Actually, Gman, what you’re attacking (in me) is 180 backwards. I’m defending the anarchist viewpoint (BF’s, if you prefer) … and this they are tasked with managing a specific area and that’s all. just doesn’t jive with “free men”. They are “managing” how? Who gave them permission, my friend? It’s not I who need to work on my reading skills, signore … nor is it I who is blind … I suggest carrots … lots and lots of carrots …

  2. The new moniker for the “devil’s advocate” …

  3. Mathius says:

    There will be 50 members (one from each state) selected for the new National Security Management Committee.

    I object! As a citizen of the third most populous state, I do not see why our vote should be equal two the vote from the least populous (Wyoming).

    I motion that we apportion based on population.

    And to account for shifting demographics, I further motion that we have an annual census every ten years.

    • Terry Evans says:

      Would not an “annual census” mean yearly?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Objection overruled! One of the ideas of this, that I had hoped would be seen because I didn’t write it, is that this eliminates the left/right paradigm, or politics in general. There is no consevative/liberal needs anymore, because there is no power or money to be had.

      • Mathius says:

        Agreed, in general. I’d suggest that if you really want to do this, you put every seat up for election (not re-election, because there are no repeats allowed) at the same time. That way, you wipe out the whole culture every time the term is up.

        However, the problem is that the wishes of an agrigultural state are far different than the wishes of an industrial state. And direct apportionment means that the (more numerous) middle-America states would swamp the more populous states despite their greater population.

        I demand a bicameral house!

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Please explain how you mean “swamp”?

        • gmanfortruth says:

          However, the problem is that the wishes of an agrigultural state are far different than the wishes of an industrial state. And direct apportionment means that the (more numerous) middle-America states would swamp the more populous states despite their greater population.

          Matt, what wishes are you speaking of?

          • Mathius says:

            You gave them the power to negotiate trade treaties, did you not? Well the agro states are going to want tariffs or some-such to protect their interests. Put to a vote, they’ll overrule the industrialized states.

            We’ll have to pay more for food, they’ll have less competition. Seems unfair to me.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              The Agro states are SOL, as there is no power to apply tariffs or collect such. Trade agreements and treaties will be limited to non-financial agreements only.

  4. GMan, well done! But the devil is in the details….

    “This payment will be made from the individual States NMS payment fund.”

    How will the individual states raise this money?
    What is each states share or burden?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      While that is a whole new article, the states will collect taxes on purchases (no income taxes). They will only collect was is needed to pay the bills (National level) and maintain state roads. They will have no power over the people either, all police power (very limited) will be at the local level.

      Any excess taxes collected that are not needed for the approved bills and rainy day fund, will be returned to the people (like every five years, so the checks might be nicer).

    • LOI and Charlie Colbert agree?

      Vas is das? There’s nothing any more “free” about Gman’s hypothetical than what we have now … just less of it (which means the power is more concentrated/focused) … where’s BF when I need him?

      • gmanfortruth says:

        What power Charlie? Political power has been eliminated, there is no need for it. Where do you see “power” being concentrated?

      • Sorry Charlie, we’ll have to agree to disagree.

        G! I like the sales tax, as that would balance the differences in the sizes of the states contribution. A fixed one to five percent tax. You could also impose a tariff on imports, again fixed low rate. Add to that, it’s “fair” that imports that need to be inspected should support the cost of keeping us safe. Another revenue source would be national resources such as oil and timber. I think roads and such would revert to a toll system. You only pay for what you use.

  5. Dread Pirate Mathius says:

    These members will convene on an as needed basis to vote on treaties and trade agreements with other nations.

    Y’AARRGH!

    No sir. The only acceptable form of trade “treaty” is free trade.

    I also object, to everything else, because you know, government is evil and all that.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Objection overruled, again. This is not a government as you know it.

      • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

        If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and tastes like a duck, it’s probably duck.

        If not, it might be a duckling.

        But that’s still a duck.

        And when it grows up, guess what? It’s going to become a duck.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          The ducks wings have been clipped, it can only waddle and swim, but it can’t fly.

          • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

            They said the same thing bout the current duck when they hatched it.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              With no power or riches to be made, that threat is eliminated.

              • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

                They’ll find ways to garner power and riches.

                You don’t think, for example, a relevant industry might lobby for a law (for example a trade treaty amendment) which helps them? And, in doing so, offer a cushy post-office job to the representative?

                Sound eerily similar to what goes on these days, don’t it?

                Y’AARRG!

      • This is not a government as you know it.

        It’s a government as Gman wants it! As a Free Man (who reads fine, thank you) … I object!

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Objection overruled! It is a form of management. There is no governance over the people. BF would like this, I think :)

          • Dread Pirate Mathius says:

            Methinks not.

            He would like it more than the current system. But you’re still going to have to fund it somehow, and that means (evil) taxes.

            And there’s still going to be laws, which means that his rights are going to be stepped on somewhere and somehow.

            I’ll wait to see what he says, but I think it’s going to go something like this:

            “Yes, it’s better, but ‘nothing’ would be even better. I agree with DPM re taxes and laws, but also, especially, re his duck theory.”

            Only, he’ll probably feel the need to write out 3,000 words on the topic.

          • You think wrong. There are still decisions being made by some for others. That is NOT Free!

            You’re a royalist … a despot … and probably a Skankie fan.

  6. Mathius says:

    there are smaller details to work out as far as how the volunteers are selected

    I propose that each state be allowed to determine it’s own nomination process and that it’s none of our business how everyone else does it.

    New York’s process will be simple. Each term, one person at a Yankees game will told that they one a prize. When they show up to collect, they will be bound and gagged and shipped off to the capital in Washington, D.C. Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      THere will be no need for a National Capital anymore. D.C will be a historical tourist town.

      • Mathius says:

        DC will be a swamp, let’s not fool ourselves.

        After the fall, I promise you there won’t be anything taller than a single story left standing in D.C.

        As for a capital, they’ll have to meet somewhere. Why not Tuscaloosa? With a name like that, no one will ever take them seriously, and isn’t that what you want?

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Fine with me. They can meet in Tuscaloosa, in the heat of summer, in a building with no AC. They’ll all be glad it’s a one term deal then :)

          • Mathius says:

            Well there can be A/C, but The People aren’t going to be obligated to pay for it. If the reps want it, they can pony up the dough themselves.

  7. Mathius says:

    The National Armed Forces can only be activated for defensive purposes only.

    Please clarify. Perhaps get a lawyer involved and write something air-tight. Last I heard, Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, Vietnam, WWI, WWII, the Civil War (from some perspectives), and the Revolutionary War (to name a few) were all “defensive wars.” Be we know that’s hokum, don’t we?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Defensive, as in, if we are attacked by a foreign nation. Since we are longer in every country in the world, they would have to attack on U.S. soil.

      • Mathius says:

        What if we think they’re planning to attack us?

        What if they’re supporting / training / protecting / supplying / etc, terrorists?

        What if they launch a cyber attack against our infrastructure?

        What if they build up an arsenal of nuclear warheads and are selling them to the highest bidder?

        • gmanfortruth says:

          That’s why we have Generals in each armed service, to be able to inform and deal with any dangers. Besides, once we’re out of everyone’s business, they will have no need to hate us as they do today.

          • Mathius says:

            Generals, huh? Presumably, there will be someone under the generals? So you’d keep a standing army?

            Who, pray tell, is going to pay for this and how will that money be apportioned to the states?

            And didn’t generals support Iraq / Afghanistan / Korea / Vietnam / WWI / WWII / Civil / Revolutionary / etc?

            So why do you think they’d now act like doves instead of hawks?

            Once we’re out of everyone’s business, I see nothing to suggest that they’d just leave us along. Even if you’re not physically meddling, we’re still an economic powerhouse and they’re going to compete with that in any way possible.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              Generals, huh? Presumably, there will be someone under the generals? So you’d keep a standing army?

              I thought about having the standing army become a state matter, but was waiting for a suggestion to do so so it can be discussed. I’m open to new ideas.

              The Generals will only have power when the military is activated. There is no politics to be concerned with.

              Economic competition is good, it lowers prices for everyone. Without politics interfering or able to be corrupted, meddling will be difficult.

              • Mathius says:

                Economic competition is good, it lowers prices for everyone. Perhaps. But our competitors are not going to appreciate it. They may be inclined to, say, use force to enhance their competitive abilities.

                Recall that Brittan routinely used to invade anyone who posed an economic threat to them.

                The Romans, in fact, even went so far as to salt their rivals’ land to destroy their ability to compete AND to make them dependent on Rome.

                I see nothing that prevents a modern day equivalent except that the US military wouldn’t take kindly to it.

  8. Mathius says:

    Gman,

    What is this new nation’s immigration policy?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      There is no national immigration policy.

      • Mathius says:

        So the border states will control immigration and determine citizenship?

        Utah will have no say since it has no international border? If it wants immigrant labor (and the immigrants want to get to Utah), they’re SOL since Texas isn’t letting them cross?

        Once in, are you a citizen with full and equal rights?

        If you are admitted in Arizona, does your legal status have reciprocity in Montana?

