Not sure why the ? appears where there should be '. Must be a html thing.
1 posted on
11/14/2002 11:12:52 AM PST by
u-89
To: u-89
Right on Target.
To: u-89
"Yet no monarchy in Western history ever taxed its subjects as heavily as every modern democracy taxes its citizens"
An interesting concept.
To: B-Chan
now it isn't suprising that you are the first one I ping to this, is it?
5 posted on
11/14/2002 11:20:37 AM PST by
KC Burke
To: u-89
Democracy has proved only that the best way to gain power over people is to assure the people that they are ruling themselves. Once they believe that, they make wonderfully submissive slaves. Well said.
6 posted on
11/14/2002 11:21:29 AM PST by
coloradan
To: u-89
And historically, kings showed no desire to invade family life; but modern democracies want to "protect" children from their parents. Not true - check out the Prussians. Among other invasions, their government required a report on the menstrual cycle of every married woman, and imposed penalties if a woman wasn't pregnant quickly enough.
By comparison with the rule of our alleged equals, most kings displayed remarkably little ambition for power.
Pish! Most of them just didn't have the technology and communications infrastructure to sieze the power they wanted.
A smart man, Joe, but ...
7 posted on
11/14/2002 11:33:27 AM PST by
Tax-chick
To: u-89
Perhaps we've got socialism confused with democracy here.
Prior to WWI there was no income tax (a temporary measure to finance the war), SS#s, FBI, FCC, etc. People didn't have formal credit (except the rich) and thus worked and lived on a cash/barter basis.
The computer age has inpinged quite nicely on the privacy of the citizenry. Now we've got records and documentation to bite us in the rump we could never have foreseen. Most of which, but not all, revolving around our SS#.
No avoiding these things either. Can't get a job without your SS# and possibly a credit check. Try to get a loan to buy a house or car without having a prior credit record.
Regarding expenses: It ain't cheap to operate and maintain a globally dominant military presence. No monarchy ever tried that AND guarantee a dignified retirement AND spend itself into such a hole of debt in history like our democracy has.
8 posted on
11/14/2002 11:44:50 AM PST by
Jake0001
To: Goetz_von_Berlichingen
ping
11 posted on
11/14/2002 11:51:42 AM PST by
weikel
To: u-89
I don't believe that we can devise a form of government that can run on autopilot. Self-government means just that; you have to keep your eyes open and your hands on the wheel. I think that is where we as a people have failed. Too many of us have let the politicians con us into letting them have the wheel. Now the idea of taking care of oneself seems bizarre. Until more of us get back to being truly self reliant we will have this problem regardless of our form of government.
13 posted on
11/14/2002 11:54:34 AM PST by
alpowolf
To: u-89
Yet no monarchy in Western history ever taxed its subjects as heavily as every modern democracy taxes its citizens. The French under the last few Louis's were taxed heavier than we are, by far.
It caused a revolution.
Walt
To: u-89
We adopted a Constitution that authorized the Federal Government to exercise only a few specific powers, reserving all other powers to the states and the people. It didn?t work. The Constitution doesn't do that.
But...Americans drive automobiles on the Moon. Is anybody else going to do that any time soon?
To: u-89
The growth of the Federal Government might have been slowed if the states had retained the power to withdraw from the confederation. The states never had that power -- except by revolution. The Supreme Court ruled on that as early as 1793. The Judiciary Act of 1789 requires that "controversies of a civil nature" between the states be submitted to the Supreme Court. Lastly (until the usual suspects show up) the Militia Act of 1792 requires that United States law operate in all the states.
The states have never had a right to withdraw from the Union under U.S. law.
Walt
To: u-89
Hans-Hermann Hoppe appears to have missed all the developments in economics over the last 25 years and is stuck in Economics 101.
A state is defined conventionally as an agency that exercises a compulsory territorial monopoly of ultimate decison-making (jurisdiction) and of taxation. By definition then, every state, regardless of its particular constitution, is economically and ethically deficient. Every monopolist is "bad" from the viewpoint of consumers.
That's a static example, with one good, which is private. Both cited powers are public rather than private goods.
So much for the "theory" of the state.
32 posted on
11/14/2002 12:59:52 PM PST by
TopQuark
To: u-89
This is such a pile of hysterical garbage I don't even know where to start.
To: u-89
Check your encoding for the "'" and "?" thing. Your computer may be set to another character system, rather than Western.
Sobran has come out in favor of anarchy. He's no longer a reliable source of creditable opinion.
48 posted on
11/14/2002 2:31:41 PM PST by
x
To: u-89
There are so many factual errors here, I can't imagine where to begin. (Kings that taxed were considered "moderate", most just viewed everything and everybody in their Kingdom as their own property.)
But, this will lend support to a theory I've been developing about libertarians and their worldview. They view society as not only unnecessary, but also as harmful to liberty. To a libertarian, any form of government above and beyond personal choice is the same as the most tyrannical government imaginable.
Most "libertarians" on this site wail and anguish about returning to the Constitution, and yet if they were alive in the 1790's they would wail and anguish about returning to the Articles of Confederation. And under the Articles, they would wail and anguish about their State not being sovereign. And if their State were completely soveriegn, they would wail and anguish about living in a tyranny.
"Libertarians" don't want anybody telling them what to do under any circumstance imaginable. This author seems to have found the truth of his own convictions.
To: u-89
The problem with democracy is that it allows idiots to wield political power. There should be strict literacy and education tests before citizens can vote. The political power of the vote cannot be trusted in the hands of an uneducated idiot. People should have to have a decent understanding of the US Constitution and maybe even pass a basic educational assessment test. Democracy is not a peaceful system of choosing leaders, such a system does not exist. If you don't agree with the majority you will pay the consequences. The true face of democracy can be seen in the execution of Socrates.
53 posted on
11/14/2002 4:59:49 PM PST by
dheretic
To: u-89
There is much in this argument with which I agree. However, for as far back as human beings have been on this planet, our natural inclination has been to organize ourselves into societal units with leaders, followers, traditions, and cultural do's and don'ts. As our societal units have grown from small family groups to tribes, to villages, to towns, to cities, to states, to unions of multiple states, we have retained our basic impulse to follow leaders and observe cultural do's and don'ts (today we call them laws). The strong have always accumulated power, and with it, material wealth and the means to subjugate the weaker members of their society.
Our founders knew this, perhaps better than we do today. They were not at all optimistic that the country they brought into being would outlast their own lifetimes, let alone survive more or less intact for two and a quarter centuries.
Like it or not, there is no going back — either to the republic as the founders knew it, or to a monarchy, or to a primitive tribal existance. All we can do is keep going forward, pooling our talents, efforts and resources to exert a restraint on the federal government, as well as the blatant attempts by the Left (particularly the Euro Left) to supplant nations with one world government.
65 posted on
11/15/2002 12:33:58 PM PST by
Wolfstar
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson