Posted on 04/23/2004 4:12:04 AM PDT by Remember_Salamis
Many Americans have done this (abandoned their beliefs about property etc.). Not a majority of them, but enough to cause the rest of us problems.
Recently a local Amish guy petitioned the local govt for the ability to start a kennel on his farm. Why you need a permit to raise dogs on farming land you already farm on, I don't know. A local busybody or two decided that this Amish farmer must want to start a "puppy mill" and showed up and opposed him.
Consider a serf: He worked the land. The Lord each year could say how much of the produce of the serf's land that he would take. Now think about our tax system. My assessment has just gone up. The Lord (the County in this case) has just said how many of my dollars (which are limited) that they will take this year.
Take a look at how serfs (who worked the land) were treated in the Ottoman Empire for an eye opener.
There is physical property that one can own in the United States, but don't pay the taxes on your real estate (for whatever reason say an extended hospital stay) and see how long you "own" it. Incidentally, there is no requirement in some state that the Post Office forward your tax notices.
Interesting. According to free traders regulations are a burden. Here we have both sides agreeing that regulation does provide some benefit. Only the amount is disputed. But, since most free traders use gov. statistics to prove their point, perhaps now they will go against those very same statistics and claim that regulation is only harmful.
While I do understand that there is some burden on the economy from these regulations, I would rather there be some control rather than let human nature have free rein over the economy. Anarchy in business would be just as bad as anarchy in government.
More than likely it's not the P.O. that does not forward the document. That is the prerogative of the sender. Unless specifically noted otherwise, all may is forwarded if you set it up that way.
Like regulations which prevent children from stepping from boulder to boulder along a beach ("No climbing allowed")
Or what about new regulations to "stay off" of a neighborhood school's playing fields because they are now prepped, so that they can be used by organized teams? Children in one of our local elementary schools could not use their field at recess time for at least a year, while it was being "improved." I'm not sure if they can use it now.
Over the past two decades, brand new "No fishing from the pier" signs have popped up in areas where my kids used to fish.
It could be said, for example, that that town's "no fishing" regulation benefits the economy, since people who want to fish in that general area now need to rent or buy a boat.
But the cost to the kids' childhoods is hard to calculate.
I think it is somewhat reminiscent of serfs having to get the medieval lord's permission before doing anything.
Oh, I would say the majotity have abandonded their beliefs about property.
For examples the minimum wage law, American with Disability Act, mandatory x-ray equipment to be purchased by airlines, and parts of the Patriot Act requiring banks to hire an individual soley to monitor bank transactions, all violate the 5th amendment.
"...nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."
In addition, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, the "commerce clause" has been so blatantly and illogically expanded by rogue, anti-constitutionalist, socialist Supreme Court judges, especially from the infamous 1942 case of Wickard v Fillmore, that no citizen ever questions the jurisdiction of the federal government to regulate "private property" much less that those same regulations violate the Bill of Rights.
Why do almost all citizens assume that federal gender, age, race, sexual orientation and religious anti-discrimination laws placed on business', which are "private property," have jurisdiction and also assume that those same regulations do not violate the rights of these "private property" owners when these laws require them not to use those criteria as a reason to invite individuals onto their private property as employees?
The 9th amendment protects each citizens right to be discriminatory as to whom they wish to invite onto their "private property."
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The "people" are the private owners of stock certificates, purchased with their private property, their money, to share private ownership of a business with other private citizens.
When and how did this arrangement become "public?"
Most citizens would object, vehemently, to their federal government "regulating" their home by stating that it is unlawful for you to refuse the entry of any person into your home for reasons of gender, age, race, sexual orientation, and religion.
But, by using conventional logic and wisdom of the jurisdiction of the "commerce clause," your home is subject to such jurisdiction. It is not "private property," as most would assume, but it is "public property."
The reason your home is "public property" is because most homes have a mortgage associated with them. That mortgage is usually held by a financial institution engage in "interstate commerce."
Subsequently, these finacial institutions, engaged in "interstate commerce" are the "real" owners of most citizens homes and are subject to the jurisdiction of laws enacted under the guise of the "commerce clause."
Granted, this jurisdictional scenario for federal regulation of your home has not been fully enacted yet, but it is only a matter of time until the final de-sensitizing of baby boomers, gen-X, and future generations to abandonment of private property to the "commerce clause."
The socialist will then have complete victory.
So, do you see the illogical and socialist definitions that almost all Americans have accepted about what is private property and public property, with the net effect that they have indeed "abandon(ed) their beliefs about property and freedom."
The desensitivation of people must occur over gradually, except in really unusual cirucumstances, (i.e., 9-11). The powers that be have spent quite a bit of time working on the children of this land. I'm sure you've read about the insane methods that schools have adopted in their quest to enforce 'zero tolerance' policies. This is getting children used to authority figures having absolute, arbitrary, capricious power over them.
We've had metal detectors in airports for a few decades now, and they are now in the schools as well - a visible reminder of who has the power, and who does not, that must be traversed each day the children attend school. We have, in the past several years seen the use of metal detectors expand greatly, and now we've come to the point where we see them in many other government buildings as well. We have to protect the safety of the ruling class from the lowly serfs don't you know? In the wake of 9-11-2001, we've seen airport securty be raised to levels of idiocy that defies all logic, when the simpler solution would be to simply encourage the citizens of this country to bear their own arms for their defense. At the very least, pilots, most of whom are ex-military, should be given blanket permission to arm themselves.
The problem with either of these solutions, however, is that they would empower the serf. Above all else, it is this that the ruling class will fight more ferocously than anything.