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Matt, Think outside the box. Things after the fall, are far different than they are today. With the end of corporate taxes, business’s will thrive and they will need workers, there may not be enough workers without immigrants.

          Maybe because of the lack of corporate taxes, a wealthy immigrant may want to start a business or factory here, why should they be stopped?

          Immigrants won’t be coming to a welfare state, that was eliminated as well. So if there are jobs available, let them come in, if no jobs are available, they won’t come.

          • Mathius says:

            Great!

            But not what I was asking.

            What is the policy?

            Can anyone just walk across the border?

            Is there a registration process? Is there a naturalization process?

            Is it different in California than it is in North Dakota?

            • Prior to the existence of the Border Patrol how was the border “secured?” Seems anyone could wander in and out – unless of course you were riding some ship into New York harbor and were dumped out at Ellis Island (oh my, discrimination – Europeans had to go through there while any Mexican national could cross in from Mexico! Where’s the justice for past harms?)

              I don’t understand why this nation can’t simply return to that (open entry), or at least to allow all to enter after they simply “sign-in” at the border?

  9. Mathius says:

    Gman,

    What is this nation’s drug policy?

    What is the policy on abortion?

    What is the policy on gay-marriage?

  10. gman

    The weakness of the proposal is that it jumps to the middle of the process or govt creation, without describing the foundational principles on which it is based.

    Nor the lower tier structure that supports it.

    What you are describing sound like a Federation rather than Republic. If so it needs to be clearly stated.

    How are we going to reach agreement on this new National System when the Federal and State govts have been killed or are in hiding?

    • How are we going to reach agreement

      My (Charles Colbert)’s point from the get-go. Unless the “agreement” if freely accepted by EVERYONE, it is despotic. And this talk of Generals? Where does there army come from? Suppose nobody wants to fight? Your assumptions are almost as bad as thinking “free men” could get along without a government (which is what you’re creating in microcosm — meaning it’ll eventually have to be more focused and powerful). I need you to stop playing these war games, Gman. Buy yourself Strat-O-Matic or something … it’s much safer … :)

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Charlie, by design, it can’t get powerful. My whole purpose is to present an idea, and get your ideas, if we had to start over. We have learned alot over time, smart people can rebuild and eliminate the chance of these mistakes. But, with 300 million people, some form of management (not government) should exist to deal with the more complex issues. What is it about this idea makes you seem so against it?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      JAC, Good morning Sir :) Hope all is well in your world today.

      “The weakness of the proposal is that it jumps to the middle of the process or govt creation, without describing the foundational principles on which it is based.”

      Yes, but it’s not a weakness, it’s how the process begins. My goal is to have SUFA develope the principles based on this simple idea. My main goal is to take away the power of what ever type of governance that is formed. No more power over the people by a corrupt government.

      The lower tier structure will be similar to this tier, but dealing with different matters, but very limited in scope. The power will be with the people at the lowest levels.

      It will be a Constituional Republic, A new Constitution will be written to outline what I have written, plus whatever new ideas come from this chat. I want to write two more articles, one is about a new Constitution, the other about the states role in managing the needs of their people.

      “How are we going to reach agreement on this new National System when the Federal and State govts have been killed or are in hiding?”

      The same way it happened the first time, several good people get together, write a new Constitution, which must be ratified by public vote in each State.

      • Mathius says:

        Dibs on being one of the signers of the new Constitution!

        In fact, dibs on being first!

        That said, though of course this is not going to happen in reality, I do find this to be a very interesting thought experiment..

        But I think your foundation is shaky, and I think Jac hit the nail on the head. Start with the principles and then build from there. Is this a “free” state (a la DPM / BF), is this a socialist state (a la Charlie), somewhere in between (a la the current US)? What is the purpose of having a ‘government’ at all if they’re so weakened as to be ineffectual?

        • gmanfortruth says:

          As I told Charlie, we need a form of management for the complex issues, life foreign affairs and such. THe election process will be outlined in part 2, so you’ll have to wait on that. We will not have a government per say, but an elected group of volunteers who want to serve their nation. There is no power or money to be gained. They get elected based on their skills and knowledge, campaigning will be unnecessary.

  11. gmanfortruth says:

    There is no drug policy, they are legal. Abortion? Local issue! Marriage licenses are a thing of the past.

    • Mathius says:

      Drug policy: Legal.

      Sounds great!

      Minor hitch.. antibiotics work so long as they aren’t abused. There is a national policy at work which restricts their use in such a way that the development us resistant bacteria is slowed. In a free-for-all, I could easily imagine that they will become worthless rather quickly, leaving us all exposed.

      Your thoughts?

      • gmanfortruth says:

        I’ll leave the medical issues to the doctors. Be smart, don’t abuse antibiotics.

        • Mathius says:

          That’s easy to say, but I know that there are people out there who demand antibiotics at the drop of a hat.

          I was doing some housework (installing attic stairs) the other day. I nicked myself with a piece of metal – nothing major. But the next day, it was hurting and the day after, there was a raised infected bump and some stiffness.

          I opted to tough it out to see if my body could handle it (and today, the bump is smaller and the stiffness is gone). Clearly, the infection was minor and nothing to worry about. But the little missus (had I opted to tell her about it) would have demanded I get a z-pack, just in case.

          You’re fooling yourself if you think that a motto of “Be smart, don’t abuse antibiotics” would work.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Matt, that is an individual decision, why should I care? Let people do what they want, they have to live (or die) by those decisions.

            • Mathius says:

              yes, except that I, also, have to live and die by their decisions.

              If you abuse antibiotics, they become less effective if I need them.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                If you abuse antibiotics, they become less effective if I need them.

                My immune system, or lack of immunity, will not effect yours. My immune system may not fight a strain of bacteria, because the antibiotics in my system are no longer effective. They would work better in your system, because your immune system would get amped up, while mine would not.

              • Mathius says:

                Not how it works.. the bacteria become immune.

                Then, when they infect me, the antibiotics don’t work.

                Regardless of rights and principles and government, this is a serious medical problem that requires a coordinated approach.

    • Mathius says:

      Abortion: Local issue.

      No. What right do you have to tell me that I can’t operate a business of my choice in my city?

    • Mathius says:

      Marriage licenses: thing of the past.

      Works for me.

      How do you feel about polygamy, bigamy, polyandry, “complex” marriages (multiple husbands, multiple wives), child brides, and a host of other issues?

      Also, how is the tax scheme set up, and does marriage play into this?

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Moral issue will be dealt with by the people in the local community. Besides, anyone who wants more than one wife at a time is a glutton for punishment, all the power to them :)

        Taxes will be very limited. There will be no income tax. taxes will be collected on purchases made. These dollars will have specific uses ( national security, road maintenance) Excess collection will be returned to the people. Since there is no government to pay for, these taxes will be minimal. Individual communities will deal with there police and fire issues.

        • Mathius says:

          taxes will be collected on purchases made

          Sounds like a sales tax.

          I assume this is a percentage, not a flat amount?

          How is this collected? What are the penalties for avoiding it? Who audits? Who collects? Who pays for the auditors and collectors?

          Is everything taxed the same way? Are vegetables taxed the same as a high-end sports car? What about non-finished goods? Does a sales tax apply to the intermediate steps of production? Is there an exemption for medicine?

          Adding, who prints the coinage? Is this a federal standard with a legal monopoly? I assume it’s not going to be (gasp) fiat?

          Sounds like you’ve just created the IRS, Fort Knox, probably the GAO, the treasury, the Fed, and a few others… this isn’t sounding so cheap anymore…

          • gmanfortruth says:

            You have an awful lot of questions :)

            LOI had a good idea. A fixed five percent on all purchases (except medicine). If, we illiminate a Federal military and leave it up to the states , This could even be less in some states. Or we could just not have any armies. So much thinking :)

            • Why exclude medicine?

              Why include food?
              Why include rent or mortgage payments?
              Why include clothes?
              Why include transportation?
              Why include heat or cooling?
              Why include education?
              Why include ….. ?

              What is your criteria for including or excluding?

              • gmanfortruth says:

                I have criteria yet, that’s part 2 or 3, I like your ideas below, that’s all workable. By the end of this discussion, we may be able to do away with a tax all together!

              • Mathius says:

                :)

                Somehow I knew you’d get it, sir!

  12. The GREATER GOOD!

    “The recent situation has been a distraction for our great university and I make this decision for the greater good of our school.’’ — Former Ohio State football coach Jim Tressel, on Monday

  13. Mathius says:

    Gman,

    Intellectual property? Is there such a thing as a patent, trademark, or copyright?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      No, not at the Federal level. Dishonest people will be dealt with at the local level. Theft is morally wrong.

      • Mathius says:

        So you can invent something, say write a book, and I can buy a copy, then go home to my town and print up and sell copies as I see fit?

      • Intellect is not property.

        • Mathius says:

          Do you foresee a company investing tens of millions in research and testing to develop a new cancer drug if they can’t protect the formula from generic manufacturers?

          If I can copy the formula and sell it for just a few buck, how could you ever hope to recoup your costs?

