“Politics is the art of looking for trouble,finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy. ”

It doesn't take a "politician" to vouchsafe freedom or liberty -- it takes a statesman. Sadly, I have yet to find a politician in government who does not consider whether or not something CAN be done legitimately, but rather just about how they can get THEIR agenda done before the other guy. There is no principle in a Democracy other than what you can sway the majority to agree to; principle and truth is thus arbitrary to whatever party is in control at the time -- a societal paradigm of wikiality. Democracy breeds politicians, because it establishes a government where ANYTHING can be done -- so long as it has popular/majority consent. You want to kill children legitimately? In a Representative Democracy you just elect someone to rally the majority to your cause -- and instantly you can legitimately kill children, regardless of the rightness or wrongness of your situation. You want to invade a country without merit or cause? In a Democracy you can -- you just have to get majority consent! Statesmen, unlike what you find in a Democracy, understand that there are certain things that even a majority cannot vote away -- inalienable rights, for example. Governments who take their orders by the law first, and then the people -- these have historically been proven to last the longest before turning into tyranny.

It is amazing that the abuse of power of a enumerated by Logan have been committed by dictatorships but he fails to mention them, on the other hand does he have an acutal example of where democracy actually did the theoretical, and rhetorical things he suggests. It has been shown time and time again that majority rule, democracy has done the exact opposite and prevented strong men dictators from doing exactly what Logan says. Where democracy has failed such as in Germany, Russia and Iraq dictatorial mayhem insued. Mankind is fallible, we will keep diagnosing and solving problems to the best of our abilities 'till the end of time.

The current financial crisis is but another example of proving this quote's accuracy. Those that believe the art of politics through government can create law have either said regulate more, or less. Both sides of the unlawful argument have given no heed to defining natural fiscal law through statute. Political opinions based on scholastic information without benefit of substantive truth, law, or principle continue to incorrectly diagnose, and apply wrong remedies.

Waffler, I can give you examples of Logan's statement. In most democracies, abortion at will runs rampant (of course, the democracy defines the killing of its children in a most politically correct way). A democracy is a dictatorship. I guess you've ignored many of my posts. Compelled compliance, license, victimless crimes, larceny (through funny money, theft of the fruits of labor, etc.) and other violations of law, by definition, are not part of a representative republic (the representative representing the individual sovereign, not the state) but, are inherent in a democracy - each jurisdiction of the current unconstitutional de facto U.S. is an example of that form of democracy.

Waffler must be from some other planet if he cannot see for himself that to which democracies have historically degenerated and those exact same patterns that are happening in the US today. Either that or he's just a tax leach with an agenda and doesn't care much for the truth.

This quote exactly describes our government today. The mortgage loan companies failed mainly because the govrnment forced them to make "sub-prime" loans, in other words to people with bad credit with no chance of repaying.. The usual suspects are now planning to "fix" everything ,sort of like hiring Willie Sutton as a bank guard. Janet Reno told these companies, in no uncertain terms, that if they didn't make these loans there would be "investigations" of anyone who didn't. Our government at work.

If memory serves, Reno the horrible worked for Slick Willie.

Thank you Waffler for proving my point, Democracies DO fall apart. WHY do they fall apart? Because of the mentality of groupthink that it instills within the populace. When a society thinks it can do anything it wants merely by majority vote, it unwittingly gives government powers the individual (the basis of a majority) has no power or legitimacy in giving to government. The people do not have the power to give to government something that an individual may not individually give -- if government acts in these imaginary powers, however, then it assumes and usurps un-natural powers and the system is now de facto. This is how Democracies always end in dictatorships and tyrannies. If the system of government looks first to law, instead of the people, in making its decisions -- this is yet another safeguard on government against public frenzy. This is why Republics have lasted longer than Democracies. Democracies always have short lives when the majority finally votes itself, knowingly or unknowingly, into tyranny and dictatorship; Republics, good and bad, look to the established premise of laws in making decisions instead of to the people (although some Republics, such as ours, are structured to instill all power within the people by virtue of the 9th and 10th Amendments) -- Government may only act in accordance with law, and law can only be established according to the rights of the individual.

