Replies

OneWingedShark previously commented, "Also note, I've not said anything about the welfare state — that would be resolved by the move to a physically-based currency and limitation on the amount of debt that could be assumed and so becomes a non-issue in light of such an amendment.

I forgot to address this comment in my previous response..

I do not see how the welfare state would at all be "resolved" by 1) a move to a physically-based currency, and/or 2) limitation on the amount of debt assumed.

Neither having a currency based on physical asset, nor any limit to debt would at all effect the welfare state in any way. These are both falsehoods, based on.. I-don't-know-what.

The only thing that would directly affect that welfare state is to get the government out of exercising 'agendas" whatsoever by limiting the government exclusively to the enumerated powers. Those enumerated powers do not provide for a welfare state, and do not allow government to write Any LAWS directly applicable to the citizenry of the several States. This would prohibit a slate of federal laws now wrongly deemed above and beyond state laws, prohibit "hate crime" legislation, and would prohibit the EPA, FDA, DOI, USDA, and a host of tyrannous government agencies from acting on the people themselves.

And it would prohibit anyone in the government from pronouncing that they would make the price of energy "necessarily skyrocket". There would be no federal authority to advance the corrupt fabrication of anthropogenic "Climate Change", even having the ignorance to declare CO2 a pollutant.

However the Article V proponents entirely IGNORE those existing enumerated powers, instead implicitly validating unrestrained government operating outside the prescribed limits of those powers by their proposed amendments. That is unconscionable, exceedingly ignorant and creates an unrecoverable destruction to our Liberty.

Thereby we "the people", from the actions of those "delegates", a bunch of unknown and unelected buffoons, would have our implied consent, yet nowhere provided and often contrary to our will. What a Convention of the States is a sure-fire cure for is finding cause for bloody, violent revolution, wherein those delegates themselves are the enemy. (I do not believe it a coincidence that the map for Jade Helm 15 indicates red areas of the southwest to be "hostile" or "insurgent", and these corresponding to areas more likely to reject fundamental changes to the Constitution.)

There's no direct correlation whatsoever between the existence of a welfare state and the currency not being tied to a commodity. Furthermore, if the government just accumulates more debt (under that welfare state), it will then demand ever-more taxes. And you seem okay to shackle our employment wages with that debt, harnessed slaves pulling along that the welfare state with our every breath.

There should be no taxation on personal labor wages whatsoever. Taxation on income from properties or investments are another story.

Neither having a currency based on physical asset, nor any limit to debt would at all effect the welfare state in any way. These are both falsehoods, based on.. I-don't-know-what.

By basing your currency on a physical item you necessarily constrain the maximum availability to that which exists and the difficulty of obtaining the material — scarcity is exactly that realization.
If the amount of debt which can be accumulated is tied to the amount of that physical commodity, then the amount which can come into welfare is necessarily constrained.

However the Article V proponents entirely IGNORE those existing enumerated powers, instead implicitly validating unrestrained government operating outside the prescribed limits of those powers by their proposed amendments. That is unconscionable, exceedingly ignorant and creates an unrecoverable destruction to our Liberty.

Really?
If, for example, the courts usurp the power to regulate intrastate commerce and it becomes entrenched into the legal-system to such a degree that it becomes enshrined into laws — how does one turn that back? Especially when the tainted poison has been accepted to all branches of the government and dissenting views are essentially denied because it lacks standing. (Shut up, peon: the constitution means what we say it does! Get back in line and quit rocking the boat!)

There's no direct correlation whatsoever between the existence of a welfare state and the currency not being tied to a commodity.

But there is a correlation between incurring debt to support welfare and the welfare state. Granted, if you limit what is spent on welfare to payable income you can have some sort of welfare state, but limited… but having an actual limit keeps means that some welfare program cannot be expanded to the "unsustainable" proportions that define a welfare state. In that manner limiting the amount of debt, and the currency, constrains the beast that is welfare.