          Even without the FDA, proper testing and trials would still cost a fortune.

          This is not a question about rights, but of effect. What do you think would happen without IP laws?

          Specifically, how do you see this playing out?

          • Mathius,

            Do you foresee a company investing tens of millions in research and testing to develop a new cancer drug if they can’t protect the formula from generic manufacturers?

            Why not?
            They are the best to judge their own finances, not I.

            If I can copy the formula and sell it for just a few buck, how could you ever hope to recoup your costs?

            By better marketing, better price, better production facilities, better quality…. just like most goods are sold against competition.

            Even without the FDA, proper testing and trials would still cost a fortune.

            You are merely guessing, and whether you are right or not, is moot.

            You cannot justify imposing upon free men merely so that you can make more money.

            This is not a question about rights, but of effect. What do you think would happen without IP laws?

            Whatever happens, happens and it will be the best consequence possible.

            Playing out

            For a short period of time, lots of chaos. Very quickly though, free men would figure out what to do.

            • Mathius says:

              Talk about having faith……

              • Mathius,

                What faith is necessary?

                Either free men feel it is worth it, or they feel it is not.

                If it is worth it, it will be done.
                If it is not worth it, it will not be done.

                (shrug) What part of that requires you to beat someone up over it?

  14. 8)

  15. gmanfortruth says:

    Since I’m under attack by Charlie, which is normal :) I came up with another batshit crazy idea on how to do away with the Federal Government, legally :)

    http://gmanfortruth.wordpress.com/2011/05/30/taking-her-back/

  16. Why is there this “desire” to have a Federal system?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      I’m not sold on the standing army thing yet, that could possibly be handled by the states. Would it not be a good idea to have a voice with other nations? If not, please explain.

      • (1) Defense:
        The North American continent is unconquerable, requiring -at most- a volunteer civilian militia to demotivate any “invader”.

        (2) International relations:
        What do you need to “voice” to other nations? Is there a particular reason to involve in the their business? “No entanglements”…..

        If there is some sort of need, why can’t a State make their own case to a foreign nation? Why does the issues California has with, say, Mexico have anything to do with New York?

        Further, why does the issue of the County of San Diego have with Mexico have anything to do with County of Shasta? Why does the people of Shasta need to be involved?

        Further, why does the issue of San Ysidro has with Mexico have anything to do with Del Mar Heights? Why can’t San Ysidro go and discuss this directly with Mexico?

        • BF

          Because there IS a STATE of Mexico.

          Some of what you say could possibly be done. But some others issues would have to be “national” as they require equal treatment for all states. Such as “national borders” and “immigration”.

          • JAC

            So what if Mexico is a “state”?

            What entity it may be or not be has no bearing on the local.

            Do you mean that The Republic of Mexico cannot dialogue with the Kingdom of Denmark because they are “different” political organizations?

            Why does “immigration” issue of California have anything to do with New York???

            Why does the Dakota border with Canada have anything to do with Kansas?

            • BF

              States as in Nation States usually don’t deal with states or cities within nations. It is not that they can’t talk, but they will usually not make “deals”.

              The primary here is whether a “Nation” is to exist as the USA. If so then it will have a level of dealing with other Nation States as has been custom for some time. But the extent of its control could be reduced. On trade for example.

              As for immigration, if the USA is an agreed upon “Nation” then obviously what Texas or Arizona does about immigration will affect the other states within the Union or Federation.

              So the first question is the nature of the USA and its principles. From that flows the answer to your questions.

              But if you assume a Nation State, as in the example, then the Federal has a role with other Nation States.

  17. DisposableCarbonUnit says:

    I kind of feel like I just stepped into the twilight zone today.

    Charlie, Mathius…you’re beginning to scare me.

    • Mathius says:

      Why’s that, Caribou Unit?

      There is a fifth dimension, beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man’s fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call The Twilight Zone.

      Do do do do do do do do…

    • Surely you speak of Charlie Colbert and not Charlie Stella. Colbert is an anarchist (sort of like BF). Colbert sees the world as one giant apple tree from which free men everywhere can get their fruit (the actual picking would be determine the “fruit of their labor”) … it’s a lousy metaphor but what the hell … Gman wants to start the world over … or at least the continental united states (which, if Colbert has it his way, there’d be nothing united about it) … anyway, the other Charlie (red thru and thru) says: Go ahead and strip the government from society … in the end you’ll wind up with the same bull shit all over again anyway. it’ll take a workers revolution to enact real change and that isn’t going to happen in my lifetime so what do I care?

      Colbert and Stella do NOT get alone very well …

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Charlie’s :) Both of you should see the need to get rid of the corrupt mess we now have. WE can make changes, if we stand together a make a moral decision to do away with corruption. I’m willing to try Colbert’s and BF’s ideas, it would be an interesting time. However, some idiot will want power and control and convince people to have government, and we end up with the same BS we have now. My idea would take that ability away from those who want power and control, because there is none to gain.

        • My idea

          Charlie Colbert says: YOUR idea should not step on MY toes. That is EVIL …

          Boy, am I enjoying this …

          • gmanfortruth says:

            How does my idea step on your toes? You do not have to volunteer to serve your country, no laws can be made that are not voted on by the people in each locallity. All laws will be local, by the will of the people. AS I wrote, “All laws passed must be of moral discipline, murder, rape, assault, theft or any action by one person that negatively affects the liberty and freedom of another person or persons.”

            Appaently you missed that part.

            • Mathius says:

              I can’t speak to what he missed, but it seems that you missed the part where this will be abused in exactly the same way as the current system.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                It can’t be abused! They will have no power or money to gain. Politics is basically eliminated. Today, politicians want power and money, my idea does away with that. It won’t be like it is today, there won’t be amandments to negotiated treaties or agreements, it’s a yes or no vote. Not much to corrupt there.

            • Mathius says:

              I find your faith refreshing.

              Yes, think about it this way:

              These people have power. Some power, whatever it is, over other people. Making treaties, whatever. It impacts people, thus it can be used to someone’s advantage.

              That someone, not even necessarily the representatives, will want to use that power to their own ends.

              They will offer money, prestige, post-office cushy employment, something.

              The representatives will be corrupted to self-serving agendas.

              They will, at some point, vote for themselves to have new powers, new authorities, maybe longer terms, et cetera.

              They will expand and grow, expand and grow, regardless of what the constitution says. If they don’t like it, they will find a way to amend it.

              And they will expand and grow.

              And they, like all humans, will find some way to serve themselves, glorify themselves, empower themselves, enrich themselves, help themselves..

              It is.. inevitable.

              • Terry Evans says:

                I know you told me to shut up…but you said
                “They will offer money, prestige, post-office cushy employment, something.”
                That will not be possible as the Post Office is a government agency and will not exist in the newly formed US…:)

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Matt, Let me put this in better terms. Those who are elected have no power, they are not politicians, they have nothing to gain. They cannot make laws, they cannot negotiate treaties or agreements. There may not even be any during their term of service. There is nothing to corrupt, that’s why I came up with this idea, it ensures that we can never have what we have now.

              • Mathius says:

                gman… then what, exactly, do they do?

              • gmanfortruth says:

                It’s written in the article. But as an example, say the leaders of Russia contact the National Spokesperson and asks to negotiate a peace treaty that basically says that both countrie agree to not attack each other. Once it’s negotiated, the Spokesperson will speak to the people and then will put it up for a vote by the committee. The committee convenes and vote yes or no. That’s it, nothing more or less.

              • Buck the Wala says:

                Wait…I thought you said they have no power to negotiate treaties. Now they get to not only negotiate treaties but vote on those very treaties and subject the rest of us to their terms?

  18. :|

  19. JAC

    States as in Nation States usually don’t deal with states or cities within nations.It is not that they can’t talk, but they will usually not make “deals”.

    But who cares?
    If they don’t want to talk to San Ysidro, so what?
    And who cares with “what was done before”? This is future-think; if Mexico has a need to talk, they will talk, or else they won’t.

    Who cares what entity does the talking?

    The primary here is whether a “Nation” is to exist as the USA.

    What part of “nation” requires “Federal”?

    If so then it will have a level of dealing with other Nation States as has been custom for some time. But the extent of its control could be reduced. On trade for example.

    What do you need a federal dialogue for? Why does New York’s shirt factory deal with France have to do with New Mexico no-shirt factory no-deal?

    As for immigration, if the USA is an agreed upon “Nation” then obviously what Texas or Arizona does about immigration will affect the other states within the Union or Federation.

    How do you figure this? If Texas wants Mexicans, why should New York worry about it?

    • JAC
      What do you need a federal dialogue for? Why does New York’s shirt factory deal with France have to do with New Mexico no-shirt factory no-deal?

      And even further, why should Shasta county shirt deal with France have anything to do with Sand Diego county?

      And even further, why should Del Mar Heights watermelon deal with France have anything to San Ysidro?

      And even further, why should Del Mar Heights have anything to do with Delmonte’s watermelon deal with a company in France?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Flagster, I agree mostly that we do not need a federal anything. When considering how this country could look after the fall, I considered a country with little or no government. I realized that there are many people out there who may try and exploit that and reestablish what we have now. In my opion, there are too many evil people who desire power and are greedy as hell. I certainly don’t want a bunch of Communists taking control of our nation.