And people think that politicians are just stupid -- they may be, but the 'remedies' put lots of money in their pockets and those of their corporate sponsors. That should be reason enough to keep government strictly LIMITED. The balance of power requires well-defined JURISDICTIONS. Waffler, you post 5-6 comments per quote, I think you can answer a simple question: Let's say Texans vote to tax Rhode Islanders -- after all there are more Texans than Rhode Islanders and Rhode Islanders enjoy a very nice standard of living, so they can afford it, right? Please explain why or why not Texans can vote to tax Rhode Islanders. I think that will help to explain your point about 'democracy.' Explain it, please.

The mess we are in right now is a living example of that vindicates this statement. We floated on the bubble, government intervened to make it right. Or may be there was that lack of intervention. In the word of W, "Some people call you the elites; I call you my base." Indeed! So here comes the government trying to rescue its base riding on the back of ordinary Americans. While Wall Street rise and glitter, main street falls and plunder. Every action the government has made, has been based on wrong diagnosis.

Waffler says, "does [Logan] have an acutal (sic) example of where democracy actually did the theoretical, and rhetorical things he suggests?" Uh, yeah, Waffler, lots of them. John Adams wrote several hundred pages of examples in his Defence of the Constitution. Too much to list here, but here is a link to The Works of John Adams, pages 483-486. Page 484 has the famous quote: "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." What say you to that?

Jim, I am aware of several banks that have, within the last 2 months dropped their Prime A credit departments (personnel and all) for commercial properties and started up sub-prime departments for their commercial properties. The governmental sham continues.

Excellent links, Anonymous, especially the letter to John Taylor who made similar remarks as Waffler. Hey, Waffler, John Adams is speaking to you. I am still anxious to hear your reply...

Everyone's comments were very well made. This is why "we the people" need to take back our country. Our polititians have raped and pillaged our society like starving foxes being left on the loose in the hen house. Make your voices heard. Hound your congressman and senators. Get active, be productive. There is no time to waste.

It is very interesting that John Adams deplored Democracy -- saying that Aristocracies and Monarchies are even better than Democracies -- but that he was a champion and firm supporter of Republics (which Waffler defines adamantly as "non-Monarchies"). Clearly, Adams is not caught in a dichotomy when you realize that Democracies and Republics cannot exist at the same time (though Republics MAY include a "democratic process" -- which, however, does not make it a Democracy). So, Adams rejected Democracies, praised Republics, and supported our Constitutional Republic -- what does that tell you?

I am willing to concede that the word 'republic' is too general a word to imply a 'republican' form of government. Just because the word republic appears in the name of a state or nation does not mean they have a republican form of government. Adams draws many distinctions in his definitions of 'republics' including aristocratical, monarchical, and democratical republics and mixed versions of each throughout history. In his Defence of the Constitution, he reiterates time and time again that the Constitutional representative republican form of government established by American state and federal Constitutions were NOT democracies and explained why. The intent was to balance power from these groups such that none could bully the other. In order to do that, the very basis of republican jurisprudence starts with the acknowledgement that every person is born with inalienable rights, that each of us are sovereigns enjoying the rights of private property and conscience, and that the preservation of these rights was essential to the protection against the avarice of monarchs, nobility, and plebescites. If we are ever to make any progress in what seems to be an endless debate (not just here, but in many forums now and to come) let us endeavor to make these distinctions clear. Liberty and justice for all is based on the respect of the Rights of Mankind, not majority rule, not nobility rule, not executive/monarchical/dictatorial rule, but on SELF-rule and personal responsibility. By making this paramount, no Congress, no passions of the masses, no President may dictate to us. That is as it should be. We need law and order merely to defend us against the ambitions and avarice of others, not to pool the collective power of the masses like a train of horses to be driven by a faction whose purpose is to rule over us all. Now, Waffler, I am still waiting.

You guys have failed to give me a decent example. Were the conqurerors of the ages democracies ie Tamerlane, Alexander, Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin? Hell no. Yes societies fail, and suckers never think that people can be like the aforementioned. I respectfully suggest that "law" did not stop any of the aforementioned from doing whatever the hell they wanted to do. Law is nothing but writing on a piece of paper, even if it is posted for all to see it is useless unless it has an enforcer. That enforcer is called the Sheriff or police etcetera. That enforcer is powerless if he is overrun by a larger force, thus he must in the long run serve and listen to that larger force. That my friends is democracy.

