Dumocracy rules!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Zakath

Resident Atheist
Originally posted by Gerald

Oh dear. You must not have heard. Ginny passed away not long ago. :cry:
No I hadn't heard. Looks like it was January of last year. :(

Show how long it's been since I haunted the Heinlein fan Usenet groups ...

So much to do, so little time. :)
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by Gerald

Small problem: the way I framed the question, you are not in a position to make the call regarding guilt or innocence; those further up the chain may have information that you don't have. And since this regime is run from the top down, those higher up are not obliged to justify their decisions to those below.

So, I ask again: based on the information you have, and your position in the hierarchy, do you obey your orders?
I missed this reply completely. Sorry.

Oh, if I don't know, then I would obey. What I sell now could be used to murder someone. I wouldn't be responsible for the murder, though. So what's your point?
 

Behira

New member
Democray is not the founding fathers idea; it was orignally a Republic of Democracy; a Representative Gov't of the STates; not one man one vote; Democracy is one step closer to Socialism; and then totarialism. The origianl form of gov't has been errored prior to your birth.
 

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Originally posted by Behira

Democray is not the founding fathers idea; it was orignally a Republic of Democracy; a Representative Gov't of the STates; not one man one vote; Democracy is one step closer to Socialism; and then totarialism. The origianl form of gov't has been errored prior to your birth.
But a Republic is hardly a million miles from a Democracy. In fact it's only about 1/2 of a step.
 

elected4ever

New member
Jefferson
But a Republic is hardly a million miles from a Democracy. In fact it's only about 1/2 of a step.
:nono:

e4e ---- Not so! A republic is a nation of law equally applied regardless of the will of the majority. A democracy bends at the will of the majority at the expense of equal justice under the law. There is a tremendous difference between the two. :doh:
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
e4e, your pretty funny. You don't think the majority will just elect the people that give them what they want?
 

elected4ever

New member
Yorzhik
e4e, your pretty funny. You don't think the majority will just elect the people that give them what they want?

e4e---------- That is the problem. The constitution put limits on the power of government to change the rules. The government disregarded the limitations and the people approved of the changes the government unconstitutionally made because there pockets were lined at the expense of the taxpayer. The average American citizen likes the idea of being wards of the state. The people and the government are are lawless and that with the approval of the church which is also lawless. I guess democracy is a good word then in that a democracy is basically lawless.
 

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Originally posted by elected4ever
The government disregarded the limitations and the people approved of the changes the government unconstitutionally made . . .
Which proves my point: There is only 1/2 of a step between a Republic and a Democracy. All you have to do is look at the results.
 

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Originally posted by elected4ever

So, the hijacking of the American government by the socialist and fascist is acceptable to you Jefferson?
Of course not. I'm in favor of a Constitutional Monarchy with the Bible being the basis of the constitution. This would (among many other things) codify a flat income tax of no more than 9% since I Samuel 8 considers a 10% tax to be tyrannical. This, by the way, is a much less socialist tax rate than your beloved Republican form of government imposes on you every year.
 

elected4ever

New member
Jefferson
Of course not. I'm in favor of a Constitutional Monarchy

e4e ----- That is what you have now.

Jefferson
with the Bible being the basis of the constitution.

e4e --------You may have to wait a while on that part.

Jefferson
This would (among many other things) codify a flat income tax of no more than 9% since I Samuel 8 considers a 10% tax to be tyrannical.

e4e-------- there is no constitutional authority for a personal income tax of any Kind. There is no justification for an income tax, PERIOD!

Jefferson
This, by the way, is a much less socialist tax rate than your beloved Republican form of government imposes on you every year.

e4e ------- Please do not associate the republic with these socialist and fascist taxes.
 

