It's About Liberty: A Conservative Forum
Topics => General Board => Topic started by: Predator Don on July 06, 2011, 04:25:13 PM
-
Most of you know I run a fitness center in my hometown. The regs are many. Last year I was given the "choice" of a 25K surety bond or a CD , to "protect" my customers if I went out of business. I complied.....even though 25k, even in my small gym, wouldn't get you any significient money back.. Stupid law. (exempted not for profits, cough cough, YMCA, those whose revenue exceeds 1 million and those over 7 years old.....Yes, I can't believe it either.) Cost 25K to be tied up and we wonder why there are no jobs....but I digress.
Just received another letter from the state (supposed new law, only affecting for profit fitness centers...cough, cough, not the YMCA's)) requiring either a PERSONAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT or MY FINANCIALS OF MY GYM each year. WTF!!!???!!!
I may need bail money, no way I'm sending this to the state. Way beyond overreach.
-
Oh fer crissake! It never stops, does it.
Ok; turns out you need bail money, we'll take up a collection from here.
Or .... organize a jailbreak. Course you'll have to live on the lam after that and that will mean the end of your business anyway, so .....
In the event you choose to go Galt, we'll have a Plan B.
-
Oh fer crissake! It never stops, does it.
Ok; turns out you need bail money, we'll take up a collection from here.
Or .... organize a jailbreak. Course you'll have to live on the lam after that and that will mean the end of your business anyway, so .....
In the event you choose to go Galt, we'll have a Plan B.
I'm not complying. I don't care. First of all, if the state wants this info, its already available. I file taxes, business and personal. What steams me is both the surety bond and this piece of legislative crap are brought to you by the strong lobby of our state YMCA's. It has thier fingerprints all over it. My state is complicit in attempting to put small business out of business, because people can't afford to pay 100 bucks a month for thier dues.
They will not get this from me. I'll sell the place first.
-
It pisses me off no end the way government is constantly moving the goal posts, so that what was legal yesterday becomes illegal today.
-
I wouldn't mind joining your gym and paying the monthly dues . It's paying for the Emergency Squad to revive me after every workout that would break me . I ruined my hands boxing at the last club I joined . The ref kept stepping on them .
-
They will not get this from me. I'll sell the place first.
The way I look at it, my TEOTWAKI planning has two purposes: 1) to protect me and mine in case the Dolllar does really collapse 2) to allow me to "Go Galt" even if this socialist/fascist/corporatisst/crony govt crap somehow manages to limp along.
-
I think it used to be called a double set of books or double bookkeeping or something like that.
Don't tell them to go to hell, Clemens did that and look at him today.
-
It pisses me off no end the way government is constantly moving the goal posts, so that what was legal yesterday becomes illegal today.
that's how they control you...by turning law-abiding citizens into rule-breakers. Then they overlook their friends and palm-greasers, and prosecute their enemies and those who refuse to back-scratch....just like the mafia.
-
"Running" two sets of books is the [phrase IIRC.
Clemens lied...as did the runner, Joyner? or whatever her name was. That is what pisses 'em off.
Of course, telling a bureaucrat to screw will get him on your case, so that's probably where it started for the Mouth.
And "Going Galt" is a fictitious solution. In the real world, it's called quitting. Don't quit on our Republic. I ask this for my kids.
What if Washington, Jefferson, Hancock, et.al. took that route?
And you're 100% right Michelle. The only people who succeed in socialist economies are those who sit up and beg when told. We're seeing that here nowadays.
-
I've contacted (e mailed) both my Representative in the county I live and the county my business resides. I've requested this be investigated and begin the steps needed to remove the amendment. I made my case that this is not the states business. I made my case that this info is already available. I asked a few questions, as to how can I qualify for the exemptions given to other fitness establishments.
I also requested a rational explanation as to why this is the states business, what is the consequence if I choose not to comply and what will be done with my info, if I chose to comply. I didn't like writing as if I might comply, but I don't want some state employee snooping around me. This is a shame. I don't like the idea of being intimidated.
I need an explanation. I shutter to think what the state would do if they deemed my personal or business financials inadequate.
-
"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We WANT them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against--then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one MAKES them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted--and you create a nation of law-breakers--and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
--Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged" (1957)
-
When I read that the first time, it was like an epiphany.
-
And "Going Galt" is a fictitious solution. In the real world, it's called quitting. Don't quit on our Republic. I ask this for my kids.
What if Washington, Jefferson, Hancock, et.al. took that route?
And you're 100% right Michelle. The only people who succeed in socialist economies are those who sit up and beg when told. We're seeing that here nowadays.