Logan and John Adams deplore and deplored democracy and Ken from Milford and many of the rest of you are calling for "us" to take back our country. You all are calling for democracy in spite of yourselves and in spite of Logan and Adams. Unless by "us" you mean some 1 or 2 percent of the people. Democracy inlcludes constant reform and rebellion, yes throw the bums out is always in favor, but don't take away our right to throw the bums out by enacting some sacred law to which we all must cowtow to making Kens rallying cry of none effect . You all just make me want to exclaim, "Forgive them for they know not what they say."

Waffler, it is democracy that allowed these dictators to rally support to their cause, and without holding the rights of man sacred above all, they were able to con the public. They did not simply walk in -- they were ushered in by 'democracy.' You have not answered my simple question: Please explain why or why not Texans can vote to tax Rhode Islanders. It should be easy for you to explain.

Waffler, your single biggest problem, rhetoric and error is basing all idioms, thought, diatribe, etc. on the concept that "Law is nothing but writing on a piece of paper" There is natural fiscal law; you can't see it but if you spend more than you take in, you will live the results there of. A nobility of life law, stated as "thou shalt not murder", if allowed with the least degree of tolerance would bring down society. If the law "thou shalt not steal" is not heeded, society will degenerate, morally and otherwise. It is up to corporeal man to discover natural law to flourish under freedom and liberty. When codes, rules, regulations, statutes, etc. are passed in accordance with law, by color of application - law becomes an adjective (that which describes the law applied to a given society). When codes, rules, regulations, statutes, etc. are written contrary to law, believing that man can create law, despotism, tyranny, democracy, etc. are the results (license, governmental larceny, etc. are nothing but unlawful writings on a piece of paper, illegally enforced)

This country started out belonging to the people. As long as the people kept their finger on the pulse and held elected officials feet to the fire, they knew that they were accountable. We have become intellectually lazy and surrendered our nation to a pack of wolves. We need to reassert ourselves and become the responsible owners that we should be. This does not mean that we don't know what we are talking about just because we do not agree with you. I refuse to stand back and whimper like a puppy, and allow a gang of thugs to run things, when they have proven over and over again that they can't do any better then the rest of us are able to do. Harry Truman said "everyone will stand erect, or be made to stand erect". All I am saying is that it is time for us to get off of our butts and stand erect like men again.

Well said Mike...

Well said Ken. And this taking back or reforming of our government is what democracy is all about. If folks do not believe in public opinion or in debating and convincing each other of points of view and that in the end we are ruled by public opionion but are ruled by some concrete natural law and thus we have no say in the matter why do they come on sites like this and try to convince others of their views. The very fact that they choose to express themselves and to convince others of their philosophy or their policies is proof positive that they do believe in the power of public opinion and in spite of themselves they are invoved in the democratic process.

Love it...

Waffler, a democratic process is not a democracy. I just have to shake my head in unbelief. So Waffler, are you telling me then your not ruled by concrete natural law; you can continually spend more than you take in; murder can be accepted by society without consequences; theft causes no dilemma? We hold these truths to be self evident. 'Our say' in the matter is: first we discover the natural law, and then decide how best apply it in society. By way of example: murder has been defined by first degree, second degree, man slaughter, etc. Public opinion does not, can not, change natural law, it can only decide its association to it. Public opinion can make a country law abiding individuals or a nation of outlaws. It is the mingling of lawful and unlawful acts under the title of law that deceives the public at large.

