There is no such thing as "democratic capitalism" -- by definition, this is Socialism. Waffler has a good point, even the conservative "capitalists" in government today are socialists. We haven't lived under true capitalism for a very, very, very long time.

Me Again, we have to remember that when the State's were prohibited in doing something, the Federal Senate was thus prohibited as Representatives of the States. According to the Constitution, the people didn't originally elect the Senate -- the State legislatures did; the only person in Federal government that the people actually elected were in the House. It's kind of hard to pass a Constitutional "law" when one half of the Federal Legislature is prohibited from action; if the State was prohibited, then there was no legitimate authority for the States to delegate that power to its Representative Senator.

Pretty strait forward -- it would be interesting to see any possible information that could possibly refute this beyond some ramblings of ignorant peoples who simply babble that the system isn't this way. Whenever such people are asked how or why it is supposedly not this way -- they never have any evidence to back up their claim except to say that they just don't believe it. Opinion, without evidence, reason, or logic is worthless drivel.

Problem is, once those in power have this mentality and start the ball rolling, the majority populace is completely unsuspecting until it's too late. 5 stars for accuracy.

Ass holes? No, just players of "the game". You can play "the game" all you want, or you don't have to. I personally chose to not play the game but to seek out the static amidst the flux. I don't care what choice of underwear our presidential candidates wear nor who is within a point or two points of each other -- I don't play that game -- I want to know whether or not their policies are going to keep vouchsafe the expression of inalienable liberty. It is for THIS case that I'll blatantly say MOST politicians, Bush, McCain, Obama, and MOST Congressmen are "ass holes"; what politicians operate under such a paradigm? What politicians actually keep at the forefront of their thought the duties and responsibilities entrusted them to protect the basic natural and inalienable liberty of the people? I see more partisan politics than principled argument. You can point fingers and name call all you want Waffler, but you still have failed to provide any evidence to legitimize your opinions -- any of them. Good luck to you and your endeavors Waffler.

The majority of people don't care, that's why no one is saying anything. I see it with students every single day; learning is not a driving force in academia, money is. The most frequently asked question is, "Will this be on the test?" The students I see are merely a product of the homes they come from. Americans aren't concerned with how things work, so long as they do. There are problems with tacit consent, and that is learned apathy; an educated generation would learn the principles of its fathers and then either enhance them or change them upon reasons of folly. There is no proof that our current society is thus educated in the language, philosophy, history, pressures, principles, or understanding of American history (especially its foundings). There are no academic classes anymore that teach the history, foundation, or theory of money -- why would the American people question something that has never entered their sphere of perception to alter, change, or completely abolish? The overwhelming majority of kids I see go through High School, through their under-grad and graduate College programs, and then onto life who have never ever even questioned any political aspect around them. Of those students who DO actually take interest in the economy, politics, or such fields of study (usually Political Science, Philosophy, Economics, or Urban Planning majors), only one or two ever even question seek to understand the original foundations of America. Classes today only teach what is known as "the game". Sadly, to play and know "the game" you don't have to know the history of where "the game" came from, it's premise, or even the rules -- you just have to know how to get your idea pushed ahead of someone else's. There are some very educated individuals who praise and support the Fed. However educated these men/women may be, they still dodge very serious questions concerning inflation and the loss of the purchasing power of the USD, the woes of a fiat currency, the trajectory of our current fiscal policies, etc.; hell, even Bernanke does it during Congressional Financing meetings (look it up on youtube; Ron Paul's got some great questions he's asked repeatedly to no avail). I don't know how you can call me naive (and by association I'm guessing you're also calling others naive as well -- such as Archer, Carlton, Mike, and others who frequent this site who disagree with your accepted ideology). You have failed to produce a single source wherein the founders specifically promoted Democracy, yet I have provided you multiple sources of the founders against Democracy; Archer has presented abundant sources for your study concerning Republics. I have directed you to learn the foundational philosophy wherein you can learn the principles yourself, which you are hell bent on avoiding. I have never said anything antisemitic concerning any individual or institution whatsoever -- I disagree with many international bankers who are Jews, but I also disagree with many international bankers who are Christians and atheists as well; this does not make me a bigot. I do not know what your comment has to do with me. While our news does not report on the issue, you should try watching international broadcasts to see how the private international financing community is predicting the collapse of the Fed. The world is not very trusting of us right now -- but that's nothing new. While the world has previously been very dependent on the United States -- due to the United State's position during the establishment of the industrial age -- we are not the epitome of "land of the free, home of the brave" country that we once were. While this is still a land of opportunity, we cannot be so naive as to see that such opportunities are now available in all quarters of the world. I do have opinions about the IRS, but I keep them relatively quiet because I make it a policy to not speak on something wherein I don't immediately have the documentation to back myself up. Philosophically, historically, and ethically -- no, the IRS has no legitimacy to collect revenue in the United States. Has the IRS been given an Enabling Act to operate within its function? I do not personally know, I have never searched for it -- but from what I've heard on good authority it has never been given such a legitimizing document from the United States. If it does not exist, I would never be able to find it -- and it is impossible to prove a negative. Is it a filed corp in Puerto Rico? I have no idea, but I think that's an unnecessary tangent if the IRS has never been given an Enabling Act in the first place; it could be filed in Podunkville, USA -- but without an Enabling Act it wouldn't have any legitimate authority to operate for the United States. Is there a specific "law" wherein people are required to file and pay income tax? I've never seen one, but, again, I can't prove a negative. I have, however, watched "America: Freedom to Fascism" and generally agree with what it purports (you can watch it on google video). Do I disagree with the 16th Amendment? Yes. Do I know for a fact that the Supreme Court defined the limits of the 16th Amendment in a way that is being overruled by Executive Action today? I do. Was the way "income" was defined during the passage of the 16th Amendment and the following decade differ from how it's supposedly defined and enforced today (and without any later visitation from the Supreme Court to redefine the term)? Yes. I don't dodge questions, especially from you; I make it a point to talk on a subjects wherein I am well versed, and I do my best to steer away from hyped up speech. The Fed hasn't always been popular, and to think that it has IS naive; if you really believe this, you need more exposure to the world around you...