"Going Galt" happens by degree, and is anything but ficticous. You may not even be aware or conscious of your decision to "go Galt".. It just no longer makes economic sense to keep keep working as hard, to hire a new employee, to start a n expansion or a new line of business. While I have no hard evidence to prove it, I suspect much of Hauser's Law is a result of people going galt in response to higher tax rates.. if they raise the top marginal rate to 60%, some percentgae of people don't find it worth it to put in the extra time/effort to earn the next dollar of which they only keep 40 cents, raise it to 90% and even more people make that decsion because it only gets them a dime. It is the inevitable consequence of Socialism and of punishing the producers. I wrote a post on this a while back: http://ittbbb.blogtownhall.com/2009/03/20/who_john_galt_is.thtml (http://ittbbb.blogtownhall.com/2009/03/20/who_john_galt_is.thtml)
You can't quit on a Republic that no longer exists. Washington, Jefferson, Hancock and the rest of the Founders took up arms to create a Republic-- and it was lost - long before I was born. Momentum has carried us another 100 years or so, but now there isn't room for honest men. . You can either beg for your table scraps from the Socialists, or you can drop out, and become a Neo-Hippie in the style Leary originally intended (only without the drugs)
"Turn on" meant go within to activate your neural and genetic equipment. Become sensitive to the many and various levels of consciousness and the specific triggers that engage them. Drugs were one way to accomplish this end. "Tune in" meant interact harmoniously with the world around you - externalize, materialize, express your new internal perspectives. "Drop out" suggested an active, selective, graceful process of detachment from involuntary or unconscious commitments. "Drop Out" meant self-reliance, a discovery of one's singularity, a commitment to mobility, choice, and change. Unhappily my explanations of this sequence of personal development were often misinterpreted to mean "Get stoned and abandon all constructive activity". Timothy Leary- Flashbacks .
I have kids too, and the only way to help them and to hurt this beast is to deprive it of revenue. We will leave our kids with a way of life that is independant of the government, and that is as close to freedom as we are going to be able to get. I don't see it a quitting, merely responding to the incentives given. If a new Washington, Jefferson or Hancock shows up to lead us in rebellion and in arms, I will follow,and support it. Hell the founders WOULD have been done by now. I just fear there are not enough Americans left willing to fight, and the process is now so corrupt we have no chance of winning in an election.
-
Sounds to me like rent seeking trash trying to squeeze the little guys out of business.
I have mentioned how much I loath rent seeking trash, and the politicians that service them, haven't I?
-
Well said, Weisshaupt.
The idea of "going Galt" isn't new. Slaves have practiced it from time immemorial. Those who were condemned to a life of forced labor fought back by doing the bare minimum of labor necessary for survival. They would slack off whenever their master's back was turned. And of course they tried to escape whenever they could.
What was new with Rand was her realization that people who work with their minds could do the same. That was why Hugh Akson, a world-class physicist philospher, chose to run a roadside diner instead.
"Going Galt" isn't quitting. It's the individual saying to the totalitarian state, "You don't own the product of my mind, and I will deny it to you. I will do the bare minimum for my own personal survival, but no more."
The British Empire of King George III in the 18th century didn't hold a candle to modern forms of totalitarianism. America's founders rebelled over trivial levels of taxation and regulation compared to what we're facing today. We probably should have had a second American Revolution in the 1930s. Today, it may well be too late, and we may just need to wait for the collapse of the centralized state and try to pick up the pieces afterwards.
-
I'll sell the place first.
To sell it means they've won.
-
I'll sell the place first.
To sell it means they've won.
I don't agree. Neither did Ayn Rand.
Selling it and walking away says that you're refusing to play the game by their rules. Closing a business eliminates jobs and reduces the tax base. It says "F*ck You" to the state.
-
I'll sell the place first.
To sell it means they've won.
No. They might believe they've won. What accrues to them though is *nothing*, and Don moves his assets, of all types, into providing only for his family, in an off-the-grid manner, and the looters get bupkis.
-
No, folks, you're dead wrong. You're pulling your chips off the table and quitting the game. You're quitting on all the other citizens who want this to work and will eventually fight for it. You're taking your ball and going home. What Rand wrote about was fiction. There is no hidden valley to run to. Literally or figuratively.
I understand the concept has been done i.e slavery, but that's vastly different. Those people had literal chains on them and guards standing over them. It was their only form of resistance, token as it was. There obviously was no democratic solution from their standpoint. That ours is either being stolen or has already been stolen (our voting process has been corrupted and will be more so if anything resembling amnesty passes) is leaving us w/ little time and fewer options..
And please tell me how that course of action, pulling your money and productivity out of circulation, could possibly affect an entity that can create and print it's own money via fiat? You're hurting yourself more than them.
But I still hope to get the chance to stand w/ you when those 2d Amendment remedies are implemented.
-
No, folks, you're dead wrong. You're pulling your chips off the table and quitting the game. You're quitting on all the other citizens who want this to work and will eventually fight for it. You're taking your ball and going home. What Rand wrote about was fiction. There is no hidden valley to run to. Literally or figuratively.
And please tell me how that course of action, pulling your money and productivity out of circulation, could possibly affect an entity that can create and print it's own money via fiat? You're hurting yourself more than them.
But I still hope to get the chance to stand w/ you when those 2d Amendment remedies are implemented.
The "Game" as it were is over. We lost - a long time ago in fact. With the Income Tax Amendment. With the Popular vote of Senators. With FDR and the New Deal. If a 2nd Amendment remedy is forthcoming, I don't doubt that most here WILL stand with you, and we will be able to BECAUSE we have Gone Galt and are still independent of the government. Yes, we are taking the ball and going home.. but that doesn't mean we are throwing the ball away.. merely that we are unwilling to play ball when the rules are so F'd.
We can hurt the government by withdrawing effort because of the nature of money-- it is a symbol of value, but not value itself.. When nothing of value is created, there is nothing to loot. Print the money, and it becomes more meaningless - because it is backed by nothing- the government can't be productive. . You force the government into a situation where it must try to use the whips and chains, where it must overtly take from people that already have little, and it forces these jerks to understand who and what they are and to display it.