Ken makes good points. 'Standing erect' starts with an individual. The individual takes responsibility for the condition and quality of his/her life -- he/she is RESPONSIBLE. Life is sacred, at least to the individual -- there is only one life to live, this one. Either I have a right to live or I don't. Who decides? Waffler? Waffler's friends? Waffler's party? George Bush? Call our system of government whatever you want, but it doesn't and the majority doesn't have the right to deprive me of my life without due process according to the Law of the Land. And in case Waffler hasn't read the Law of the Land, which by the way is the Constitution, let me reiterate that the law recognizes many inalienable rights that can NOT be infringed no matter what the majority of public opinion might be, or the opinion of the Sheriff, or the opinion of the President, or Waffler's mob. THAT is the law, and it IS written down, and we elect representatives to support and defend this law. When our representatives break their oath, they are in breach of contract and thus representing their own private interests and have violated the public trust. God dammit, Waffler, THAT is not democracy. Courts of law are not democratic -- it takes a unanimous vote to convict someone of a crime. Waffler KNOWS that Texas cannot vote to tax Rhode Islanders and he knows why. The same reasons apply to everything else. People have rights -- not because government officers gave them rights, but because self-evidently we have had them from the beginning, from birth. As far as natural law goes, no human need enforce it -- it is self-enforcing. Gravity takes no sides. A lie cannot stand without help. The truth reigns without our aid. There are consequences to ignoring natural law, and no government can avoid them, no People can avoid them. It is for that reason that our Founders did their level best to frame a government that was based on these fundamental truths so that this free republic would stand the test of time against the avarice and ambition of those that ever seek to rule or control others. We vote for nothing now except for the guy who promises us the most from the Treasury and the assets of the opposition. Unfortunately, that, too, has unavoidable consequences that no majority opinion can wipe away. As Sgt. Friday used to say, "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts." Opinion is just that -- opinion, and truth is fact whether we know it or not. Our nation is built upon fundamental truths, not majority opinion -- never was, never can be.

Archer, said well

Speaking of taking a stand, Rosa Parks took a stand when she refused to give up her bus seat to a white woman. Contrary to local statutes, her rights were not subject to vote or to public opinion or to long-standing custom. She took her stand and others rallied to her side. The blacks boycotted all the bus lines and crammed themselves into private cars or walked. This is not democracy, my friend -- the democracy did not serve the black people, it did not recognize their fundamental rights, the Sheriff did not stand up for them. But their stand awakened the conscience of the nation. These INDIVIDUALS were BREAKING the local laws but not natural law. They did not wait until the next election -- they acted in their own individual and sovereign capacity. THAT is what a free country is all about and why a democracy did not serve them. When the majority opinion is prejudiced, there can be no justice. Justice is not up for vote. No one gives you your freedom -- you either take the stand or sit at the back of the bus. What about you?

Excellent,this fits Barrack Obama to a tee..

Mike I disagree that democratic process is not democracy, I believe that is the essence and soul of democracy. Archer I will answer your question about Texas and Rhode Island if you will first answer why various and sundry nations tax each others citizens in order to run the United Nations. If you can answer that you will have already answered your Texas, Rhode Island dilemmna. But seriously you and I know that your question is simply rhetorical and you have not the desire to formulate an answer. You can often be cute Archer but I seldom find you actually serious.

For Archer to believe that Hitlerian Germany or Stalinist Russia were democracies shows just how depraved or uneducated he is.

The fact that Waffler doesn't realize that Hitler rose to power in a democracy shows HIS lack of education. Napoleon also rose to power in what was supposed to be a democracy. I referred mainly to the democracies Adams researched in his Defence of the Constitution and the other link that Anonymous provided. But it is a lot of reading and Waffler dismissed it out of hand ("You guys have failed to give me a decent example.") OK, I will bite: "why [do] various and sundry nations tax each others citizens in order to run the United Nations?" I suppose that Waffler is implying that the UN is a 'democracy' and that all the countries that are members of it have surrendered their sovereignty. The citizens of the nations of the world do not vote for representation in the UN. Russia certainly does not tax the US for support of the UN -- each country pays their own contribution to the UN, I believe. Secondly, "various and sundry nations" include countries that are communistic, socialistic, fascist, dictatorships, etc., so just because other countries may oppress their citizens does not mean that it is right. Let's keep the issue simpler than the UN -- let's stick with the American form of government and the US Constitution: Explain why or why not Texans can vote to tax Rhode Islanders.

