[delchiante]

I recall someone saying 1871 after the civil war is a turning point. Turning a republic with sovereign citizens into a corporation with employees and assets owned by world banks.

And their premise is what this nation has been since is a servant/slaves to its owners, its debtors-the world bankers..’not the people’

Not just symbolic terms like democrats claim every election, but real, allodial title terms. Owned. And the reps elected work for the corporation, not the people..

Now that may be too wild or deep a conversation but it would explain a lot..

[ForYourChildren]

I have heard this discussion and am somewhat in agreement with it.

[x]

That had to do with the closing of the frontier. Free land fills up with people and subsistence living looks less attractive. At some point people redefine that kind of freedom as poverty, and it no longer becomes an attractive option.

After the frontier filled up, the freedom Daniel Boone had to just move on when he saw somebody's fireplace smoke on the horizon disappeared. Many farmers went heavily into debt. Others took factory or office jobs. Others tried to live at public expense.

It also has a lot to do with widening the franchise. When everybody has the vote, it's likely that people will use their vote to get stuff for themselves at others' expense (this was going on even before that, but on a much smaller scale).

What I'm trying to say is that even if the Civil War never happened or even if the other side won, we wouldn't be living in some kind of libertarian utopia now. Government would still have a lot of power and so would those bankers you object to.