Under thecurrent system youcan be a chump or a looter, or withdraw. A chump still produces, and that bread is taken and given to those who didn't produce. It keeps them alive. Produce only enough for you and yours..and have the ability to prevent its being taken by force, and those slimy little toadies starve. I wish there was an armed rebellion going on, because it would be the better and faster way... but that is also forcing a rule change and refusing to play ball with the corrupocrats... Playing by the rules is no longer an option, and the more we demonstrate how inept and hopeless an blind faith in govt is, the faster we might get to a flash point- or not. I see no other option now other than to let the ship of State sink under the weight of the parasites - the rats, drowning the rats along with it. I suspect we will need water flooding the higher decks before enough people will take up arms against the rats, and by then, it will be too late to save the ship. We know how to build a life boat, how to swim and how to build a new Ship once the rats have gone down with the old one - but that means we need to be well clear of her when she goes down so we don't get sucked down after her.
-
It's a reality question and a moral question. If one decides to "go Gault" does one have the assets to maintain himself and his family for the rest of his life? If one does not then going Gault is a temporary existence between comfort and subsistence. Which puts the actor in the predicament of choosing suicide, total submission to government welfare, or working his way back into a financially stable situation - Which will be much more difficult than working from an already functional situation.
Going Gault also begs the moral question of allegiance. Allegiance to the Flag, the Constitution, and the grand and noble experiment the United States of America and all those who are still working in allegiance toward its success. Going Gault declares oneself a free agent and forgoes that allegiance to God and Country as one, and all those who do so swear.
The "play" is not over, we are merely in the opening scenes of the second act. How we play our parts will determine the outcome of the play.
-
No, folks, you're dead wrong. You're pulling your chips off the table and quitting the game. You're quitting on all the other citizens who want this to work and will eventually fight for it. You're taking your ball and going home. What Rand wrote about was fiction. There is no hidden valley to run to. Literally or figuratively.
And please tell me how that course of action, pulling your money and productivity out of circulation, could possibly affect an entity that can create and print it's own money via fiat? You're hurting yourself more than them.
But I still hope to get the chance to stand w/ you when those 2d Amendment remedies are implemented.
The "Game" as it were is over. We lost - a long time ago in fact. With the Income Tax Amendment. With the Popular vote of Senators. With FDR and the New Deal. If a 2nd Amendment remedy is forthcoming, I don't doubt that most here WILL stand with you, and we will be able to BECAUSE we have Gone Galt and are still independent of the government. Yes, we are taking the ball and going home.. but that doesn't mean we are throwing the ball away.. merely that we are unwilling to play ball when the rules are so F'd.
We can hurt the government by withdrawing effort because of the nature of money-- it is a symbol of value, but not value itself.. When nothing of value is created, there is nothing to loot. Print the money, and it becomes more meaningless - because it is backed by nothing- the government can't be productive. . You force the government into a situation where it must try to use the whips and chains, where it must overtly take from people that already have little, and it forces these jerks to understand who and what they are and to display it.
Under thecurrent system youcan be a chump or a looter, or withdraw. A chump still produces, and that bread is taken and given to those who didn't produce. It keeps them alive. Produce only enough for you and yours..and have the ability to prevent its being taken by force, and those slimy little toadies starve. I wish there was an armed rebellion going on, because it would be the better and faster way... but that is also forcing a rule change and refusing to play ball with the corrupocrats... Playing by the rules is no longer an option, and the more we demonstrate how inept and hopeless an blind faith in govt is, the faster we might get to a flash point- or not. I see no other option now other than to let the ship of State sink under the weight of the parasites - the rats, drowning the rats along with it. I suspect we will need water flooding the higher decks before enough people will take up arms against the rats, and by then, it will be too late to save the ship. We know how to build a life boat, how to swim and how to build a new Ship once the rats have gone down with the old one - but that means we need to be well clear of her when she goes down so we don't get sucked down after her.
This is the long and short of it.
Can't withdraw? No foul, Dan. We know you're ready to pull the lever when the time comes.
-
Fatalist.
-
Sounds to me like rent seeking trash trying to squeeze the little guys out of business.
I have mentioned how much I loath rent seeking trash, and the politicians that service them, haven't I?
This is exactly what is occuring. Like obama protecting unions. This is nothing fair or equal, its about diminishing my business and protecting those who grease the palms of corruption.The corruption runs so deep, so wide and the limits of corruption are removed when liberals take control. It's bad enough when conservatives control things, but I haven't met a liberal who had any regard for the "little guy".....Unless "little guy" equates to the people who are enslaved by the myriad of gov't programs, created by some perverted version of fairness.
I wait with baited breath the responses of the reps I e mailed.
-
It's a reality question and a moral question. If one decides to "go Gault" does one have the assets to maintain himself and his family for the rest of his life? If one does not then going Gault is a temporary existence between comfort and subsistence. Which puts the actor in the predicament of choosing suicide, total submission to government welfare, or working his way back into a financially stable situation - Which will be much more difficult than working from an already functional situation.
Going Gault also begs the moral question of allegiance. Allegiance to the Flag, the Constitution, and the grand and noble experiment the United States of America and all those who are still working in allegiance toward its success. Going Gault declares oneself a free agent and forgoes that allegiance to God and Country as one, and all those who do so swear.