      A lot of thought went into trying to figure out a way to keep this from happening. I determined that a new, smaller Federal system, made up of nothing more than figureheads with no power and no wages, and writing this in a new constitution would serve the purpose. Since they make no laws, and would work very few days, they would be cost free and provide the illusion that we have a Federal govt.

      In many ways, your no government idealogy will mostly be in place, as everything will be determined at the local level. This idea also protects from any form of government from being put in place. I also considered that people will have to have a system that they will vote for. This closes the door of future tyranny, like what we have going on now.

  20. GMan

    A lot of thought went into trying to figure out a way to keep this from happening. I determined that a new, smaller Federal system, made up of nothing more than figureheads with no power and no wages, and writing this in a new constitution would serve the purpose. Since they make no laws, and would work very few days, they would be cost free and provide the illusion that we have a Federal govt.

    So what is the purpose of it, if it is meaningless and an illusion

    • gmanfortruth says:

      It would ensure, as the law of the land, that we can’t get hijacked by evil people seeking power.

  21. Gman,

    I also considered that people will have to have a system that they will vote for. This closes the door of future tyranny, like what we have going on now.

    If people – by vote – assign privileges and laws – there is nothing that will stop tyranny.

    It is inevitable as surely as the sun shines.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Yes, the secret to my idea. Once the new constitution is voted on and approved, there would be nothing to ever vote on again at the Federal level, since they cannot enact laws. Basically, I have written the new Constitution in this article, and part of will be this: All laws passed must be of moral discipline, murder, rape, assault, theft or any action by one person that negatively affects the liberty and freedom of another person or persons.

      • G-man,

        Once the new constitution is voted on and approved, there would be nothing to ever vote on again at the Federal level, since they cannot enact laws.

        What happens if I disagree with your new constitution? Will you use force to enforce it on me? ;)

        So all I have to do is get the constitution written / approved the way I like it, and then it can never change? So I’ll be KING for life! ;)

        and part of will be this:

        Says who? How come you get to decide what’s in the constitution? ;)

        • gmanfortruth says:

          What happens if I disagree with your new constitution? Will you use force to enforce it on me?

          No, you vote against it. The constitution will have no negative effect on you or anyone else.

          So all I have to do is get the constitution written / approved the way I like it, and then it can never change? So I’ll be KING for life!

          No, there is no King. The whole idea is to remove that kind of power.

          Says who? How come you get to decide what’s in the constitution?

          Nobody, I wrote this to get help with this idea from all the folks here, including you. Someone has to think ahead and step up ;-)

    • So after the fall..there are no rules?

  22. Mathius,

    Your “Faith ..refreshing” post is completely correct.

    Once legitimacy is given to a minority of people to enforce themselves upon others, tyranny will always be the eventual consequence.

    That power will be used to extract wealth from the producers, redistribute that wealth to those that did not earn it, and curry favor from those that gain the access to the looting.

    Then the “battle” will be over control of that power, so that it can be removed from one’s adversaries who hold it, and then used against those adversaries. Each flip encroaches more and more on the People; it always and only move one direction – more and worse – and never retracts.

    Once one can justify even one thing to coerce a non-violent person to act, anything and everything can be justified upon a non-violent men

    • Mathius says:

      Stop agreeing with me! I am not being violent, yet you are inflicting painful nose bleeds upon me!

  23. Gman

    All laws passed must be of moral discipline, murder, rape, assault, theft or any action by one person that negatively affects the liberty and freedom of another person or persons.

    Who defines “moral”?
    How do you measure “negative effects” against liberty?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      I believe that can be left up to the people. Laws will be local, and there should be as few as possible.

      • Gman,

        I the “People” can enforce “morals” (by their definition) with “law”, tyranny is born.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          How do you suggest that murde is dealt with? I’m cool with no laws at all. But as I wrote, laws can’t take away freedom. That kind of limits the power on making dumb rules or laws.

          • Gman,

            Murder is NOT a definition of moral/immoral.

            Morals are like “don’t spit on the sidewalk” or “don’t wear your pants around your ankles”.

            Remember this vital truth:
            Law is violence.

            From that point, decide what you want law to do.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              Do you have a suggestion as to how it would be worded in the new constitution to ensure that morals are not legislated by local laws?

              • Gman,

                Ok, good! Next step…..

                Think about this….

                …if a government -any government- cannot use violence to enforce morals, and only enforce laws against violence, how are you going to stop competing governments from rising within the same jurisdiction.

                Their rising is not violent – they want different laws and these people live next door to you. Your law will not apply to them, and theirs will not apply to you.

                So, if everyone has their own law, what point is having a any government at all?

              • gmanfortruth says:

                I am not suggesting having any governments, at least any that can use force against the people. These are the difficulties I’m running into in trying to write a new constitution. I want to make violence against non-violent people a part of our history.

                People will stupidly have governments, unless they can be made powerless, the problems will persist

      • Mathius says:

        Why should my neighbors be allowed to dictate to me what is and isn’t permissible?

        My neighbors do that now and the result is all kinds of ridiculous building codes and ordinances. Why should I need their permission to cut down a tree on my property?

        How is this any less of a trespass upon my rights as a freeman?

        • gmanfortruth says:

          NO! Laws cannot take away freedoms. If you choose to cut your tree down, you can’t be denied.

          • Mathius says:

            Ah, ok, phew..

            How ’bout noise ordinances? Do I have a right to not be disturbed because my neighbor decided to run a brothel out of his garage?

            How ’bout speeding? Do I have a right not to be run over when BF decides to hop on his Suzuki and blast through my town at 250 mph?

            Can you give me a specific example of a law that they can pass?

            You said that abortion would be a local issue – this suggests that the town can tell me what businesses I can and cannot run.. does this not trample my rights?

            • gmanfortruth says:

              Mathius, I’m sure that what ever happens locally, you will have a say in the matter. The citizens will decide what is legal and not legal, within strict Constitutional guidelines.

              • Mathius says:

                But, let’s say, a company opens a new business in my small town and imports a thousand employees from elsewhere.

                They all vote together and now my town is suddenly different. Do I now have to close my alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives store?

                You say that I have a say because the election is local, but I don’t have enough of a say, and now other people are dictating to me.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Remember, no law can take away your freedom, you would be fine.

              • William Wallace says:

                You can take our lives, but you can never take.. our

                FRRREEEEEEEEDDDDDDDDOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  24. Gman,
    I think you could have said this in 1792 about the US Constitution:

    As I told Charlie, we need a form of management for the complex issues, life foreign affairs and such. THe election process will be outlined in part 2, so you’ll have to wait on that. We will not have a government per say, but an elected group of volunteers who want to serve their nation. There is no power or money to be gained. They get elected based on their skills and knowledge, campaigning will be unnecessary.

    No power or money? What about that sales tax? I wouldn’t mind collecting 5% of every purchase in the US. Hell, even 5% of the 5% sales tax…

    This sounds very much like the Articles of Confederation. A very weak Federal government with no power. It didn’t work then, I doubt it will work now.

    Why even have such a weak Federal Government. Make the 50 states into 50 nations. Let each create treaties, etc with each other. Let Texas pay for the defense of its border to the south. Wisconsin will pay to keep DisposableCaribouUnit out. Of course this might lead to “wars” between the individual states…

    If the collapse as you describe it occurs, I don’t think we’ll be talking about limited Federal and State governments. It will be local towns, groups, neighbors, families working together to survive. The “wars” will be local too.

    • Mathius says:

      City-states are a thing of the past. A city cannot fight a foreign nation. Sure they can’t conquer us (as BF points out), but they sure as hell can loot, rape, and pillage with near impunity.

      What is the city of Easton, PA going to do about an air strike from Canada before the bloodthirsty Mounties ride in?

      No, they’ll have to form bigger units or be destroyed. States at the very least. Federations of states more likely. Most likely a few nations (western sector, southern bloc, northeast union, mid-west federation.. and, well, Texas).

      Most likely, Texas will annex Oklahoma, because, well let’s face it, it’s not like Oklahoma is a real state anyway..

      • Mathius

        City-states are a thing of the past. A city cannot fight a foreign nation. Sure they can’t conquer us (as BF points out), but they sure as hell can loot, rape, and pillage with near impunity.

        I strongly disagree. You do not take account the geopolitical shift to overwhelming power of defense.

        “The projection of violent power from a center” increases as the ability of defense decreases and the ability of offense increases.

        City states work when defense is more powerful than offense. Castles stopped the centralization of power. Cannon (gun powder revolution) knocked down castle walls – empires rose. Then rifles out-powered cannon, and empires fell apart; massed armies and blitzkrieg, nation states rose;
        now, today, 4th generation war – asymmetrical warfare, and nation states are breaking up. (Soviet Union, Yugoslavia)

        Today, defense is starting to dominate offense – Iraq/Afghanistan as pointed demonstrations.