I'm curious to know what success the Fed has had. Friedman blames the Fed for the Great Depression, as does multiple other great Economists (especially under the Austrian Economic theory), and Bernanke even recently admitted the Fed's direct cause of the Great Depression. Looks like it didn't work there. The Fed has arbitrarily and artificially postponed the natural and minor recessions that are needful for any economy to purge out bad investments and financial policies. The problem with this is that you can only postpone recessions, you cannot dissolve them away; the postponed recessions keep building up and up until all at once there is a problem (like we're having today) where it's difficult to know if we'll escape the consequence of a ludicrous financial system. I've spent hours talking to my father-in-law who, as a Vice President of one of the major banks in California and a reoccurring speaker and agent for the IMF in California, has even admitted that the entire US economic structure is one big legalized ponzi scheme. I have in my possession a $2 that was printed in the last year the "United States Note" was in circulation; afterward, all "US money" has born the ever famous "Federal Reserve Note" on it's face. US money used to be printed by the US, but not anymore. Inflation was almost non-existent when the nation was on a gold and silver standard, but now we have seen almost 100% inflation since the beginning of the Fed -- does THAT work? The small inflation that would happen under a gold and silver standard would always level off as the civilization grew and progressed -- more business required more money; as such, the purchasing power of the currency would increase as businesses became larger and needed more operating capital/money (which, if you know your history, there was only a finite amount of money in currency - supposedly equal to the amount of gold held in reserve). Free-market demands for gold and silver would drive the price up and then make it worthwhile to mine and look for the commodity. This "inflation" of the currency was a naturally occurring phenomena that was able to solve itself through free-market demands. Today, however, there are thousands of hard-working laborers who are now retiring and realizing that while they have saved for retirement, the purchasing power of the money they have saved has greatly decreased due to inflation. When you can pump money out into the economy as fast the printing press will go, you are able to inflate a currency faster than if you actually had to go out and look for the hard commodity yourself (gold and silver). As I have said before, the purchasing power of gold and silver has remained constant throughout all history, while artificially maintained fiat currencies (because of the natural human disposition of men) have ALWAYS been inflated. Only a few minutes researching this on youtube and you can find Bernanke admitting this whole thing before the Congressional Financing Committee. This is not a hidden fact: inflation is a tax wherein there is absolutely no representation. Whether I lose my money through direct taxation or whether I lose my money by inflation and the loss of my purchasing power due to bad fiscal policies in an artificial, arbitrary, and corrupt monetary system -- it makes little difference. True American Capitalism was so strong that it has taken nearly 100 years to destroy the prosperity gained by practicing such capitalism for a relatively short amount of time through the 1800's. Absolutely amazing.