The "play" is not over, we are merely in the opening scenes of the second act. How we play our parts will determine the outcome of the play.
I felt I "went gault" when I left my old position of relative safety and security to begin a new venture. I left because "the rules" were changing and if you don't want to play by them, then do something different. So I left.
Now, I'm faced with different rules, many which I knew and I accepted the challenge.....I didn't go in blind. I guess you could call it reality, but my reality is providing for my family and frankly, Ive done some dirty jobs in my life to provide and I've found avenues to "play within the rules" without sacrificing my morals. Corps do it every day...Its why we have no job growth and so much wealth overseas. Corruption within itself creates loopholes. Outs.
At some point, as I exhaust my avenues to deflect the advances of morally corrupt idiots, I may reach my crossroad and choose to "go gault" again, but personally, I don't know if I can just quit and sit tight with what I have (I do not consider selling...quitting....I'll just go a different direction) because I can't be a free agent.
I realize everyone has thier own decisions to make. I don't like what is happening any more than others do, but me, I need to fight the idiocy because I have a family who depends on me.
-
It's a reality question and a moral question. If one decides to "go Gault" does one have the assets to maintain himself and his family for the rest of his life? If one does not then going Gault is a temporary existence between comfort and subsistence. Which puts the actor in the predicament of choosing suicide, total submission to government welfare, or working his way back into a financially stable situation - Which will be much more difficult than working from an already functional situation.
Going Gault also begs the moral question of allegiance. Allegiance to the Flag, the Constitution, and the grand and noble experiment the United States of America and all those who are still working in allegiance toward its success. Going Gault declares oneself a free agent and forgoes that allegiance to God and Country as one, and all those who do so swear.
The "play" is not over, we are merely in the opening scenes of the second act. How we play our parts will determine the outcome of the play.
First, there is no "u" in Galt.
Second, such allegiance as described here belongs to those who believe in the collective, not the individual and is not relative to God in any way.
It must be frightening to some, who rely on government subsistence, the idea of individuals withdrawing their support from the looter utopia.
Some beds, once made, must be laid in.
-
...
You can't quit on a Republic that no longer exists. Washington, Jefferson, Hancock and the rest of the Founders took up arms to create a Republic-- and it was lost - long before I was born. Momentum has carried us another 100 years or so, but now there isn't room for honest men. . You can either beg for your table scraps from the Socialists, or you can drop out, and become a Neo-Hippie in the style Leary originally intended (only without the drugs)
Don, going Gault is dropping out, non participatory, non contributory, off the grid. You are not talking about that. What I hear is that your business is becoming so frustratingly burdened that you are seeking another avenue to participate, another business, a new venture. That's the opposite of Gault, it's staying in the game and kicking it up a notch - in your favor.
-
First, whether there is or is not a u in Gault is highly significant to the topic.
Second, in America God and Country under the Constitution are ONE and inseparable. This nation was not conceived as a collective, not written, nor ascribed as a collective the collective is the enemy.
Those who do participate and those who do not will receive portions equal to their effort.
-
First, whether there is or is not a u in Gault is highly significant to the topic.
No. Spell it correctly or do not use the reference.
Second, in America God and Country under the Constitution are ONE and inseparable. This nation was not conceived as a collective, not written, nor ascribed as a collective the collective is the enemy.
Then stop advocating for the good of the collective.
Those who do participate and those who do not will receive portions equal to their effort.
Again, no. You're counting on the contributions of those who do participate ~~ and do not go Galt ~~ to carry you, hence your urging of them who are so inclined to not drop out, aka not going Galt.
"Participation" in the current government scheme do not recommend for equal portions according to effort; it recommends for rewards equal to adhesion to the government scam. Crony capitalism = rent seeking.
-
Going Gault also begs the moral question of allegiance. Allegiance to the Flag, the Constitution, and the grand and noble experiment the United States of America and all those who are still working in allegiance toward its success. Going Gault declares oneself a free agent and forgoes that allegiance to God and Country as one, and all those who do so swear.
I do not understand how withdrawing my production in any way violates my duties as an American citizen. It, rather, seems consistent with my civic duty to resist tyranny. Nor does "Going Galt" mean that you quit working, or go live in a completely self-reliant way. I means only that you produce less.. I may choose to give up a 6 figure salary and forge a new business that makes 40-50K a year. With no mortgage, partial food production, and no electricity or heating bills, thats a lot of money. And I will pay next to nothing in taxes. Or are you arguing that paying taxes is patriotic? ::USA::
-
Don, going Gault is dropping out, non participatory, non contributory, off the grid. You are not talking about that. What I hear is that your business is becoming so frustratingly burdened that you are seeking another avenue to participate, another business, a new venture. That's the opposite of Gault, it's staying in the game and kicking it up a notch - in your favor.
And then they will close off those avenues as well.
Come a day there won't be room for naughty men like us to slip about at all. This job goes south, there well may not be another. So here is us, on the raggedy edge. Don't push me, and I won't push you - Malcolm Reynolds- Firefly
I know you don't think the war is lost yet, but you don't provide a very compelling case for why you believe that, or any of the rest of us should. Dagny Taggert refused to give in till the end too, thinking she could save her railroad, by making deals, by fighting. Rearden's trial shows you why that won't work.. because the government does not recognize your rights - to life,to property, to the pursuit of YOUR happiness, and so in the end, they will always be violated.
-
Neal Boortz made a good point yesterday in regards to the Casey Anthony trial that I think may translate to this discussion. I'll paraphrase as best I can.
Government has one "right" that no citizen has. Government has the right to take your life, your liberty, and your property, when it deems it has a compelling reason to do so. Under our system of laws, it must meet constitutional and legal criteria in order to deprive you of these things, but when those criteria are met, that power is absolute.
His point was that government wanted to kill Casey Anthony or take away her freedom, and standing as a bulwark against that power were twelve citizens constitutionally granted the power to deny government if it did not meet the criteria.
(This is me now, not Boortz) What we are increasingly seeing in government is a willingness to use its absolute power in ways not permitted by the constitution, not legal, and without the consent of the governed.
Taken to the extreme, if the government decided right now that your possessions are no longer yours; that you are not free to move about; or to take your life at the point of a gun - to whom would you appeal? Ask yourself, if a government is willing to engage in the threatening posture against the citizenry that we are currently witnessing on many fronts, what assurance do we have that our life, property, and liberty will not be directly threatened by that same government?
Don is facing oppression by a government against whom there is no realistic means of appeal. He can try - as he is - but in the end, if the government decides that he must comply with regulation or the power of government will be brought against him, then options for redress of grievances becomes a narrow set. He will have choices to make, and he will have to live with them.
At that point, I would say his duty to "society" as we understand it in the context of supporting free enterprise and his duty to himself and his family might be in conflict with one another. He is the one who will have to live with his choices. Society, after all, is what keeps placing government obstacles in his way every other November.
I am speaking of Don only because he is the direct example facing us now. But in Weisshaupt and others, we see anticipation and making preparations for the time when that decision will be forced.
I don't blame Charles a bit for wanting to hang in there. I've always been taught that optimism is a powerful force that can mold the future, and that what manifests in reality must first be conceived in the mind. If we had a nation of people whose majority insisted that the future we are being handed by this government is not destiny but a mere obstacle to be overcome on the path to constitutional government, I do not believe the government could possibly stand in the way. I see the Tea Party as a possible mechanism to change minds in that direction, so I do not lose hope.
In fact, I will not lose hope until the government begins killing citizens, placing citizens in prison without trial, or depriving citizens of their property without due process. On those last two, we see the most egregious transgressions, and that is why we are all agitated. Government seems to be quickly moving toward confiscating our property, and is chipping away at our liberty. But my hope is not gone while we are still free to resist peacefully and forcefully.
Likewise, I don't blame anyone else for feeling pressure to "bow out". When one believes ones efforts are increasingly fruitless and unappreciated, from where comes the motivation to continue? At what point is it ones duty to ones family to turn ones attention inward and make sure things are taken care of for ones own, society be damned?
I don't think there are any easy answers. Perhaps "expect the best and prepare for the worst" is the best we can do right now. I would modify that to "do whatever the hell we can to work against the worst, hold optimism for success, and prepare for the worst."
-
At that point, I would say his duty to "society" as we understand it in the context of supporting free enterprise and his duty to himself and his family might be in conflict with one another. He is the one who will have to live with his choices. Society, after all, is what keeps placing government obstacles in his way every other November.... I don't blame Charles a bit for wanting to hang in there. I've always been taught that optimism is a powerful force that can mold the future, and that what manifests in reality must first be conceived in the mind. ..In fact, I will not lose hope until the government begins killing citizens, placing citizens in prison without trial, or depriving citizens of their property without due process. On those last two, we see the most egregious transgressions, and that is why we are all agitated. Government seems to be quickly moving toward confiscating our property, and is chipping away at our liberty. But my hope is not gone while we are still free to resist peacefully and forcefully.
Well said and I don't disagree on any particular point.
I have been wrong enough times to not discount the possibility now, but the window for political solutions is nearly, if not completely closed. The ticking time bomb of the debt is still patiently waiting to go off, and the Tea Party cannot replace members of Congress fast enough to result in real changes to that situation. Optimism, while powerful, must be tempered by a sober reflection and understanding of reality, risk and consequences.
All of the events you describe have already come to pass: Citizens are being targeted for assignation (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html) without due process, the Kelo decision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London) gave the government unbridled capacity to deprive citizens of their property, and citizens are being placed in Jail without charges. (http://www.presstv.com/detail/182810.html)
Our ability to resist is going to depend on our ability to survive without the largess and structure of the Federal government. State Governments are and will hopefully increase playing their intended role in preventing Federal overreach - and that may result in a clash of arms and the beginning of a 2nd Amendment solution.. but the debt and the looming world war may allow the fed to circumvent that scenario, IF it arises. FDR was successful because he made Americans scared and desperate. I haven't given up hope.. only hope of a peaceful political solution or one that avoids the coming wave of debt, because I no longer see a path by which those can be accomplished, other than by the grace of God. As a result, we must incorporate those facts into our planning. Perhaps I am too fatalist in suggesting we have lost the war.. but we have lost this battle in it. We need to recognize that fact and plan our next moves in light of it. A great disruption in our way of life is coming - and we need to be ready to use that disruption to our advantage.
-
In fact, I will not lose hope until the government begins killing citizens, placing citizens in prison without trial, or depriving citizens of their property without due process. On those last two, we see the most egregious transgressions, and that is why we are all agitated. Government seems to be quickly moving toward confiscating our property, and is chipping away at our liberty. But my hope is not gone while we are still free to resist peacefully and forcefully.