        So, it is not likely that States would annex each other – indeed, I think the fracturing will not stop at the State level, but dissolve even smaller. (re: previous guest post I made).

      • DisposableCarbonUnit says:

        Easton, PA? Nah, we’d never do that.

        We can’t even keep fighter planes in the air!

        We would however harness all Canada geese to fecal-bomb the meeting in Tuscaloosa however.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      You make great points Todd. It thinks it’s safe to say that our current form of Federal govt isn’t working so well either. But if we find ourselves in the situation provided, I would rather have a idea to work with. I don’t want an organized group of Communists hijacking the country (most likely under false pretenses)

      The sales tax may not be necessary for anything Federal, states and/or communities would decide this and the amount collected. Or, they may choose a fee based system and not have any tax at all.

  25. Gman
    Re: Peace treaty

    If a man has the power to talk peace on my unwilling behalf, that man has the power to talk war on my unwilling behalf

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Except that the military can only be used in defense of the nation. We would need to be attacked, which will never happen.

      • Gman,
        Then there is no need for any peace treaties at all. I do not need a fake promise from Russia to not do what they are not doing anyway.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          LOL, I agree :) I’m just giving these folks who volunteer for Federal service something to do. A usless treaty, voted on by powerless people. What a country :lol:

  26. Mathius says:

    But as an example, say the leaders of Russia contact the National Spokesperson and asks to negotiate a peace treaty that basically says that both countrie [sic] agree to not attack each other. Once it’s negotiated, the Spokesperson will speak to the people and then will put it up for a vote by the committee. The committee convenes and vote yes or no. That’s it, nothing more or less.

    OK, great.

    Now, image that I own a munitions factory, and you’re the spokesman whose term is up in a year. When you’re out of office, you will go home and resume your life as a deli clerk at Subway.

    I approach you..

    “Hey, I heard about this proposed treaty.. I think it’s a terrible idea. Those sneaky Russians are just trying to manipulate us so we let our guard down.”

    You: “I don’t know.. I think it’s a pretty good idea..”

    Me: “Well, hey, let us take you out for a night on the town, maybe some golf, and we can discuss it. Oh, and by the way, we heard that your brother is looking for a job.. it just so happens we have a factory opening in your home town! What a coincidence! Why don’t you just pass us along his resume.. we’ll make sure to take a good look at it.

    “Hell, maybe once you’re done here, you’d like to come be an adviser for a cushy seven figures per year at our headquarters?

    “Well, maybe, but you know.. I don’t know if we’ll have money for that if this treaty is signed. People might not worry about the ruskies anymore and then they won’t buy as much guns/ammo.. boy that would be a shame.. It would really hurt the economy and we’d have to lay off thousands of people. I bet they’d even blame you! Boy, I’d hate to be hated like that..”

    And, wouldn’t you know it.. the treaty fails!

    Funny how that worked out.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      This is a fixable issue, glad you brought it up. I’ll use your example to draft language that would make this unlawful, somehow. :)

  27. Mathius says:

    Boy.. Gman is sure taking a beating today.. makes you appreciate what the Founding Fathers must have gone through…

    Gman, good work today.. I’m really enjoying this! I hope we’re not being too rough with you :)

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Thanks Matt :)

      I’m doing fine. THis is more interesting than reading Charlie ramble on about capitalism ;-) Plus, with the diverse group we have here, great ideas can come forth, and maybe everyone can be made happy in the end.

    • Mathius,

      No, Gman has it harder than the Founders.

      The Founders did not disagree at all on their “perceived” need for a Federal government. All it was was a debate over a split of government power.

      Here, the debate hasn’t even suggested a need for Federal government at all, let alone design one.

    • Matt…the hardest guy on GMan today (or is it Charlie), will be the first one up GMan’s ass for protection the day after the fall.

  28. I want to be General.

  29. BF, enlighten this new fangled dictator …

    Gman says: voted on by the people in each locallity.

    Voting? I don’t need no stinking democracy, pal. I’m a free man. Don’t you know what voters did to this fine universe/world? Look at Bush in 2000 (couldn’t resist) … or 2008 (Obama) … or Nazi Germany … keep your voting to yourself. Stay off my grass and my toes!!!!! Free men don’t need any help (unless we want it and someone freely gives it).

  30. Gman,

    Try this idea:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panarchy

    Panarchy as freely choosing government –

    In his 1860 article “Panarchy” de Puydt, who also expressed support for laissez-faire economics, applied the concept to the individual’s right to choose any form of government without being forced to move from their current locale.

    This is sometimes described as “extra-territorial” (or “exterritorial”) since governments often would serve non-contiguous parcels of land. De Puydt wrote:

    “The truth is that there is not enough of the right kind of freedom, the fundamental freedom to choose to be free or not to be free, according to one’s preference….Thus I demand, for each and every member of human society, freedom of association according to inclination and of activity according to aptitude. In other words, the absolute right to choose the political surroundings in which to live, and to ask for nothing else.”[1]

    De Puydt described how such a system would be administered:

    “In each community a new office is opened, a “Bureau of Political Membership”.

    This office would send every responsible citizen a declaration form to fill in, just as for the income tax or dog registration:

    Question: What form of government would you desire? Quite freely you would answer, monarchy, or democracy, or any other… and once registered, unless you withdrew your declaration, respecting the legal forms and delays, you would thereby become either a royal subject or citizen of the republic.

    Thereafter you are in no way involved with anyone else’s government—no more than a Prussian subject is with Belgian authorities.”

    De Puydt’s definition of panarchy was expanded into a political philosophy of panarchism. It has been espoused by anarchist or libertarian-leaning individuals, including especially Max Nettlau[3] and John Zube.[4][5]

    Le Grand E. Day and others have used the phrase “multigovernment” to describe a similar system.[

    Another similar idea is “Functional Overlapping Competing Jurisdictions” (FOCJ) promoted by Swiss economists Bruno Frey and Reiner Eichenberger.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      THis is a concern of mine, the different types of governments that may pop up at the state and local levels. My ideas about a new constitution would have to limit what these governments can do.

      • Gman,

        As I asked before; how would you prevent free men from forming their own government if you can’t use violence on them?

        • gmanfortruth says:

          I couldn’t prevent that. I would hope that a new constitution will set the guidelines and they will follow them. How about a statement that the people have the right to self defense, including defense against any government attempting to use force against them.

    • Mathius says:

      Can an individual who chose anarchist still use roads built and maintained by communists?

      If I commit an crime against a member of another government, do they have jurisdiction to arrest and try me?

      How in the world would this mess work?

  31. Mathius says:

    8)

    • gmanfortruth says:

      What the heck does that mean? :)

      • Mathius says:

        I don’t really know, but I see Flagster post it all the time..

        And since he doesn’t believe in intellectual property, I’m free to copy him.

        • Mathius™ says:

          I wonder if this is going to work..

          Mathius has a new name!

        • gmanfortruth says:

          HAHAHA :) Good debate today. Something different. I’ve never been asked so many questions in one day, I hope I gave good answers.

  32. You’re alright by me, Gman … good on ya.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Charlie, I feel them same way about you and everyone that frequents SUFA. We need differing views, it’s what makes life interesting. I think we can both agree that the kooks in D.C. are not good for any of us, and we can do better. It’s time to get away from conventional thinking, make better decisions about how we are governed, if at all. All forms of known governments are failing, or have failed. Why go back to something we know don’t work?

      Peace my friend! Enjoy the heat!

  33. GMan, et al.

    Sorry I could not allow adequate time to comment on your proposal today. Moving date is rapidly approaching and crazy is accelerating.

    I did comment about the need to articulate the philosophical foundation for any govt, whether from the ashes of collapse or simply the one we want to create via the process we have.

    For those who haven’t or don’t remember I urge you to revisit the piece I did on Where the Founders Went Wrong (See the Resurrection Series). As was pointed out today, the debate has not changed all that much in over 200 years.

    BF also nailed it when he stated that GMan has the harder task, because he is trying to develop an “organization” that is NOT govt but would provide those services we think of as Govt in nature. But even he could not purge our bias completely from his effort. I give him KUDOS however more making a valient try.

    At some point, the “organization” is required to “enforce” its rules upon someone else. This was one of the primary issues of debate in 1787.

    Deciding if and when it is appropriate and how that enforcement is carried out will determine whether the Govt or No Govt or VDLG is govt by the traditional definition or if we have created something new. I suspect the best we will ever do is build a much more controlled Govt. Knowing full well that it will try like hell to slip the chains but satisfied that we at least got it back in the cage.

    Individual Freedom, Liberty and Justice for All. Recognition that the individual is the ultimate sovereign entity. That all govts, organizations, and institutions used my men must recognize the sanctity of the individual’s sovereignty. First, last and always.

    Now to the ideas put forth by gman. There is no reason that I can think of for international treaties regarding trade. Let individuals deal with their foreign counterparts. A related question is whether we put any limits on those with whom we allow our citizens to trade. Do we allow them to trade with known enemies or hostiles?

    If we are to remain a Nation State, which I believe is a positive thing, then there will need to be certain International Treaties made with respect to things like maritime rules, piracy, rules of war, boundaries and the like.