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Originally posted by elected4ever
there is no constitutional authority for a personal income tax of any Kind. There is no justification for an income tax, PERIOD!
How are interstate highways supposed to be funded? How is national defense supposed to be funded?
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
e4e, just to let you know, as Milton Friedman, Walter Williams, and Thomas Sowell will tell you - there is only one tax, and that is the income tax. Despite what the constitution says, reality says that the income tax is the tax we should be using if we want to tax fairly.
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Well do tell, which sect might that be... yours I suppose?
Which is the most correct? How would you evaluate that?

If your deity's Law is so clear then why do you one billion or so Christians have such great difficulty coming to consensus on precisely what it actually is? If it was so all-fired important you'd think your deity could manage to make it perfectly clear to at least a majority of you...
Because the majority of Christians would prefer to not understand God. If you ever read the law, I'll bet *you* could understand it.

So your only example is from a book of fairy tales? Well it's comforting to know that you have so much hard evidence to back up your claims...
Ummm... nice obfuscation. I'll answer you when you go back answer what I actually wrote.

You think you talk to deities too...
Huh?

The constitution, as I have said several times, is not the same as the legal code.
It's the foundation of the legal code. Isn't the foundation at least enough to *start* with? Sheesh.

Why won't you people put the actual text of your legal code out for public discussion? According to Jefferson, all Enyart has produced is an outline...
Like I said, I'm answering rather directly, aren't I? Aren't these forums text out for public discussion? Again, I think you protest too much.

Based on what I've seen in other volunteer organizations it might also make a serious impact on the amount of time and consideration the "volunteer" was willing to spend on their task.
Right. That's my point.

I think you and yours should talk to people who have actually lived in a society with the kind peonage you are proposing. I think you'd find it is not as wonderful as you suppose...
That would be a good thing to check out. Where I do find such a society?

But the underlying basis for re-introducing slavery is to be consistent with "God's Law". If that is the case then then the basis is religious, not civil.
First, slavery has a specific understanding here in the US, and that is slavery for life based on skin color. So to separate that kind of slavery and the kind of slavery SG would propose, we use a different term. That being "indentured servitude". Please don't confuse things on purpose.

The basis isn't just to be consistent with God's law. It is also based on having a fair society. Since the King probably won't care what God thinks, but since we would expect him to follow the law (one would hope he would see the benefit to himself and his kingdom of not having anarchy), then we can properly call it a civil matter.

Where? I 15 miles from a city with one of the highest murder rates in the world. The area in which I live are not experiencing "low crime" times...
I was talking about back when the country was first founded and most of the maturely settled areas were "low crime".

You're placing an awful lot of childrens' futures on what you hope might happen...

When it doesn't happen, what then?
Dude, you place to much weight on minor speculation. What if NO ONE in the United States can get a job, what then? What if all the nursing mothers run dry, what then? What if everyone feels like being mean, what then? What if no one can find a way to cope, what then?

Look, everyone can find a way to survive if they try. Besides, the government can't help even if it wanted to.

I don't know, since your Criminal Code is not available for view, I don't know what you would consider crimes sufficient for loss of custody...
Guess. I'm only asking because I don't think you understand my side of the argument. And here's a hint to help you out. “The ten commandments.” Now, mind you, that's only a hint, so don't take that as the sum total of the law.
 

elected4ever

New member
Yorzhik
e4e, just to let you know, as Milton Friedman, Walter Williams, and Thomas Sowell will tell you - there is only one tax, and that is the income tax. Despite what the constitution says, reality says that the income tax is the tax we should be using if we want to tax fairly.

e4e.-------- Each of these use a socialist model of wealth redistribution. Like Robin Hood. Steal from the rich to subsidize the the unproductive dredge of society. The American model, give it to me because I deserve it regardless if my choices state otherwise. The socialist model steel from Harry to pay Paul regardless if Paul needs his income to support his family. Socialist economics is a race to the bottom and cannot be sustained. In other words commit legal theft.
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Each of these use a socialist model of wealth redistribution.
:darwinsm:

I just don't know how to answer! You're so 180 degrees out that I can't believe it. Please pause in this conversation and read a bit. There is enough on the internet for you to get an idea how much these 3 propose a socialist model.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top