Tearing down the winners in the name of 'fairness' is the progressive's game. To the victor go the spoils -- but a social democrat can steal it all away with the stroke of a pen ...

Mike I do understand the very good point you are making. American jurisprudence has been corrupted by the elimination of the common law, or more accurately, by the merging of common law and commercial law equating a legal fiction with a real person and thus subjecting the common man to commercial regulation.

Something to consider, government does not make 'common laws.' -- a crime is an intentionally malicious act that violates another's life, liberty, or property. When the government makes some act 'illegal' it does so under the interstate commerce jurisdiction -- it cannot dictate ANY regulations to the common man on his own property who is violating no one's rights. A family farm is not a commercial enterprise, nor is it inter-state. It all starts with the property owner's right to provide for himself and his family from the fruits of his labors on his own land -- the government has NO right to any of his produce (and the same goes for his neighbors).

This is what forms towns, then counties, then States. The the States can join a confederacy like the USA or the UN -- but the UN does not then become their ruler. The same is true of Washington DC and the federal government.

Who has the right to make a plant 'illegal'? Prescription medications of all kinds are abused by millions resulting in depression, suicide, murder, traffic accidents -- all the things prohibitionists worry about from pot smokers. Marijuana competes with pharmaceuticals -- legalizing pot would disrupt rivers of income to them.

A police state absolutely needs a 'war on drugs' -- has the government given up on the police state yet? THAT is what it is ALL about.

My God, how much longer do we have to put up with this Nazi BS in America? The Religious Right is dead wrong.

Excuse me, but 'duh' -- it doesn't take an Einstein to recognize this fact! ;-)

Better than the original Martin Niemoeller quote. ;-)

I believe the arguments are better framed in the context of 'power' rather than 'rights.'

The power (i.e. ability) to defend oneself against a predator determines one's place in the food chain -- the human species holding the top. Among humankind are also those with dominant personalities and others submissive -- and every combination in between. Human societies have 'evolved' into a myriad of hierarchies. It all comes down to the power of the person.

What can that person do? Should he be allowed to? Who says? How a society answers those questions determines the organizing principals. Is there someone in the society that has the power to command others? If so, where does the power to command others come from?

The answers to that address gun control, alcohol control, drug control, media control, transportation control, economy control, health care control, education control -- ultimately total control.

Those for gun control are for the compelled transfer of personal power to police who follow the orders of the State.

Those for drug control are for the compelled transfer of personal power to pharmaceutical companies who benefit from the dictates of the State often creating huge monopolies.

I could go on with all the other forms of control, the point being that it is a question of Statism vs. Personal Responsibility. With great power comes great responsibility. Do we transfer that responsibility to the State or keep it in our own hands?

Know that Statism unchecked becomes Totalitarian -- whether fascist, communist, monarchy -- the quest for power of the State never ceases.

Liberty means to be personally responsible for the exercise of one's power. That is supposed to be the American Way.

I do think it is amazing that a student graduating high school has the general knowledge of Pythagoras, Galileo, Newton, and Einstein! The power in the hands of the 21st century American is absolutely incredible...

I think most Americans agree, but there is a class of dependents that is content to be cared for rather than caring for themselves.

Very well said, Mike.

Perhaps the word 'statism' better explains the various forms of totalitarianism -- communism, socialism, fascism, monarchy, dictatorship, feudalism, -- any collective arrangement in which the people are subjects to a 'lord' whether secular or theocratic, by election or by conquest. Capitalism is not a form of government, so to compare socialism with capitalism is inaccurate.

The American Revolution severed the claims of the Crown upon the lands, labors, religion, property, and ALLEGIANCE of the people. The American government that followed was based on the inalienable rights of humankind so that such a despotism as monarchy or dictatorship could never find a hold on the American people.

This was a radical departure from centuries of subservience to monarchy.

The difference between statism and a republican form of government is that a republican government is one of consent -- an agreement between the States to form an alliance without giving up our hard-won sovereignty. The US government's powers are made up ONLY of those granted to them by the States and the People from whom these powers already exist.

A statist government assumes no limit to its power. A statist government makes rules and statutes and calls them 'laws' that the people must obey upon pain of death, imprisonment, and asset seizure (theft). The premise of a statist government is that 'the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one.' Statist governments are in essence police states in which the individual is kept disempowered so that he and others that may harbor dissent cannot be a threat. The government will be heavily armed, and the citizen will be disarmed.

Robert, how much socialism should we try? And once we have surrendered all our power to the State and discover that we are now slaves with little to no power than our teeth, how would we get rid of such a State? Think about Nazi Germany -- Hitler was elected, and the Germans embraced totalitarianism for the benefits of state control.

But I do not know of a single totalitarian state in which the people are happy or better off than having to take one's own chances in life.

Robert, you may think socialism is 'pro-choice' but it is actually 'no-choice.' In Cuba, a woman needs a permit to have a child -- if she gets pregnant without it, the baby is aborted. That's 'progress' for you...

Brilliantly spoken!!

"The stale artifice which has duped the world a thousand times..." !!

Tricky. Each of the separate branches of government can overstep their chartered powers -- whether the intentions were honorable or otherwise. It is up to the branches to keep each in check -- and it's up to the States to keep Washington DC in check.

The power of courts and lawyers is limited by their jurisdictions. Without a court system, our republican form of government will devolve into might being right. But with a court system that does not follow and protect 'due process' of law and does not stay within the confines of their agreed upon jurisdictions, power is placed into the hands of the magistrate. The jury was to be the final check against a roque executive, legislature, or court.