    The problem as I see it is how to give the “managers” or “congress” the broad authority to deal with the category without letting them in the hen house again. And to list all those things acceptable may be to constraining. But given our historical knowledge today, I say we make a “list” of acceptable actions. Then amend your charter if needed to address new issues.

    Now if there is a Nation State then it follows that there is some type of Federal entity, no matter how small. This entity must have the power to enforce those aspects of its authority as decided by the people.

    The trick is to identify those authorities that do not involve imposing violence on the non violent, or if you prefer, initiating force against the innocent. Rules or laws providing for murder and punishment for the offense would meet this higher authority. As would rules or laws that set limitation on what States or other “lower groups” could do with respect to impacting individual freedom, liberty and justice. There would need to be rules to handle disputes between the various states or groups. These would also meet the non violence criteria.

    No matter how deep and sever the collapse, some type of Government will rise from the ashes. It might start at the local level but then communities will meet and establish some other “level” above them and so on until we have States and Federal Govt once again.

    The reason is that not enough people grasp the possibility and feasibility of anything else. Hell, over half the country can’t even fathom a world without SS, Medicare, and Medicaid. They think millions are going to die in the streets. Let alone try to explain why you don’t need govt for the Streets either. That is where we are, in my humble opinion.

    I notice that I am starting to ramble. Combination of cold medicine, short nights and many distractions. I apologize to you all, but I wanted to get some thoughts out there for you to kick around tomorrow.

    Best wishes to all
    JAC

  34. Happy Birthday to me … the capitalist son graduates with his MBA today … wanna see/hear Charlie Colbert (this is the criminal/capitalist Charlie, remember)? There’s a link from a piece 3 years ago … forgetaboutit.

    http://temporaryknucksline.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-not-charlie-gradumacates-again.html

    • A great day at Casa Stella. Happy Birthday Charlie!

    • Terry Evans says:

      Happy B-Day!!! Congratulations on graduation!

    • Congrats Charlie…and welcome to the MBA club…however….it slowly eats you and you will be a ……………………..conservative. BWAAAHAHAHHAHA!!!!

    • Judy Sabatini says:

      Happy Birthday Charlie, hope you’ll have a wonderful day, & Congratulations on your graduation.

    • Mathius™ says:

      Congrats!

      Man, those things are a pain, but now that you’ve got your credentials, everyone here will have to start deferring to your superior education. :)

  35. Let me see if I understand this….. From CNN this morning.

    The number of Limos owned by the Federal Government has risen 72% in the last two years.

    The White House budget for food and parties (not counting heads of State dinners) has risen 144% in the last two years…

    The number of food stamp recipients has risen to 14% and the cost has risen 44% in the last two years…..

    I am sure this is the fault of President Bush…..

    So, since Obama took office, the Federal payroll has risen over 1.1 billion…there are more Limos and more parties and better food at the white house…..than ever before… waivers being given for health care only to his contributors increasing costs…..the list is endless…….and more people out of work and more people on welfare and food stamps than ever before…..great job.

    • d13

      Yet the Sec of Agriculture has told his folks to brace for a 20% cut in funding between this and next year.

      The Dept of Ag recently got approval for early out for all agencies and buyout for some selected agencies.

      Seems those who thrive are a “select” group.

      Good morning Sir. Hope all is well.

      • Good Morning, JAC. All is well. Border is very active…one of my teams had a running shoot out a couple of days ago…we won. No injuries on our side except a slight burn from an ejected M-60 MAchine gun (Flew back and went down the gunners shirt.) The druggies…well..they did not fare very well. Six dead and one wounded. Oldest one was 22….youngest appears to be about 16 or so. Tough business. All were armed with AK 47’s and one UZI.

        Memorial Day was good. It ia always a tough day for me but I survived it. Hope you and yours are doing well.

    • Terry Evans says:

      This current administration is continuing the building of a nation of dependency…at light speed, comparitively speaking. That will ensure that the current government will be in place until the wheels fall off.

      • Mathius™ says:

        The wheels fall off? The wheels fell of long ago. Nobody seemed to notice though..

        • Terry Evans says:

          Not quite yet. As long as they can still borrow and spend more money than what is realistic, then it will continue.

  36. Hey everyone, been busy but have tried to keep up a little bit with SUFA.

    Sympathies again to you JAC on your move out Left.

    Added to my resume this past weekend: Mother-in-Law!

    Can we please have an open forum day? This Weinergate thing is killing me with its many opportunities!!!

    Anita – need your email. Might be coming your way for some training and would love to get together. Let’s talk.

    Isn’t someone on here from THE Ohio State University? WTH?

  37. Egypt is also instituting a virginity check for “worthiness” (whatever that means)…..ummmm…wonder how they check?

  38. Gman,

    It was very good – it raised core questions that usually we never address – such as, why do we have a government in the first place?

  39. Mathius,

    How do you use the property of another man?

    You pay for it

    If I commit an crime against a member of another government, do they have jurisdiction to arrest and try me?

    To answer this, think about how it is done today between to sovereignty, say Holland and Serbia.

    If the perp committed a crime in another Panarchy that was a crime in their own Panarchy, extradition may occur.

    It is in the benefit of Panarchy to respect others, otherwise, the Gold Rule takes place – crimes committed in your panarchy by my members go unpunished too.

    It is in the best interest of Panarchy to naturally maintain social order – to do this really takes no work – simply apply the same principles of human rights. Any Panarchy that works opposite of social order will not last long.

  40. GMan

    How about a statement that the people have the right to self defense, including defense against any government attempting to use force against them

    A government that cannot enforce its edicts is merely an advertising agency.

  41. Mathius

    But, let’s say, a company opens a new business in my small town and imports a thousand employees from elsewhere.

    They all vote together and now my town is suddenly different. Do I now have to close my alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives store?

    You say that I have a say because the election is local, but I don’t have enough of a say, and now other people are dictating to me.

    Then join a different panarchy.

  42. Iran is now nuclear armed and capable of striking targets within 2000 miles….these weapons are in the possession of the IRGC.

  43. JAC,

    By snippets:

    I suspect the best we will ever do is build a much more controlled Govt

    This is fundamentally impossible.
    You are wishing that a contradiction can manifest (a contradiction that you think is favorable).

    As asked a few blogs back:
    How can you enforce your controls over government when your law maker and enforcer is government?

    How can a man use his left foot to step on his left foot?

    Therefore, minimalist government advocates are fundamentally worse then maximal advocates – because they pretend that government can be something it cannot be and thus garner support for government based on a lie.

    • BF

      Building a more controlled Govt is not impossible. In fact it was done in this country.

      Govt will tend to grow. Eventually it will have to contract. Either by design or by collapse, or maybe a combination of both.

      At that point it is possible to create further constraints upon it. But given our culture and current human tendency we will have some type of Govt.

      Those constraints will be imposed by the people who authorized the govt. They will work for a time. And then Govt will begin to grow again. And the cycle will continue.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Would be nice to see them quickly and responsibly move forward on the project.

  44. JAC

    Snip two:

    That all govts, organizations, and institutions used my men must recognize the sanctity of the individual’s sovereignty. First, last and always

    Then you cannot have a government.

    Governments are sovereign – no law is higher then they are, and therefore must make men subordinate to government.

    By definition and core, human rights must diminish by the creation of government, therefore your demand is contradicted.

    And you know what attempting to manifest contradictions creates…..

  45. JAC

    Snip Three;

    If we are to remain a Nation State, which I believe is a positive thing,

    Why?

    This is not merely selecting a color scheme for your bedroom, where your subjective like/dislike are immaterial to others not living with you.

    Please explain why you believe the centralization of massive violence is a positive thing?

    • BF

      First of all, Nation State does not require “centralization of massive violence”. Even the USA under the Articles of Confederation was a Nation.

      A single National identity serves many positive needs of those living in the current USA. Ease of travel, use of money, security, etc. The current Nation is tied with blood relations and cultural history. It has developed an “identity” if you will that is carried within its citizens.

      Defense of our borders will obviously be more efficient and effective as a Nation rather than 50 nation states. Sorry, but my military advisers carry more weight than your opinions. History is also on my side here.

      The reasons used to justify a Nation in 1776 and 1787 are just as real today.

      • JAC,

        First of all, Nation State does not require “centralization of massive violence”. Even the USA under the Articles of Confederation was a Nation.

        It established, quote:
        The United States in Congress assembled shall also be the last resort on appeal in all disputes and differences now subsisting or that hereafter may arise between two or more States concerning boundary, jurisdiction or any other causes whatever; which authority shall always be exercised in the manner following.

        The united States in congress assembled, shall have the sole and exclusive right and power of determining on peace and war

        A single National identity serves many positive needs of those living in the current USA. Ease of travel, use of money, security, etc.

        Absolutely none of that depends on a State – indeed, the existence of a State massively interferes with all of this

        History is also on my side here.

        Please show in history the invasion and conquering of the entire continent of America by any armed force.

        The reasons used to justify a Nation in 1776 and 1787 are just as real today.

        Their reasons were treason and insurrection from an Empire.