Waffler, there are several formations of government that run by the voice of the people. Remember to differentiate between "democratic method" and "Democracy" (they are not the same). For instance, in the area of Memphis in which I live, when someone offers you a drink, they most often ask, "hey, do you want a 'Coke'?" If you reply yes, then they ask you what kind of "Coke" you want... Dr. Pepper, Sprite, Lemonade, etc. A "Coke" here is in reference to a soft-drink, not merely a trademarked "Coco-Cola". Some place in the US call it "soda" or "pop" -- we just happen to call it a "Coke". What does this have to do with differentiating between a "democratic method" and a "Democracy"? Well, if some people ask you "do you want a 'democratic method'?" (Coke) It is wise to respond, "What kind of 'democratic method ("Coke") do you have?" At this point the different possible forms of a form of government (soft-drink) come forward: "We have 'Mt. Dew' (Republic), or 'Pepsi' (Democracy), or a 'Sprite/7UP' (Beneficent Monarchy), etc." There are several forms of government that have a 'democratic process' but that are not "Democracies". The democratic process is just that... a process where the people have a voice in the say of government; this process can be handled in many ways and in many forms. Some Republics don't follow the democratic method, while others do; some Monarchies don't follow the democratic method, while others do. This is just a matter of studying "Comparative Politics", a class required of every Political Science student. The difference between a Republic that follows the democratic method and a Democracy are found in the premise wherein laws, regulations, and statutes are formed and legitimized. Although there are obvious mechanic differences, an outsider's perspective could easily view a democratic process' Republic exactly the same as a Democracy, until they actually study not just the mechanics of government but the reason, philosophy, and context wherein it was created. Your friends had the correct basis, they just didn't have enough knowledge in comparative politics, history, and philosophy to explain the differentiation between the two.

5 stars for the accuracy of the quote -- negative stars for the effect it has had, and will continue to have, into sending America into eventual bankruptcy...

The construction of a "Republic, not a Democracy" comes from the seemingly infinite words of the founders. Liberty, while being a natural gift given upon all creation, requires eternal vigilance and education to maintain the exercise of such a celestial article (as Paine would say); only in education can we see past today's sophistry, and perceive the government the founders actually tried to leave us. Where is it written that the US is a Republic and not a Democracy? Where did these people you've talked to hear such a thing? Perhaps they were once educated and even perhaps read the Constitution (Article 4 Section 4); sadly, the overwhelming majority of Americans polled over the last 3 decades haven't ever even read the Constitution. I have yet to find a founder who directly supported "Democracy", and I have asked many of my associates and students to find such a quote -- none which has been able to produce any such documentation. Multiple writings, sermons, and documents can be found, however, concerning the absolute disdain the founders held in contempt of Democracy. We can either try to ignorantly reason away this fact and can continue our banter, or we can accept things for as they are and move past the point to be more edified in future conversation. We (especially Mike, Archer, and myself) have provided you multiple sources that strictly and specifically show the founders disdain for "Democracy" and their desire INSTEAD to form a Republic; I have personally urged you to read the likes of Machiavelli's "The Discourses" to gain a more firm understanding of the dichotomy of Democracies vs. Republics. You can then easily see that they cannot exist in the same place and time. If you've diligently read James Madison, you would know that he was an avid follower of Machiavellian thought -- not of the well known "Machiavellian power", but of the genius in establishing a Republic rather than a Democracy. As for the IRS, that's not my domain nor is it my expertise; although, I would have no problem researching such a thing. I can easily argue against the legitimacy of an income tax within a Constitutional Republic, but as for the corporate foundations of the IRS I know some basic facts (a little above what you'd find if you watched the documentary "Freedom to Fascism", but nothing more than what I've seen the likes of Mike say), but I wouldn't volunteer myself to argue the case in court -- I can do my due diligence, but, as stated, this is not my domain of expertise.