As for the bolded, two points:
1) The SCOTUS' Kelo Decision, and
2) Obama's abrogating bankruptcy law in the GM case.
One can argue Kelo was due process, but was it really? Government can take over individual private property to give to another private corporate entity using the tax base as a justification? That's like Congress using the Commerce Clause to force people to buy insurance. Using that logic, what does the Commerce Clause not forbid? With Kelo, what individual will pay more taxes than a corporation, thereby making the individual lose the tax base argument every single time? Eminent Domain is bad enough; Kelo is legal thievery.
-
Going Gault also begs the moral question of allegiance. Allegiance to the Flag, the Constitution, and the grand and noble experiment the United States of America and all those who are still working in allegiance toward its success. Going Gault declares oneself a free agent and forgoes that allegiance to God and Country as one, and all those who do so swear.
I do not understand how withdrawing my production in any way violates my duties as an American citizen. It, rather, seems consistent with my civic duty to resist tyranny. Nor does "Going Galt" mean that you quit working, or go live in a completely self-reliant way. I means only that you produce less.. I may choose to give up a 6 figure salary and forge a new business that makes 40-50K a year. With no mortgage, partial food production, and no electricity or heating bills, thats a lot of money. And I will pay next to nothing in taxes. Or are you arguing that paying taxes is patriotic? ::USA::
Ah.....I have a better understanding of your thoughts now....I believed you were advocating "disappearing", completely off the grid, so to speak. I couldn't do it, even if I had the financial means....I'd dry up and die. It is not in my DNA and I do not believe it is in the DNA of most conservatives. Imo, I lose if I completely disappear.
Charles was also correct in I had become frustrated with my old positions burdensome, tired ideas. (Btw, they filed for bankruptcy) I've seen it before, business which goes from flexibility, fresh ideas in their field to a generic, one size fits all approach. It does not work in business...it does not work in gov't. I don't believe it works in interpreting "galt" either....LOL
In addition, Weisshaupt described to a tee my thought pattern. I had worked hard, saved money, didn't owe anyone and didn't need the aggravation of my ever changing title, especially in lite I know I can do something to be productive. I didn't need as much money to live, but driven to earn what I can because I will leave it to my family....They need the financial means to keep the fight going.....But I could easily live on less, create a situation where I didn't pay much in personal tax and give the finger to the gov't. Now, gov't sticks its nose in my business, again, with what else, more burdensome regulation, more prying into my life.......And has made my existence more difficult.
So I choose to "go galt" ( my definition) and take a different direction. I may need to do it again if we cannot stem this tide, but I can't quit, because I'd wither and that, my freinds, is when liberals win.
-
Ah.....I have a better understanding of your thoughts now....I believed you were advocating "disappearing", completely off the grid, so to speak. I couldn't do it, even if I had the financial means....I'd dry up and die. It is not in my DNA and I do not believe it is in the DNA of most conservatives. Imo, I lose if I completely disappear.
.... I had worked hard, saved money, didn't owe anyone and didn't need the aggravation of my ever changing title, especially in lite I know I can do something to be productive. I didn't need as much money to live, but driven to earn what I can because I will leave it to my family....
Disappearing is certainly an option if you can manage it. But most people can't - the big capital, however, can. It already has, and that is why there are no jobs. Why risk building more, providing more, when that makes you a target? Where are the Jobs? They are sitting in the sun soaked hand of some millionaire/billionaire on a beach somewhere. Or they are building elsewhere in the world.. not here.
I have lost the need to produce for others. Maybe I am becoming Wally from Dilbert.. the realization that the Government Debt was going to wipe out my savings for the last 20 years could be a factor. I can't ever retire now, the drawbridge to wealth is closed- you either have it now or you do not. You can buy influence or you can't . Wish I were on the other side of the bridge. I am not. I can b a looter, or a chump, ortry to balance in the middle.
-
Ah.....I have a better understanding of your thoughts now....I believed you were advocating "disappearing", completely off the grid, so to speak. I couldn't do it, even if I had the financial means....I'd dry up and die. It is not in my DNA and I do not believe it is in the DNA of most conservatives. Imo, I lose if I completely disappear.
.... I had worked hard, saved money, didn't owe anyone and didn't need the aggravation of my ever changing title, especially in lite I know I can do something to be productive. I didn't need as much money to live, but driven to earn what I can because I will leave it to my family....
Disappearing is certainly an option if you can manage it. But most people can't - the big capital, however, can. It already has, and that is why there are no jobs. Why risk building more, providing more, when that makes you a target? Where are the Jobs? They are sitting in the sun soaked hand of some millionaire/billionaire on a beach somewhere. Or they are building elsewhere in the world.. not here.
I have lost the need to produce for others. Maybe I am becoming Wally from Dilbert.. the realization that the Government Debt was going to wipe out my savings for the last 20 years could be a factor. I can't ever retire now, the drawbridge to wealth is closed- you either have it now or you do not. You can buy influence or you can't . Wish I were on the other side of the bridge. I am not. I can b a looter, or a chump, ortry to balance in the middle.