        What part of yours resembles theirs?

        • BF

          Not sure what your point was with Congress. I said it is not “required”. Nothing about whether it was done or not.

          I never said the needs “depend” on a State. I said that a National identity as in Nation State with a Federal authority would “serve” these needs. Just as it was found to do 1787.

          In short, it makes certain things easier or more effective and efficient. And thus the historical context for a national standing army for defense. Problems with logistics, efficiency and effectiveness of the fighting force were resolved with centralization. As was funding a force only large enough for defense of the ALL the states from outside invasion.

          Your demand for proof of some continental invasion is absurd and irrelevant to my point. Defense of all states would be more efficient and effective if a certain degree of centralized authority is established over such defense.

          Don’t forget. All the States still exist in this discussion. That is the assumed starting point.

          • JAC,

            our demand for proof of some continental invasion is absurd and irrelevant to my point. Defense of all states would be more efficient and effective if a certain degree of centralized authority is established over such defense.

            No, sir, it is vital.

            You propose centralizing the command and control of a massively terrifying military force -with the excuse we need to “defend” something – but cannot prove ever such defense is necessary.

            You will create massive violent tyranny on the back of a lie.

            • Mathius™ says:

              The Europeans were unable to conquer the Holy Land during the crusade. Why? Because the current residents were armed and unwilling to give up. (this, I assume, is akin to your argument for why North America is unconquerable, yes?).

              But boy, oh boy, were the Europeans sure able to loot and pillage the Holy Land.

              See the parallels?

              You are correct, we do not require a massive centralized defense force to protect us from conquer. But we do need it to protect ourselves from an organized foreign military intent on looking/theft/pillage/etc.

              You think, if the US government went away tomorrow, that bloodthirsty mounties wouldn’t be running lightning raids across the border?

              • Mathius,

                You think, if the US government went away tomorrow, that bloodthirsty mounties wouldn’t be running lightning raids across the border?

                Why would they? They do not want to die either.

                Re: Parallels
                No, there is no parallel.

                There is no army large enough that can stop the destruction of war should another army engage.

                Even by your wishful government cannot stop the mounties bent on destruction – it will kill them just as well as free men could, but still suffer the same harm and suffering the mounties are capable of wrecking regardless.

                So why bother with the tyranny that is no more capable then “no tyranny” in stopping destruction of property?

              • SK Trynosky Sr says:

                Lines of supply Charlie, lines of supply. The Europeans were able to reconquer Sicily, Spain, Greece etc. because they had the interior lines of supply.

                Back in the day, you had to have the adjacent territory under your control or have a non-existent transportation network. In WW 2 we had created just such a transportation network to allow force projection around the world. Was not and still is not cheap.

  46. JAC,

    Last snip:

    No matter how deep and sever the collapse, some type of Government will rise from the ashes. It might start at the local level but then communities will meet and establish some other “level” above them and so on until we have States and Federal Govt once again.

    This may be true.

    The profits of theft and violence do not disappear because of a collapse. It merely becomes more difficult to centralize and legitimize it

    Government (profits of theft) diminish by the improvement and capability of individual self-defense (or become larger by the improvement of offensive capacity and/or degradation of self-defense)

  47. Oops,
    Changed my appearance name, and I am trapped in moderated hell.

    • USWeapon says:

      You should be good now

    • Mathius™ says:

      Copycat!

      • Mathius

        (1) I did not copy you.
        (2)I am not a cat.

        • Mathius™ says:

          You took my idea, changed it slightly, and claimed it as your own. Where, oh where, are the lawyers?

          PS: The federal registration symbol, the “®”, may only be used once the mark is actually registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

          • Mathius,

            United States Patent and Trademark Office

            Do you really believe this concerns me even a tiny-weeny bit?

          • Buck the Wala says:

            First argument overruled – he did not copy you as Mathius is the trademarked name; the idea to trademark a name is not copyrightable (word?)

            Second argument sustained – BF has found himself in violation of the US Patent and Trademark Law. But as he says, do you really think he cares?

  48. JAC

    Building a more controlled Govt is not impossible. In fact it was done in this country.

    No, it wasn’t – observation demonstrates this.

    The best you hope for your system is that your “mini” government does not go direct to tyranny in your lifetime – but you doom your children and grandchildren.

    Govt will tend to grow. Eventually it will have to contract.

    No government contracts without collapse.

    Either by design or by collapse, or maybe a combination of both.

    So you advocate repetition of a observably failed system, with the race merely being you pray it does not fail into tyranny and collapse when you are alive.

    Those constraints will be imposed by the people who authorized the govt.

    How?
    Explain how you can use your left foot to step on your left foot.

    How can you enforce yourself OVER government?

    • BF

      Actually, observation supports my view entirely. You keep mistaking my position as one of a static solution. I clearly stated that the best we can hope for is a cycle of growth, contraction, growth, etc, etc..

      It is not what I advocate. But it is the best that I think we can do until such time as humanity is ready to go farther.

      The longer the contraction, or the more frequent the cycles, the greater the opportunity will be to take the next step. At least without destroying civilization.

      As I have explained before. Under our system, the Govt operates under OUR authority. If enough of us get motivated we can remove much or all of the authority granted. Despite the Govt’s best efforts to fight the change.

      Never said it would be easy. Only possible. Just as it was in 1776.

      • JAC,

        Government’s cycle begins with a belief that brutish violence solves non-violent problems – that violent force “is sometimes necessary to compel non-violent men to action”.

        Thus the cycle is not “growth” and “contraction”, it is ever increasing violence and tyranny until an implosion into massive savagery and slaughter – but the whole cycle is violence start to finish.

        The argument therefore cannot start with “what form of government minimizes this”…..

        …..the argument must start “No government exists without tyranny, so why start with it?”

        ….whether or not the People are “ready” for this or not is moot.

  49. gmanfortruth says:

    In and out today, had to make up for yesterday :)

    Happy Birthday Charlie! I guess now your an eye-talianosaurous :lol:

    Flagster, I understand your points completely. I also agree with JAC, that governments will pop up. I don’t want to see the Communist Party attempt to take over for our failed government, hence the article. Being prepared is key to be successful in the future, for those that can survive the collapse. There a far to many people who think we need government, I’m not one of them. Putting together a system of management, rather than government at the top seems like a start. With a new constitution, any local governments would be limited in there scope of authority, again, another system of management. I think this would be far better than government, while defending against the organized Communist or other parties that may attempt a takeover.

    • Gman,
      I thought you had some very interesting ideas myself. Maybe a few items could be better, but who’s to say? Certainly not Charlie. If it were up to the Socialist’s we would wind up under a Dictator like Chavez or Quadaffi.

      I’m sure that would please all like him. As long as you did as the Dictator said and believed what he said, all would be taken care of. All dissenters and those who disagreed would be imprisoned or shot.

      And he calls US bat-shit crazy!

      • Esom

        Glad to see your still as ornery as ever.

        How is baseball season shaping up this year?

        • My youngest made Varsity in High School his Freshman year and lettered. He started pitching for the Varsity. The only Freshman to letter.

          If it sounds like I’m bragging, I am. But at 15 and with an 85mph fast ball, and a curve like a Georgia country road. It ain’t braggin’ if it’s true!

  50. SUFA

    BF raised a question indirectly in his discussion with GMan.

    One that everyone here should ask themselves.

    Why would free people form a government?

    What is it that causes us to think we need government?

    What is it we hope to gain?

    Is our need for Govt today largely driven by existing conditions created by the past Govt? In other words, are we stuck with Govt because of our past decisions?

    You should think about these questions as they relate to your local, county, state and then regional or national view.

    • JAC.
      I personally do not think we need a govt. BUT I think we must have one now because without one we would be taken over by those who are driven to power.

      And the Apathy of those who have been sheltered by the govt for too long would sceam to the high heavens for a new messiah.

    • Mathius™ says:

      We need government because there are bad people out there who are not interested in observing your rights, behaving responsibly, etc.

      Because companies will pollute with impunity.

      Because the right and powerful will become de facto slave masters.

      And for a myriad of other reasons.

      I do not, necessarily, claim that we need a government as large, expensive, and complex as our own, but I do think that some government is necessary in light of human nature.

      • I agree with that Mathius. Just a little govt. VERY DAMN LITTLE.

        • Mathius™ says:

          A man walks into a bar and right up to the most beautiful woman in the room.

          “Would you sleep with me for one million dollars?” He asks her.

          The woman ponders it for a second, but a million dollars is too tempting and she agrees.

          “Would you sleep with me for $100?” He then asks.

          “No!” she shouts. “What kind of a woman do you take me for?”

          The man replies, “well we’ve already established what kind of woman you are, now we’re just negotiating over price.”

          ———

          See any parallels?

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Matt said: We need government because there are bad people out there who are not interested in observing your rights, behaving responsibly, etc.

        G says: We have government who are not intersted in observing your rights and certainly not behaving responsibly.

        Matt: Because companies will pollute with impunity.

        G: Why were governments in place prior to pollution?

        G: We have nothing to gain, but everything to lose.

        Matt: Because the right and powerful will become de facto slave masters.