On my pass- through of Utah a few months back I visited a small National Park where they had tours through a small cave in the area (Timpanogos Cave -- I think I spelled that right). The tour actually goes through three separate caves that are connected by two tunnels that were dynamited and picked for the purpose of making a cave large enough to even have a tour. The tour guide talked about the government geological experts that were hired to instruct the other forestry agents who were digging out the cave (connecting the three caves together). Apparently, even these geological experts (who were said to be hired because of their expert) oversaw a fatal blunder to the ecological and environmental conditions of the cave. The dust residue from the dynamite, when it interacted with the crystalline stalactites and stalagmites of two large caverns, turned they permanently black and destroyed the ecological balance in the cave. The tour guide continued to talk about how even within the last decade they are discovering things they didn't know... For instance, the entrance of the cave is some 30 feet higher than the end of the cave -- and this made a breezeway that dried the cave out and drove the natural bats away. This breezeway has been repaired and no longer exists, but there was some damage sustained by it. Anyhow, the point of this is to show that government is merely made up of men who are just as damned ignorant as the farming bloaks who Waffler is condemning. Did the farmers mess up the environment? Yes, they did. Would it have been different if the government were farming the land? No! Because the actions were not caused out of malice, but ignorance. Government isn't any "smarter" than the people. It's not as though the USDA is the benevolent collector of information wherein anyone who follows their guidelines will have the greatest yield. BS.

It's mere ignorance to blindly see history through current rose colored glasses. Waffler wants to redefine history by comparing it to our current society; farmers have not always purchased seed on credit -- they used to be more thrifty and actually save seed to replant. Else, the economy would be established where one person's entire crop would be sold to other people for seed. Credit/debt based economics have not always been the commonplace -- especially in Jefferson's day. This type of economy has existed in many places and times, and they have always failed horribly (probably because they've usually been closely associated with "Democracy" -- as opposed to other voice of the people systems based on law rather than mobocracy). A cash/substantial system is only hard to imagine for those who try to pigeon hole history into their own paradigm instead of trying to openly accept life for what it's been. America wasn't suffering from the banks (as today) when Jefferson made this comment; he was actually an educated man who accepted history for what it was and sought to warn against what hadn't worked in the past. Again, not hard to understand if you're not hellbent on redefining history by your own apathetic sophistry.

Waffler, you keep puttin' them words in my mouth -- if ever I wrote the words "the US is a majority ruled society" then it was in the quest of getting you to finally understand a greater idea wherein the majority may decide the course of state, but with absolute, eternal, and lawful bounds that are outside the amending power of the majority. It was understood that the elected Representatives first look to the established law (natural and statutory) first and then to the people (hardly what ANY political scientist would call a Democracy). The majority cannot decide to hinder my free speech; although they may usurp their bounds and use force by virtue of their mass over mine to force me to not exercise my rights. The majority cannot legitimately rule against illegal search and seizures, warrentless searches, habeas corpus, etc and maintain de jure and non-usurpation. The majority may decide against the individual's right, but such is de facto "law", usurpation, and tyranny. It's not a hard concept to understand, but one you seem hell bent on not accepting. There is no need to treat the forum like a Phd dissertation, but when you make outrageous claims that are without merit and are not based in any reality -- you will be called on it. If you think that requesting facts is like being a part of such a dissertation, maybe you should take life a little more seriously -- you should, you know? Your ability to express your liberty and freedom is at stake. But, believe me, the little I have ever asked you to back up what you have said is nothing like a Phd dissertation; you'd be swallowed up and spit out -- I'm just asking for a little legitimacy here. Maybe just a little substantial information -- if that's not too hard for you Waffy, we'd sure like to hear it from you. BTW Waffy, just to reiterate Bryan, the Austrian theory of economics has nothing to do with Austria (it's also been called the "Vienna School" as well). You might want to do some more homework again before you post next time.

For any idiot who thinks that capitalism caused this housing and economic debacle, I would first start by reading this - New York Times article from September 30, 1999 80% of the housing and economic debacle liability has been placed on the shoulders of Freddie and Fannie (socialist organizations founded and operating under Congressional oversight). It appears, from the article, that Congress alone wasn't the only one who had interests in the increased loans -- the Clinton Admin were the ones who first making the loans easier. So much for Socialism! Freddie and Fannie could underwrite as many bad loans as they wanted to; after all, what consequences would they suffer from? As a government founded entity, if it was found that they screwed up, the government would simply step in to save its own (which -surprise, surprise - they did! What a shocker!). There is no free-market when an entity can rely on the government bailing them out, because this eradicates the "moral hazard" and "risk" of underwriting bad loans. They can get the higher interest rates without the associated risk! Capitalism my ass!

..laughs.. Thank you, Bryan... I was just going to let that one go, but Mises would be proud of you. = ) It's nice to see that other people are doing their research as well.