You are right. The Socratic method entails simplicity. You answered your question several posts ago when you said and I paraphrase but basically you said that you are not a countrymen at least not of mine. I whole heartedly agree. You see Archer you are stuck in the '50's or maybe the '30's. The 1730's that is. Around about 1760's during the French and Indian War the separate colonies began to think of themselves rather as Continentals rather than colonisits. Now we are US Persons, citizens of a continental nation. I am a countryman and a citizen of the entire United States. In that sense Texas and Rhode Island as well as Alaska, Florida and all of the rest are "mine" in terms of citizenship. While I live on 1/3 of an acre and have virtual total rights to privacy on this little patch, as a ciitizen of a continental nation I have additional rights in common with my city, county, state and countrymen to all of the rest. To solve your riddle I suggest you ask yourself why individuals pay for bldgs and books so that others can go and read them free of charge. If you cannot understand or appreciate that then your problem is one of failing to ever make the paradigm shift from the colonist to the continental. Where did you ever get the construction that Texans can tax Rhode Islanders anyway. You are so facetious. Texans cannot vote to tax Rhode Islanders. US Citizens living anywhere including foreign countries can elect reprsentatives who promise to raise or lower their taxe but the taxes must be levied the same throughout the nation. With your superior knowledge of all of this stuff about taxes and the Federal Reserve I don't know why you were not sitting beside Paulson and Bernanke before Congress last week. Let us make it even simpler so you may understand. Explain why or why not folks in one Texas or Rhode Island County can vote to tax another Texas or Rhode Island County. Or make it simpler why or why not can the residents of a city where 51% of a counties population live vote to tax people in the entire county. Join the country it is really a wonderful place afterall.

Thank you, Waffler. You admit, "Texans cannot vote to tax Rhode Islanders." OK. Why not? That is the question. It is not a facetious question -- it points to the fundamental make-up of our nation. I'll be happy to answer your questions afterwards which I believe can be best summed up this way: "By what authority or right can 51% of a county's population tax the labors or private property of the other 49% against their will?" but you haven't answered my question yet. (Answering a question with a question is not an answer, it is a diversion.) And please stick to the facts, just the facts.

I admit that Texans cannot tax Rhode Islanders because they have no jurisdiction. Only US Citizens can vote to tax each other. A non voting legal alien may be a resident of Texas all of his life, he thus is a Texan but he is not a citizen. The fundamental make up of our nation is that we are citizens of only one entity and that is The United States of America and we are residents of states. States may have governments and spending and taxing needs that the residents may vote for if they wish. Residents of no state may vote to tax residents of any other state. Only citizens of the United States may vote, and generally through their US Senators and Representatives, to tax each other regardless of where that citizen may reside. In fact the citizens have voted to tax other citizens who live abroad. US Citizens are also taxed on their worldwide income. Be reminded however that the tax law also laws a Foreign Tax Credit for taxes that may have been paid to the foreign nation on the same income. Archer every day you prove that you no nothing about the fundamental make-up of our nation. Signed: The 'ol Professor!

I am not asking Waffler a question because I do not know the answer (duh) -- I am asking the question because the correct answer exposes the fallacy of the 'America is a Democracy' statement. Yes, Waffler, Texans cannot vote to tax Rhode Islanders because Texans have no lawful jurisdiction to do so -- exactly. Who or what defines those 'jurisdictions'? State and federal Constitutions which, by the way, are the lawful documents that define what powers the people are delegating to the governments, not the other way around -- state legislatures and the federal Congress do not have carte blanche. Each state is a sovereign entity, that is another reason why Texas' majority population cannot dictate to Rhode Island's minority population. Why? Because Rhode Islander's have RIGHTS! Waffler says that because he is a "US person, ... Texas and Rhode Island as well as Alaska, Florida and all of the rest are 'mine' in terms of citizenship." Hah! The hell it is. Again, this de facto collectivist mindset rears its ugly head -- everything is 'yours' Waffler? No, Waffler, it is not yours. You are talking about nationalism, not federalism -- the federal jurisdiction is Washington, D.C. and other federal territories like Puerto Rico. The rest of the United States are not 'yours' -- they are sovereign states made up of privately owned land/property held by sovereign individuals -- keep your grubby little hands off it. Your entire description above of the 'right to tax your neighbors' is a bunch of hogwash -- show me where in the federal and state Constitutions these 'rights' are 'given'? The federal Congress can only issue excise taxes as per the Constitution. Congress has no more right to take privately held property than do you have the right. And where does Congress have the right to tax 'US citizens' anywhere in the world? Show me that one, too. You are a tax man, Waffler, and you worship the power of de facto 'democracy' because it is how you made your living. It is just a bunch of smoke and mirrors, it is unlawful, and is only possible because of twisting the Uniform Commercial Code to treat all PEOPLE as corporate PERSONS and thus subject to the reams and reams of corporate statutes and regulations -- the original purpose of which was to regulate collective power such that it did not abuse the individual rights of individual people. By using corporate bills of credit (ie. Federal Reserve Notes) we are in fact not really buying anything but are liable as per the UCC regulations of using commercial paper. If we used real money, we would not and could not be subject to 'income' taxes -- which BTW are codified in the IRS as 'excise' taxes even though they are not. Our system of voting for money that Waffler calls democracy is a damnable corruption of the rule book for our government officials, the US Constitution. This so-called democracy ignores its true jurisdictions and simply operates by intimidation. You ain't no Professor, Waffler, you aren't even a student with a passing grade, just a shill for a corrupt, greedy, and self-righteous group of people who promise you something out of the pockets of the opposition while in fact taking it from you and your progeny.