One might think that the recent trends regarding concealed carry laws is a positive sign that bucks this trend of continual serf disempowerment. I suppose in some ways it does, as it reinforces the concept of personal responsibility - certainly not a goal of FedGov or any of the several subsidiary StateGovs out there. There are a few of the things that bother be about CCW laws though.
First, every state that has allowed CCW licenses have placed significant barriers to entry for what should be a natural God-given right, (as it is in Vermont and Alaska). A "license" is a state grant of permission to do that which would otherwise be unlawful. Therefore, the state has, by default won the argument as to the nature of the "right", and has converted it (unlawfully IMO) into a priviledge. A priviledge that must be paid for and renewed on a periodic basis.
Second, many americans have fought for years against gun registration schemes. It would seem that the states that have adopted the CCW regulations have now, in hand, a list of the people with the most interest invested in the right. If I were a conspiratorily minded fellow, I might just think about this and go "Hmmmmm".
There is more of course, but I really need to get busy again. :-)
That's for sure.
Who are the Value Producers?
Who are the Value Destroyers?
Who is the host?
Who is the Parasite?
What protection do value producers need? When a value producer has been harmed he or she needs to take the suspect before an impartial jury in order to gain restitution for his loss and suffering.
As for industry participants, they have a mutual benefit in setting codes for each respective industry and those that intertwine. Where ISO900 serves industries well Underwriter's Laboratory and similar serve consumers well. Industry participants have a need for redress when a party to a contract has not fulfilled their part of the contract.
Today a person can know for certain that if a person, group of persons or government causes them harm and or suffering that they have a need to take the criminal or parasite before an impartial jury. In that forum the victim can do his or her best to convince the impartial jury that he was harmed and to what extent suffered due to the criminal or parasites actions against him.
A bit of rhetoric serves well: how is it that for several decades, if not the past 150 years, people and society have prospered and flourished despite seventy-five years ago neither the value producer nor society had the laws and regulations of the 1990's to protect them? How is it that people and society prospered and flourished in the 1980's without the new laws and regulations enacted in just the first three years to the twenty-first century? How is it that we flourish and continue to prosper this year without next year's new laws and regulations?
Conversely, how could the value destroying politicians and bureaucrats have been able to expand government to leviathan size -- usurping ever more and larger unearned paychecks -- if not by parasitically leaching off the life-blood backs/efforts of the value producers?
The value creators and producers of the world need to be left alone to go about living their lives as they see fit. And on the rare occurrence that they are attacked -- have force, threat of force or fraud foisted upon them -- have at their disposal a court and impartial jury.
That's it. For certain, politicians and bureaucrats are not better equipped than the value producers at benefiting individuals and society. To the contrary, if not for the value producers and their efforts politicians, bureaucrats and other parasites would perish.
By far, the most important function/responsibility and primary focus of government is to protect individuals life and property from terrorist attacks and other parasites that initiate force, threat of force and fraud.
Going forward from 2,500 years ago -- from the Golden Age of Greece -- history shows whose creative, productive efforts advanced technology to most benefit his fellow man. They are the Value Producers.
The parasites are those that have lived off the value producers' efforts. For without the value producer and his efforts parasites would have no host to leach from. Or, at the very least, perish when the value producers realized that which was slowly draining the lifeblood from them and refused to sell or trade their goods, services, technology advances and art to parasites. Scorning them in the process -- akin to pouring salt on a leach.
The bottom line: value producers have almost always lived up to their part of the contract; politicians, bureaucrats and other parasites have severely defaulted on their part of the contract. Despite monumental advances in creating a constitutional representative republic form of government, politicians and bureaucrats have increasingly defaulted on their part of the contract. In the process they have facilitated increasing the number of "small-time" parasites.
The goal is to identify the value producers and drive a wedge between them and the value destroyers. In order to successfully do that the responsibility of each party to the contract must be clearly defined and articulated.
The value producers commits to leaving people alone to go about their own business -- accepting mutual associations as history has proven occur in the natural course of going about one's own business.
Government employees commit to the primary focus/responsibility to protect individuals and property from terrorist attacks and other parasites that initiate harm, threat of harm and fraud.
The biggest "hammer" for driving the wedge between the value producers and value destroyers is to abolish the IRS and implement a consumption tax--NRST.
If the terrorist parasites win, we die!
Excellent point. In the middle ages, everything - the forest, the land, the animals - all belonged to the king. If you so much as snared a rabbit on his land, you'd be hung.
It's the same thing today, when the gov't tells us that people can't pick up a rock, or a piece of driftwood, or dried sticks from a national park. We consider ourselves "lucky" to be able to hunt or fish on our own private land, but if the eco-wackos had it their way, we wouldn't even be able to do that.
Yeah, didn't we realize that the founding fathers put the interstate commerce clause in just so the federal government would have the totalitarian power it requires to operate a fair and just society?
Although that clause is the mechanism, I would also say that one of the real methods by which government is gradually stealing our liberty is by taking responsibility for our lives, in every aspect. It's done with benefits and "entitlements," bequeathed in the name of fairness. However, these entitlements are chains, every bit as surely as any other historical model of authority.
Down here in South Florida we, I mean the feds, have a national park, Everglades National Park.
It so happens that you can access it by boat, anywhere along many miles of its outside borders, from the Keys to the Gulf of Mexico. That means that at any given time, there are lots of folks in the Park, but not under strict Ranger supervision.
I can tell you that when the rangers come by to see what you're up to, which they do often, their attitude is often not too polite. It sometimes feels like you are a serf, caught trespassing in the King's forest. This, even though you have a perfect right to be there. I almost wish they'd never made a park there, and just let the place get developed, beautiful as it is. If they close it to boats and fishing, as they often discuss, I will definitely wish that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.