I don't consider the big capital "disappearing" because it moved to a better neighborhood, it did not go away, just moved to a hipper place. We all do what we believe is best. If big capital didn't re locate, most of us would be sitting here with retirement accounts in more shambles than they are now. If we, as individuals, do not invest in emerging markets,even if it is on a much smaller scale, we are not learning the lesson big capital learned.
You don't need to be a looter or a chump. You may not be able to physically move, but you have moves you can make. Maybe balance in the middle equates to moving your money from out of failed institutions and ideals, I don't know, but in the end you certainly are not producing for others, at least here in America.
-
Washington, Jefferson, Hancock and the rest of the Founders took up arms to create a Republic-- and it was lost - long before I was born.
The original intent of the Founders was to preserve the rights of Englishmen and not start a new republic. It ended up being that ---which as history has taught us --what is intended is often not what occurs.
-
I don't consider the big capital "disappearing" because it moved to a better neighborhood, it did not go away, just moved to a hipper place. We all do what we believe is best. If big capital didn't re locate, most of us would be sitting here with retirement accounts in more shambles than they are now. If we, as individuals, do not invest in emerging markets,even if it is on a much smaller scale, we are not learning the lesson big capital learned.
You don't need to be a looter or a chump. You may not be able to physically move, but you have moves you can make. Maybe balance in the middle equates to moving your money from out of failed institutions and ideals, I don't know, but in the end you certainly are not producing for others, at least here in America.
Actually I bet there is a lot of Capital onthe sidelines at the moment - or like my IRA, being funneled into assets that are not really "investments" in the the classical sense. The "rich" may decide to buy an Island, and then prep it - using the money they would have otherwise put into a business. Granted their prep is driving economic production, but like government spending, that prep is transient, and doesn't create an on going concern, jobs, etc. Its a little better than stuffing your mattress with money, but not much. Where captial has relocated it has done so largely because of the uncertain business envrionment, and growing corruption. Why bribe to do business in America, when you can bribe officials in South America with less risk, and a cheaper work force?
There isn't a place in the world now where the Looters don't hold sway - just the degree and the methods differ - and many will prefer to give money directly to looters as bribes vs. the more risky and round about methods in use here. Bottom line, you are a chump no matter where you go now to produce.. its just a question of how much of a chump are you willing to be? As was pointed out.. there is no Galt's Gulch to run to.
-
The original intent of the Founders was to preserve the rights of Englishmen and not start a new republic. It ended up being that ---which as history has taught us --what is intended is often not what occurs.
I respectfully disagree. Our revolution and Constitution didn't just "happen" and they were not the unintended consequence of a quest to preserve the rights of Englishmen.
They were the result of a long and thoughtful deliberation and a decision to "quit" the old nation and start a new one. That was the point of the Declaration of Independence and the reason that its passage was so controversial and difficult - it was an agreement to change the goal - to make the objective the creation of a free and independant State based on the prinicples of Limited Government, Government by Consent, and inalienable rights, and to give up on a peaceful/political solution in which the political system and existing loyalties were preserved. The conclusion that this was the path that must be taken, and that the costs were worth paying came sooner to some than to others. Many have remarked on how miraculous those events were, and I think it is sheer Hubris to expect a repeat of them, though God willing, I certainly pray for it. .
-
The original intent of the Founders was to preserve the rights of Englishmen and not start a new republic. It ended up being that ---which as history has taught us --what is intended is often not what occurs.
I respectfully disagree. Our revolution and Constitution didn't just "happen" and they were not the unintended consequence of a quest to preserve the rights of Englishmen.
They were the result of a long and thoughtful deliberation and a decision to "quit" the old nation and start a new one. That was the point of the Declaration of Independence and the reason that its passage was so controversial and difficult - it was an agreement to change the goal - to make the objective the creation of a free and independant State based on the prinicples of Limited Government, Government by Consent, and inalienable rights, and to give up on a peaceful/political solution in which the political system and existing loyalties were preserved. The conclusion that this was the path that must be taken, and that the costs were worth paying came sooner to some than to others. Many have remarked on how miraculous those events were, and I think it is sheer Hubris to expect a repeat of them, though God willing, I certainly pray for it. .
It depends entirely upon where on the history timeline one places a marker. Our founders didn't just up and decide it was time for a new independent government. They suffered a long train of abuses and usurpations before there was an inkling of consensus upon a new nation. They were just men before they were "founders". At a point in time before they decided to band together and declare independence from the King and an intent to form a new nation, they just were just men who wanted the King to stop trampling their rights, dignity, and English common law.
-
It depends entirely upon where on the history timeline one places a marker. Our founders didn't just up and decide it was time for a new independent government. They suffered a long train of abuses and usurpations before there was an inkling of consensus upon a new nation. They were just men before they were "founders". At a point in time before they decided to band together and declare independence from the King and an intent to form a new nation, they just were just men who wanted the King to stop trampling their rights, dignity, and English common law.
True. John Adams successfully defended the six Boston Massacre lobsterbacks on trial for murder, and was vilified for doing so, even though he viewed his trial work as "one of the most gallant, generous, manly and disinterested Actions of my whole Life, and one of the best Pieces of Service I ever rendered my Country."
But it must be said, the colonials didn't like paying taxes (wow, now there's a novel concept). The Crown was taxing the Colonies due to the cost of protecting them from not only all the native Indians roaming about creating havoc, but also protecting them from the French; the cost in using the British Navy to protect American shipping wasn't cheap, either. I think if the Colonies had been allocated MP's in Parliament, they would not have been able to use that rallying cry, 'No taxation without representation!' But because the colonials felt they had no say in their governance as they were voiceless in Parliament and the Crown appointed all the Royal Governors, we ended up where we are.