The answer to your Foreign Tax question can be found in Pub 17, Chapter 5, Page 43. Ignorance is forgiveable, the desire to be a stay ignoriant is not. A teacher/professor must exercise forbearance towards a learning and inquisitive student. A student without motivation or ambition to learn, who does not do his homework, and through lack of character, shows disrespect towards his intellectual and academic superiors should be thrown out of school. Your expressions of incredulity towards the most mundane knowledge goes to the heart of your problem. Why don't you quit this site and spend your time learning before you keep mouthing off about things you know nothing about like the Fed Reserve, and the "fundamental make-up of the USA".

Waffler, you are not my teacher so get off it -- you are trying to be our 'handler' justifying unlawful statutes to apply to human beings as if they were corporations. I asked you to cite from the Constitution where the power to tax citizens' income and property is granted to the government -- you have not -- you have cited regualtions from the IRS, an unconstitutional agency that is in fact incorporated in Puerto Rico -- its jurisdiction is the 'federal government and federal territories' not those living outside of federal jurisdictions. New York State is not a federal jurisdiction and neither is Paris, France, so the federal government has no jurisdiction there. You ignore the sovereign States and their jurisidictions as set forth in their own state Constitutions. As for me, MY jurisdiction is my body, my privately held property which can never be taxed, my life, my speech, my religious beliefs, my weapons -- all of which are untouchable by federal statutes. Just because you fell for the bullshit doesn't mean I have to. You are merely colluding with the de facto government not the de jure and lawful government which IS the foundation of the USA -- your definition of the fundamental 'make-up' is just that, MADE UP and backed by nothing but collectivist opinion -- it has no substance in law. It is YOU who ignores the law with no ambition to learn what freedom actually means, what self-governing actually means, and what private property actually means. According to you, there are no limits to what government may call 'mine' and therefore you support the most tyrannical of regimes -- the future of which is nothing short of totalitarianism in the name of democracy. You, sir, are a coward and a thief.

If I were a betting man I would bet that you are simple run of the mill tax cheat and you grasp at any straw to justify your robbing of your fellow citizens. Alas I am not a betting man.

The tax cheats are those that try to cheat people out of their own hard-earned salaries under the pretense of taking care of them. There wouldn't even be an income tax if the Fed hadn't been created -- the tax money goes straight to them, not the US government. The Fed is a privately held company -- it is not 'federal' and it has no 'reserves.' If you want to keep playing the Monopoly game, go ahead, but eventually all the pieces end up back in the box. Be a pawn, Waffler -- it suits your twisted view of 'liberty.'

IRS is bureay or agency of the Department of the Treasury. It has an office in DC. Puerto Rico is cool though, so IRS going there is really neat. It is not however a corporation. You have improved a smidge, If you write the stuff you do with a straight face they need you in Germany. They need some good holocaust deniers. You are ignorant and uneducated but you do have courage. I am the stupid one for even communicating with you. As some say Obama is wrong to talk to that Iranian guy. But I feel your stupidiy and any others like you need to be confronted so the disease does not spread. You should be locked up and quarantined.

This is the modus operandi of the Democrat party. Only one more thing needs to be added. Blame everything on the Republicans with the help of the press.