..laughs.. well, at least Waffler acknowledges that he doesn't understand what's being talked about.

First of all, Quigley was a man; secondly, the entire book follows the premise of the quote above. The goal is not merely to "destroy" everything, but to overthrow a world economy without total chaos and mayhem. David Rockefeller, in his own autobiography "Memoirs", stated that the Rockefeller family had been involved in "secret cabals working against the best interests of the United States" and also in "conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic system--one world, if you will" (Memoirs, pg 405). Quigley, as well as others, say that it would be impossible to move the world into a one world government all at once; it is necessary to group the regions of the world off first by alliances, treaties, State unions, etc. From here, an international disaster would be artificially created -- supposedly through the banking, monetary, and financial center, because this is where these banking men have greatest and easiest influence -- and then these partitioned alliances, unions, treaties, etc. would combine together to create a one world economic government; this itself creates and opens the door to a political one world government to regulate the newly created one world economic system. Time is arbitrary in creating such a system; idealists aren't so much concerned with the here and now. As reported by "Matrix of Power", Rockefeller further said in the early 1990's to the Trilateral Commission concerning the establishment of a one-world government: "We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a World Government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries." For almost 40 years? Some of the greatest despots in history gave us the greatest structures and economies we've known; mere endowments to society does not prove the measure of a man. Regardless of the "reality" of this quote, Quigley was Bill Clinton's stated mentor; as I stated, this quote is the premise of everything Quigley operated under.

Hey, Waffler, can you source that quote from Socrates for me? I've done some searching online and can't find it -- I've been reading some Socrates lately and would love to see where that quote is that I skipped over... thanks.

Well said Mike.

Except maybe if you live in certain parts of Arkansas.

Ah, one of the natural laws of currency: If you spend more than you make, you're screwed.

Waffler, you've used that Socrates quote before -- can you source it for me? I was just reading Plato's Republic, the Apology, Crito, and a few other of Socrates' works and would like to see the quote in text. Half of what Socrates said is not in promotion of his own opinion, but in rebutting another person's stupidity -- it'd be interesting to see the quote in context.

The purchasing power of gold has not changed in over 2,000 years. What HAS changed has been the value of the fiat currency in exchange to the dollar. Of COURSE the price of gold is going to go up against the dollar when the Fed pumps out more fiat currency; the price of gold will also come down as the fed takes fiat currency out of the market! An ounce of gold has had the basic purchasing power in ancient Greece as it had 150 years ago and what it still has today. Factcheck before you spew. Gold, unlike US bills, is still a rare commodity; even at times when gold became more prevalent in society (which makes the price go down; simple supply and demand economics), it has still maintained its basic purchasing power, because of the increased society and industry upon which the increase of gold was been introduced. Gold's "value", before the federal reserve, as measured in dollars, was much lower than it is now; however, this does not mean that the purchasing power of gold has gone up or down. You have to pull your head out of your ass and actually take a look at the facts and the world around you to find that gold has maintained its purchasing power against hard commodities, while trivial fiat/paper currencies have fluctuated, inflated, and bubbled out of any reasonable means. The same amount of gold that would have purchased a brand new 1965 Mustang (which was sold for around $2,800 then) would purchase a brand new 2009 Mustang today. However, the Mustang today is sure a hell of a lot more expensive than $2,800! Why? Because the dollar has NOT maintained its purchasing power and has become inflated! Why/how has it become inflated? Because there's nothing backing the dollar except the people's trust in a high-tech piece of paper that has some images of dead presidents on it, and the GDP of the US (anyone here.. ANYONE.. with any formal/academic education in economics knows that basing a currency on a country's GDP is sloppy). Have I said it enough? Gold maintains it purchasing power; fiat currencies become quickly inflated and lose their purchasing power. It's not a hard concept to understand; any village idiot can understand it.

Ascend to the throne? Wow, Waffler even rejects the current definition of a Republic -- now that's pretty "hardcore". Dogmatism is a sign of fascism? ..laughs.. did you just recently read that in a book? That's an interesting sound bite. I agree with the quote -- it's highly suspicious for someone to be wanting the presidency for that long...

Yes, I can't wait -- I've waited my whole adult life for Washington DC to be "honest"; I guess some people just want it to be the happin'n "cool" spot. I'm sure that's the respect those who have bled and died are looking to have -- politicians and their sophist-puppet-followers trying to make the seat of government "cool". Heaven help us.