The primary corruption of the US Supreme Court is that the common law and commercial law jurisdictions have been merged into a single commercial law jurisdiction with criminal penalties. This pits paper against flesh -- a severe violation of the common law. There are MANY rules commercial entities MUST follow. Whereas with regard to the common law, there are NO dictates. A crime is considered to be a crime if there was an INTENTIONAL violation of another's life, liberty, or property. There is not a written common law statute that says "You may not steal." The common law court is used to settle complaints of a violation of what are considered to be 'natural born' rights. A commercial court is used to settle commercial contract disputes and violations of the Uniform Commercial Code (the rules for interstate commerce, which are now assumed to include everything and everyone in every state). The thing to learn is that the UCC does not apply to the American common man/woman acting in their own 'sovereign' capacity -- that is to say, responsible for themselves. But by participating in any of the many commercial benefits being offered to government employees, the average citizen obliges himself to agree to the terms of the agreement. Most just sign their lives away, and their income and property are just chits in the commercial 'game.' In that game, paper rules, and flesh is subservient to paper.

Hamilton's words are applicable only if the proper jurisdictions are kept separate -- otherwise, people are treated as corporations and thus subject to the reams and reams of rules, regulations, and taxes.

"Give me control of a nation's currency, and I care not who makes the laws.' -- Rothschild

When all the powers of government are funded by private central bankers, their dependence makes slaves of us all.

It's a classic!

Mike, you need only look at the regulations for Chinese holding US dollars. I have seen many Chinese banks in California financing construction projects. Like any bank, they own the property until the loan agreement is fulfilled. Since these banks are not creating money via credit, they are loaning 'real money' (real fiat money that has already been created). So if the Chinese start loaning US dollars to Americans in the US, the Chinese hold the American collateral -- it is theirs until it is paid for. If the US government can issue more T-Bills than the value of all the federal land and properties, cannot the holders of those debts simply claim ownership of those properties?

To wage a war costs money, and if the US keeps it up, the Chinese can simply buy up property and lease it back to us rather than invade militarily. Has Clinton helped secure large Chinese purchases of federal lands? You bet! By giving out permits to bid for these lands/projects. I don't think Mike is far off.

The mistake is treating Congress as an 'authority' with powers over the People. Nothing could be further from the truth. Congress has only the powers granted to them by the States which have only the powers granted to them by the state citizens.

The entire foundation of American government is a mutual agreement of the People to hire from within our own ranks individuals to administer a government whose primary purpose is to PROTECT and DEFEND what we have declared to be our natural born and inalienable rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. The government has NO POWER to dictate to the People. If there is no signed agreement for the granting of power, then that power remains in the individual's hands -- as well as the responsibility that goes with it.

That's the reason banks and supermarkets do not accept real gold or silver coins -- we are not allowed to keep real capital, but encouraged to burden ourselves with a lifetime of debt. If we decide to put our debt-ridden cash into land instead, we are taxed on it -- how can people retire if they have to keep paying rent on their own home? It is a rigged game, and when there are enough people who understand it as well as they do Texas Holdem, it will bring the attention of the world as everyone tries to get in on the racket until it crashes under its own weight.

Absolutely. The statist tries to tempt labor with dreams of unearned capital through 'regulation.' Rather than a free market of fair trade, the prol demands a 'rigged' game that increases the public burden an individual must carry as his 'fair share.' Capital and labor are two sides of the same coin -- and the same physical and economic laws apply to that 'coin' as a gold coin, attempts to deface, counterfeit, or steal will have unavoidable consequences.

The War Between the States was over state sovereignty rather than slavery. But put in this perspective of armed contest between capital and labor, the war is made clearer. The slaves of the South were a powerhouse of labor. The Northern economy was based on commerce of capital. Slavery in itself helped create the division, and it was for economic reasons that the South chose to get out from under a system in which they became in debt to the northern and federal states. The Southern economy's dependence upon slave labor was its ultimate death knell as slavery had been becoming increasingly unpopular in Britain and Europe.

Mike, you say, "I have labored for the betterment of others first," but so can say a servant or a slave. Assuming your labors are consensual, are you laboring to 'better the condition of others' or to 'their betterment'? To better oneself literally excludes being 'bettered by others' -- I can better your condition, but only you can better yourself. ;-)

IMHO, because Mike has bettered himself first, he has bettered his condition and is thus able to labor for the "betterment of others" -- as it follows that the betterment of oneself betters the condition of one and ultimately all. ;-)

Interesting. Dogs gotta dig, and cats gotta scratch -- what do humans gotta do? ;-) How futile are the lives and labors of all humanity? Of all the animal kingdom? For what purpose a dandelion with deep roots -- it can do nothing but bloom.

Nothing is futile -- we bring meaning to our labors, not the other way around. Sisyphus was only cursed for not giving purpose to his labors -- he could have been singing, or even polishing the stone, or gilding his eternal path. The last of freedoms is the freedom to choose one's outlook.

Absolutely! Counterfeiting of any kind is CHEATING and carries the death penalty -- normally -- except that since everyone is doing it, it has become enshrined as the modus operandi of global economics (legalized theft of nations).

Absolutely! The central banks of the world are the true causes of booms and busts -- all designed to steal the wealth and indenture every nation to 'unkeepable' promises.

The fruits of hard work and honest labor include the building of character -- the kind of character is determined by the attitude and approach of the laborer.