-
Frodo: I can't do this, Sam.
Sam: I know. It's all wrong. By rights we shouldn't even be here. But we are. It's like in the great stories, Mr. Frodo. The ones that really mattered. Full of darkness and danger, they were. And sometimes you didn't want to know the end. Because how could the end be happy? How could the world go back to the way it was when so much bad had happened? But in the end, it's only a passing thing, this shadow. Even darkness must pass. A new day will come. And when the sun shines it will shine out the clearer. Those were the stories that stayed with you. That meant something, even if you were too small to understand why. But I think, Mr. Frodo, I do understand. I know now. Folk in those stories had lots of chances of turning back, only they didn't. They kept going. Because they were holding on to something.
Frodo: What are we holding onto, Sam?
Sam: That there's some good in this world, Mr. Frodo... and it's worth fighting for.
-
Frodo: I can't do this, Sam.
Sam: I know. It's all wrong. By rights we shouldn't even be here. But we are. It's like in the great stories, Mr. Frodo. The ones that really mattered. Full of darkness and danger, they were. And sometimes you didn't want to know the end. Because how could the end be happy? How could the world go back to the way it was when so much bad had happened? But in the end, it's only a passing thing, this shadow. Even darkness must pass. A new day will come. And when the sun shines it will shine out the clearer. Those were the stories that stayed with you. That meant something, even if you were too small to understand why. But I think, Mr. Frodo, I do understand. I know now. Folk in those stories had lots of chances of turning back, only they didn't. They kept going. Because they were holding on to something.
Frodo: What are we holding onto, Sam?
Sam: That there's some good in this world, Mr. Frodo... and it's worth fighting for.
Well, as long as we're going there...
aragorn's speech (LOTR) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqI-cjYBG3Q#)
-
Transitioning back to the overarching gloominess of the thread
comes a video from an arch liberal and Carter cabinet member
talking about the potential for a worsening economic situation
and violent reaction. Not many libbers allow this perspective to
cross their lips. (Yes is is also full of libber claptrap)
Zbigniew Brzezinski: We're going to slide into intensified social conflicts (radicalism) July 2011 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjfRAP8hFOU#ws)
A Comment:
The elites have a rule: They must tell us what they are going to do before they do it. Brzezinski is one of? these elites, wake up people! As much as I dislike this guy I always listen carefully to what he says. There are layers of information in his speech. He is very intelligent and cunning. Pay close attention everyone, its time to prepare!
~~
It's not a rule it's part of their compulsive disorder.
-
The Left, setting the table.
-
a video from an arch liberal and Carter cabinet member
talking about the potential for a worsening economic situation
and violent reaction. Not many libbers allow this perspective to
cross their lips.
Oh Woe! Its so unfair that people wo work make money while the people who don't get poorer!
Gotta love how they blame Conservative policies for the the growing disparity and coming violence and then transititon to talking about Europe and the unrest there--- Yeah it was those conservative policies in the Europe that caused the Greek default!
Musket to the Junk for all of them .
-
a video from an arch liberal and Carter cabinet member
talking about the potential for a worsening economic situation
and violent reaction. Not many libbers allow this perspective to
cross their lips.
Oh Woe! Its so unfair that people wo work make money while the people who don't get poorer!
Gotta love how they blame Conservative policies for the the growing disparity and coming violence and then transititon to talking about Europe and the unrest there--- Yeah it was those conservative policies in the Europe that caused the Greek default!
Musket to the Junk for all of them .
Being a batsh*t crazy leftist means never having to answer for your insanity, illogic, hyperbole, duplicity, lying, stealing, cheating, hypocrisy...
Well, you the picture...
::)
:P
::gaah::
::rockets::
-
... and that stupid smug skank calling the Leftist commie "dad" makes me wanna hurl. I knew she was a Leftist, but I'm ashamed to say I never put 2 and 2 together as far as the last name.
-
... and that stupid smug skank calling the Leftist commie "dad" makes me wanna hurl. I knew she was a Leftist, but I'm ashamed to say I never put 2 and 2 together as far as the last name.
Come on, IDP. You actually thought that "stupid smug (Leftist) skank" got that job based on her talent?
Yo momma raised you smarter than that . .
(snort)
-
" .... a sense that this is not a just society ..... this is a society of discrimination."
"The Tea Party is ..... a party that, in effect, argues for the perpetuation of this sort of injustice."
::gaah::
-
Yeah, BS! That kind of bold face lying makes me really wanna kick the hell out of someone!
::rockethrow::
-
Why didn't he stay in Poland during the glory years under the thumb of Soviet communism?
-
All I hear is BLAH BLAH BLAH over and over again social this and social that ::puke::
-
Why didn't he stay in Poland during the glory years under the thumb of Soviet communism?
Where the real "discrimination" actually existed that he opines against here. He's become enstupidated and blind to the fact that this country is now run solely for the benefit of Blacks, muslims, "hispanics" and illegals and it's arrogant Whites like him that are responsible.
-
All I hear is BLAH BLAH BLAH over and over again social this and social that ::puke::
Yep. About 3 min was all I could stand without getting violently ill. ::puke::