        G: Not after they swallow a bullet from 500 yards away.

        Matt: I do think that some government is necessary in light of human nature.

        G: Why do you think people need ruled by a higher power?

      • Mathius

        I want you to look deeper into your list.

        Yes we need our rights protected. But WHY is Govt needed instead of us handling via some type of cooperative agreement among ourselves?

        Why do we need to hand over the authority to use force to a specific group rather than retain it for ourselves?

      • Mathius,

        So you define government as a security company, which is a false definition.

        Such fallacy is the reason tyranny is so hard to dispel. You mis-define government into a defender of rights (self-defense force), gain support of others that this (human rights and self-defense) is important, then propose the very entity that destroys human rights and overwhelms self-defense.

        This is why I say you, Mathius, are among the most evil of men – propose using the very evil to stop the evil.

    • JAC,

      The question is key.

      Men will not be free when government ends.

      When finally free themselves, government will not exist.

  51. gmanfortruth says:

    More wonderful predictions: A notable market strategist has told CNBC that the world is on the verge of the largest financial meltdown in history, warning that Wall Street is at a loss as to what to do regarding the ailing economy.

    “Interest rates are amazingly low and that, thanks to Ben Bernanke, is driving everything,” said Peter Yastrow, of Yastrow Origer.

    “We’re on the verge of a great, great depression. The [Federal Reserve] knows it.” the futures trader added.

    “What we’ve got right now is almost near panic going on with money managers and people who are responsible for money,” he said. “They can not find a yield and you just don’t want to be putting your money into commodities or things that are punts that might work out or they might not depending on what happens with the economy.”

    • And ain’t that just wonderful!

      • gmanfortruth says:

        It’s almost daily that some new person that deals with investing is saying this. Add Black Flag to the mix and that’s alot of people who think our economy is doomed. Maybe I should write an article on the new constitution and get it ready. :)

        • Mathius™ says:

          Well it’s true that there are no yields to be found..

          That said, I don’t have any evidence to support the certainty of the conclusion that “we’re on the verge of a great, great depression.”

          I certainly don’t think we’re out of the woods, but it could go either way at this point.

          • Ireland & Greece still are on the ropes after their bailouts and looking for more$$$?
            The US has not passed a budget, employment is down, consumer pricing is going up, housing sales are about to double dip, the list goes on and on.
            Middle East unrest still spreading.

            It can still go either way, but right now our leadership seems to be waiting to react. Passing a budget that addresses the deficit would help confidence here and in the world. I think it’s like a juggler, eventually you have to put them down, or gravity will win.

            • Mathius™ says:

              right now our leadership seems to be waiting to react … Odd.. I thought this is exactly what you wanted them to do: sit there and do nothing.

              The US has not passed a budget Petty brinkmanship. I know it. You know it. Canine Weapon knows it. They’ll wait to the last minute then the Red Shirts will cave after the Blue Shirts throw them a (very meager) bone. Both sides will claim a victory and the Red Shirts will pretend they did something serious about the debt.

              Ireland & Greece still are on the ropes Someone’s always on the ropes. So?

              housing sales are about to double dip How do you know this? I was thinking about buying some (dirt cheap) property in Philly or Florida or Detroit and renting it out. You think I should wait? What evidence do you have to support this opinion? If I buy in Detroit, maybe I can have Anita manage the property?

              The world is going to keep on turning.

              Deep, slow, even breathing…

              Just make sure you’re set up to be ok.. you know, in case it doesn’t keep turning..

              • So sorry, Matt. Anita’s not managing anything on the other side of 8 Mile. I may be tough but I’d prefer to stay alive. Maybe CommonMan can help you out.

              • SK Trynosky Sr says:

                Dirt cheap is good. The big fear is inflation. Having property is a great hedge. Dollars are still worth something so, if you have extra, use them. I will add property to my other four important assets: Gold, Silver, Guns Bullets.

  52. gmanfortruth says:

    SUFA, I want to write part 2 to this article, but need some input. Are you opposed (and why) to the ideas in this article, or are you in agreement that it’s a good place to start?

    • G! I like the ideal, but I think how/what is taxed is crucial. I still think any/all tax is theft. I can see no way to have the smallest government necessary without taxes. So I am in full agreement.
      Remarks from above,

      How will the individual states raise this money?
      What is each states share or burden?
      Reply

      gmanfortruth Says:
      May 31, 2011 at 9:27 am

      While that is a whole new article, the states will collect taxes on purchases (no income taxes). They will only collect was is needed to pay the bills (National level) and maintain state roads. They will have no power over the people either, all police power (very limited) will be at the local level.

      Any excess taxes collected that are not needed for the approved bills and rainy day fund, will be returned to the people (like every five years, so the checks might be nicer).

      Life of Illusion Says:
      May 31, 2011 at 11:49 am

      G! I like the sales tax, as that would balance the differences in the sizes of the states contribution. A fixed one to five percent tax. You could also impose a tariff on imports, again fixed low rate. Add to that, it’s “fair” that imports that need to be inspected should support the cost of keeping us safe. Another revenue source would be national resources such as oil and timber. I think roads and such would revert to a toll system. You only pay for what you use.

  53. Mathius,

    And also from men who insist that they possess absolute perfect knowledge of the One Truth, Mr. Flag.

    There is no such thing as “one” truth – there are many truths.

    But just because there are many truths does not make lies into truths.

    You, sir, are a true believer. Your belief is so absolute that you ignore the muddled reality of necessary evils.

    No more than there exists “necessary contradictions” there exists no such thing as a necessary evil.

    But that’s ok, because you are in such a minority that I know you will never get your way.

    I already have “my way”.

  54. I haven’t been on here for a couple of weeks now.

    After reading the intro paragraph and the first few sentences of the rest of the article, I know I haven’t missed anything.

    I have a question for all of you – What in the name of God have you been smoking? Why is it that you all salivate over the demise of our country? None of you have learned anything from history.

    I am glad of one thing, however . . . and that is that you folks are an absolute minority.

    I think I won’t be back until the end of summer because I just do not want to ruin the 4th of July celebrations the rest of this country will be having.

    You have all turned into nothing but a bunch of “gloom & doom” advocates . . . . . . .

    • The America that you speak of no longer exists and it will never return. What you contend you support has been pushed to the curb long ago.

      Thinking or wishing otherwise won’t change the truth. Because people wish to open their thinking and explore not only what is, but what is possible to come, doesn’t make them “doom & gloom” types of people. It just makes them willing to think outside the box.

      Your “position” can clearly be compared to the Loyalists to the Crown and how they thought of the “absolute minority” of those colonists desiring their own nation without the Crown.

      Enjoy the Fourth.

    • GA….you cannot let this group of nay sayers get to you….Enjoy the 4th…..I will. So will they…courtesy of the US Armed Forces. They can cajole and they can demean and they can criticize…hindsight is always 20/20. But one thing that they cannot deny…they cannot deny the freedoms they enjoy courtesy of a strong nation and our armed forces. Pretty simple actually.

      • I have to say that it is a complicated world and I do see our faults-I think we have to discuss them as away of changing that which needs to change-but I also think there is a difference in the discussion of individual people in different nations and the discussions of the actual nations we have to deal with. Because in the end-it is the power structure in other countries that we have to deal with not the individual people. A war based on terrorism -confuses the issues which I think is a pretty clever tool that our enemies are using -trying to make everything an issue of the individual not the countries themselves-a tool that may well destroy us if the majority of Americans keep buying into the everything is equivalent based on the individual arguments instead of looking at the governmental and legal systems of the countries that attack us under the guise of terrorism. But Bush was right it isn’t a fight against a whole religion, it is a fight against a governmental power system based on a religion that is prevalent in the ME. And we are better-not worse or equivalent to those power systems.

      • I had a comment in response to yours Colonel, but I erased it.

        I realized it would be pointless.

        • It probably would have been, Plainly….probably would have been. Have a great day….

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Mine won’t be Colonel! I have a long history of writing outside the box. I, like many get tired of the same old debates that don’t end up anywhere. I thought I’d try something different, say looking ahead, and guessing what our failing government may stick us with.

            I’m one vet that is American through and through. I love my country dearly, maybe thats why I’m so concerned about the future. What I read and see is no bullshit, it’s real and that’s why I’m concerned. I guess if I chose to let my young daughter go through airport security and get touched in places that I wouldn’t touch her, after I told her to never allow that, I might be a sheeple. I’m not, I’m an American. I plan on staying that way, despite the sheeple.

            • gmanfortruth says:

              I only need but one reason. Maybe G.A. needs to wake up!

              DHS Domestic Terrorist Profile – Dept. of Homeland Security Publication IA-0257-09, Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment, .pdf available here. Domestic terrorists express libertarian philosophies, have Second Amendment-oriented views, read survivalist literature, believe in self-sufficiency, fear economic collapse, have religious views concerning the book of Revelation, express fears of Big Brother or Big Government, they homeschool, make declarations of Constitutional rights and civil liberties and believe in a New World Order conspiracy. Domestic terrorists. Now you know.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 139 other followers

%d bloggers like this: