[vision-master]

Google - Michael Tsarion on The Freeman Perspective

[eXpat]

That was a tasty red pill!!!!

[BigTex]

I appreciate the fellow's enthusiasm and the homework he has done, but the central insight isn't that original.

Liberty only exists when there is the right to exercise it. The exercise of liberty requires power. Thus, only those who possess power may experience liberty. There are unusual periods in history when liberty is extended a bit more widely, but social organizations normally line up along a pecking order of power, and the more power one possesses, the more ability one has to experience and exercise liberty.

The notion that a free society consists of a social compact based upon a concept such as "the consent of the governed" is simply untrue (though it makes for great rhetoric). Any supposed "free" society is a society in which freedom exists on a sliding scale, and the degree of freedom is a function of the degree of power that an individual has within that society.

That's part of the reason that religious leaders have been excellent accumulators of power through history--i.e., they are able to bluff the secular authorities into believing that they possess authority granted from a higher power. Once the ruse is uncovered, the religious leaders are discredited and they lose their power. Ever wondered what the Founding Fathers in the U.S. were thinking when they separated church and state? It was just a way of keeping the clergy from accumulating power as they had in Europe. Pretty slick move there, though it wasn't quite "freedom of religion" as advertised (more like freedom FROM religion).

What the gent in the video is doing is making amateur legal arguments. When I say "amateur" I mean they are interesting, but not persuasive enough to represent a potential method of accumulating power, which might be translated into real liberty. Such arguments often just get people into more trouble.

Don't waste your time dwelling on how stupid the legal system is. The legal system if just a moat around the castle. Don't become preoccupied with the color of the water.

If you want liberty, study power and how it accumulates within social organizations, and position yourself accordingly.

[Googolplex]

Very interesting. I was thinking as I watched that the American version of a sovereign would be the US Constitution, but his mention of the fact that the UK is not a federation (where as the US is as far as I know) got me thinking that our sovereignty may be more complex then that.

Is our individual sovereignty in fact invested in our various state constitutions, which then in turn invest it in the US Constitution?

This is the case as far as I can tell, and I suspect that the specific legal situation in the US is fundamentally different as a result. Still, law itself, I believe, is not so fundamentally different between the two nations. Is there a similar "loop-hole" in the US (even if it is perhaps of a different kind)? Or has our vestment of sovereignty directly into a legal document, which can be and has been amended with legislation, removed the distinction between what is "legal" and what is "common/natural law"?

Anyone with some knowledge of constitutional law out there?

[BigTex]

Anyone with some knowledge of constitutional law out there?

It is all about the centers of power. What a law says or how a constitution SEEMS to bind the exercise of power is irrelevant. A constitution serves the ends of those in power. It can never bind it. Note today how MOST of what the U.S. federal government does is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution, even though the Constitution reserves to the STATES any powers not expressly granted to the federal government. Thus, one would have a good technical argument that most of the federal government's activities are unconstitutional. However, consider the bodies to which such arguments must be made: U.S. FEDERAL courts. The idea that a federal court is ever going to put together a string of decisions that would strip it of its power and return that power to state courts is unrealistic. What is far more common is for federal courts to basically begin with the conclusion they would like to reach and determine which legal arguments will allow them to reach that conclusion in the most easily defended manner. This idea is basically what informs the last 100 years of U.S. constitutional law (with a few notable exceptions along a striking trend toward the concentration of power within the federal government at the expense of the state governments and the people themselves).

Take, for example, the states' arguments for secession preceding the U.S. Civil War. They were simply arguing that the same sovereignty of the state governments that ALLOWED them to join the United States in the first place surely must also allow them to opt out of that same arrangement if they so elected at some future date. However, when they attempted to exercise that right to opt out of the union, the union exercised its POWER to prevent the states from exercising their sovereignty, and in rock-paper-scissors style, federal power trumped state claims to sovereignty and the power grab by the federal government was dramatically expanded. In this view, Abraham Lincoln was little more than a country bumpkin pawn in a much more sophisticated process of accumulating and concentrating power within the political unit of the federal government. It's really shocking how completely off-the-mark the whole storyline is of the Civil War being about Abraham Lincoln freeing the slaves.

The U.S. Constitution was a somewhat effective impediment to the U.S. government's expansion of power in the general direction of tyranny, and it was effective for perhaps 70 years after its ratification. Beginning with the Civil War, however, and continuing in dramatic fashion in the 20th century (particularly during FDR's presidency), all constitutional limitations on the government's power were stripped away, little by little, so that the intent of the Constitution, which was to severely bind the power of the federal government, is today virtually meaningless.

The rights that individuals have retained, such as a form of freedom of speech, are only still in place because the exercise of those rights does not represent a limitation on the ability of the federal government to do whatever it wants. Once those rights begin to represent a real impediment to government action, they are limited, restricted, or simply taken away.

Here is a great way to test the level of protection to personal liberty provided by the Constitution: take a copy of the Constitution and a bayonet and see whether or not the bayonet is able to poke through and slice up the Constitution. This exercise is quite instructive in the way that laws purporting to protect individual liberty actually work.

[vision-master]

That's part of the reason that religious leaders have been excellent accumulators of power through history--i.e., they are able to bluff the secular authorities into believing that they possess authority granted from a higher power. Once the ruse is uncovered, the religious leaders are discredited and they lose their power. Ever wondered what the Founding Fathers in the U.S. were thinking when they separated church and state? It was just a way of keeping the clergy from accumulating power as they had in Europe. Pretty slick move there, though it wasn't quite "freedom of religion" as advertised (more like freedom FROM religion).

Then again, we had guy's like Bob Marley.



Note: the black, green, gold and red colors.

[Googolplex]

Here is a great way to test the level of protection to personal liberty provided by the Constitution: take a copy of the Constitution and a bayonet and see whether or not the bayonet is able to poke through and slice up the Constitution. This exercise is quite instructive in the way that laws purporting to protect individual liberty actually work.

But then what about the other copy over their? And the 10,000 copies over there? And the electronic copys that exist now in a million places all over the internet? The Constitution can be represented on a piece of paper, but it is not itself a piece of paper. It is the United States of America. The USA and the US Constitution are one in the same. They, or rather it, is a nation.

You are right of course to a certain extent, that is how things realistically seem to work, but it is the nation that is being undermined and taken over, not just a document. The power is not being concentrated in the hands of "the federal government" at the expense of the Constitution, the federal government is entirely a creation of the Constitution, a figment of the nation's (and therefore the Constitution's) imagination so to speak. The power is being concentrated in to the hands of the individuals who control that federal government. To blame it all on a power grabbing federal government "boogie man" would only serve to let the individuals responsible off the hook.

[BigTex]

But then what about the other copy over there? And the 10,000 copies over there? And the electronic copys that exist now in a million places all over the internet? The Constitution can be represented on a piece of paper, but it is not itself a piece of paper. It is the United States of America. The USA and the US Constitution are one in the same. They, or rather it, is a nation.

The Constitution is an abstraction that can be used as a blueprint for a government if that is what a society chooses to do. Our society has chosen in recent decades not to follow the terms of the Constitution closely (we can, of course, debate what actually contributed to this trend, but that is where we are at today).

You are right of course to a certain extent, that is how things realistically seem to work, but it is the nation that is being undermined and taken over, not just a document.

The document represented a set of ideas that were designed to protect the people from tyranny. By not following the terms of the document, the society has subjected itself to tyranny.

The power is not being concentrated in the hands of "the federal government" at the expense of the Constitution, the federal government is entirely a creation of the Constitution, a figment of the nation's (and therefore the Constitution's) imagination so to speak.

The federal government is a creation of the Constitution in the same way that a hardened criminal was originally the sweet child of some adoring mother. The origin of the entity is irrelevant--it is the nature of the entity today that we should focus on.

The power is being concentrated in to the hands of the individuals who control that federal government. To blame it all on a power grabbing federal government "boogie man" would only serve to let the individuals responsible off the hook.

I'm not sure that is a useful distinction. I am not blaming anything on a boogie man. Based upon many historical examples, it is clearly in the nature of human beings when placed in power to abuse that power if left unchecked. Surprise! We let our political leaders and bureaucrats go on for decades without checking their power and they grabbed all they could, both for themselves individually, and for the offices they hold.

In any society, there are centers of power. The Founding Fathers attempted to create a system of government in which those centers of power were widely dispersed. The state governments would compete with the federal government for power, and within the federal government there would be tremendous tension among the three branches of government, which would also check accumulations of power as well. What has happened is that this dispersed power has gradually accumulated at the federal level, and within the federal level it has accumulated in the executive branch especially. Imbalances of power lead to social, political and economic turbulence within a society, which eventually shakes the society apart (external shocks such as resource shortages accelerate and aggravate this process).

This story has played out many times before. It's just harder to see when it is happening to your own society.

[deMolay]

This article is about the US but applies in spades in Canada I am sure. Especially the lack of transparency and accountability. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... arSkIcch2k

[pup55]

Even Harvard University, whose endowment of $26 billion makes it the world’s richest academic institution, fell for Wall Street’s financing in the dark: The Cambridge, Massachusetts- based university paid $497.6 million to investment banks during the year ended June 30 to cancel $1.1 billion of swaps.

So the so-called leading business school in the nation is unable to correctly analyze an investment. No doubt the leading sales people were alums of this illustrious institution.

[rangerone314]

Even Harvard University, whose endowment of $26 billion makes it the world’s richest academic institution, fell for Wall Street’s financing in the dark: The Cambridge, Massachusetts- based university paid $497.6 million to investment banks during the year ended June 30 to cancel $1.1 billion of swaps.

So the so-called leading business school in the nation is unable to correctly analyze an investment. No doubt the leading sales people were alums of this illustrious institution.

Harvard obviously isn't what it used to be. It HAS churned out a lot of parasites in recent years that feed on people, so I guess that makes Harvard a SWAMP.

[Novus]

Harvard has always been a parasite institution. The primary focus of their business and law school is to separate the people from their money. The scams run by the likes of AIG, JP Morgan and Goldman Sacks have all come from Harvard educated parasites.

[deMolay]

Question is how much bad news is being withheld by local and state governments in order to keep their jobs and fat benefits flowing. They do not have to practice the same accounting standards as private companies.

[Pops]

Debate US tax policy here.

[Pops]

This thread is to debate US tax policy or any nation's for that matter, so we don't need to derail every other thread. Ad Hom at your own risk.

So, what are the basic arguments?

On the no tax side is the contention that taxes reduce private investment, that governments are wasteful and inept and I guess that taxes are theft is the extreme view. Add more...

On the more tax side is the idea that government should provide security and a social safety net that private investment can't or won't, that regulation protects the minority from the majority, in the extreme view equality of outcome rather than simply of opportunity. Add more...


---
Personally I think everyone should pay taxes above some baseline amount. I think it should be a progressive rate, not because it's fair but because oligarchy and democracy are incompatible and since oligarchy is inevitable it is stupid to encourage accumulated wealth.

As for loopholes I think it's pretty plain that if we give a break to anyone, then everyone will expect, and deserve, their own break and of course will try to work it so they have as many breaks as possible. I think home ownership for example is a good thing for society but a homeowner deduction is in effect the same as a penalty for those unable to buy so I guess I think there should be no deductions on net income whatsoever. Since I think population is the biggest threat to survival I certainly don't think there should be exemptions for child "dependents".

As for unearned income (income from anything other than labor) it should be taxed exactly the same as labor. The argument that those with capital won't invest if they must pay taxes on the profit is wrong on it's face since to not invest means zero profit and because of inflation, negative profit. And again, if oligarchy is inevitable, encouraging it further through allowing untaxed wealth accumulation is ludacris.

Corporate profit should be taxed exactly the same as wages as well. Double taxation is the cost to investors to not be held personally responsible for corporate actions.

I'm against any kind of government handout without some reciprocation. I'm not talking about what Gingrich suggested about kids mopping the school floor but if people want a government check and can work, they should be contributing to the general welfare not simply on it.

Don't take that wrong, I believe government should run health, disability, unemployment, retirement insurance systems paid for by those that use these systems, just like other essential services. It doesn't make sense to pay a for-profit business for a sense of security when it is in their self interest is to not pay on their promise.

Obviously everyone wants everything and they've gotten in the habit of getting it, to the extent of demanding that politicians pledge to reduce the little that they do pay. Obviously that isn't sustainable.

How do you see the role of government and how should it be paid for?

[dissident]

The latest fad is that austerity stimulates the economy. Naturally this is a moronic theory since government accounts for over 20% of GDP. And it is not as simple as saying that if you shut it down the 20% will spontaneously arise from the private sector. In fact, most of that 20% would disappear into offshore banks as extra profit and rent. What private entity is going to pay social assistance? Social assistance boosts the GDP by increasing the purchasing power of a large number of consumers. It is local spending with the greatest GDP bang for the buck.

People just don't like paying taxes so they whinge. I don't like paying taxes either. But the fact is that people's incomes reflect the stimulation of the economy that taxes generate through government spending. So the notion that getting rid of government will mean more money in your pocket is just a silly myth. Following this logic Sweden should be a pauper state with its people's wealth sucked dry by big bad government.

[evilgenius]

In a way it's a scam to whinge about taxes because if we all decided to negotiate on the basis of taking into account what the taxes will take out, and therefore realize what that means to us, then it would be an adequate adjustment. The real problem, therefore, seems to be that the power to negotiate fairly at various levels doesn't exist!

[diemos]

When you go to Chick-fil-A and hand over your money for a sandwich you can see the immediate and tangible benefit that giving up your money brings you.

When you pay taxes it's hard to see exactly what you are getting and since spending decisions are made collectively you will often wind up paying for things you don't actually want.

So taxes will always be unpopular.

The real question is not how much taxes we should be paying, it's what is the proper job of government. Once you decide what the proper job of government is then you can see how much it's going to cost to do it.

I've always liked this book's view of what government is supposed to do.

http://www.amazon.com/Systems-Survival- ... 359&sr=1-6

[Cog]

What progressives are learning(albeit very slowly) is that you can't continue the nanny state with government workers getting gold-plated pensions and continue to deficit spend in the trillions. You also can't pay for 60 million people on Medicare and Medicaid, as it is currently constructed. This of course makes them very angry and they demand even more taxes to make up the short fall in their socialist utopian dreams.

As a Libertarian, I just sit back and have a good laugh while I watch city after city declare bankruptcy since the underlying assumptions of cradle-to-grave socialism would never work mathematically. But progressives still think they can't defeat math by wishing, so I'll continue to observe them fail in their approach.

The real solution has always been to lower expectations, cut spending at all levels of government, city, state, and federal, and let people sink or swim on their own hook. A position that is heresy to the FSA(Free Shit Army) crowd.

[kublikhan]

I agree with Pops position for the most part. However I see an issue with tax avoidance. Since tax levels are different in various parts of the world, individuals/corporations can setup show in low tax areas and deprive the highly progressive tax areas of revenue.

As for Cogs position of low taxes/spending and letting the market sort everything out, I see an issue with that argument. It is true enough that the very nature of capitalism encourages encourages innovation, efficiency, and hard work. But it is also true that the nature of capitalism encourages the accumulation of wealth by the few. This is detrimental to capitalism's own long term interests. I copied this post from another forum:

It's always funny to see people take the general position that regulation is bad, but capitalism is good. I, too, am a capitalist and I can't see how any reasonably intelligent capitalist can be opposed to regulation and wealth distribution. Both are critical components to keeping a capitalistic system sustainable long-term.

You need regulation to keep the market competitive and to protect your local/state/country's interests. A central tenant of capitalism is that competition drives innovation and efficiencies. If companies are allowed to monopolize industries, or can drive down prices through use of external labor, it is no longer driving innovation and efficiencies, it's "faking it" through other mechanisms, and as such, no longer doing it's job.

Furthermore, over time, capitalism has a tendency to "devour itself". In order to function, capitalism relies on an ever increasing exchange of goods and services (i.e. exchange of money). This type of market is most functional when there is a high concentration of people with a reasonable amount of disposable income to spend (large middle class). That extra money is like a "vote" that is economically used to reward people who are the most innovated, efficient, and hard working; ultimately driving the economy to greater efficiencies. On the other hand, the very nature of capitalism encourages concentration of wealth in the hands of the very few. While not terribly damaging in the short term, the long term result is actually counter-productive to the capitalistic system. Wealth redistribution isn't only about humanitarian issues, it's essential to the long-term viability of our economic system. A strong middle class is absolutely essential to sustaining a capitalistic system long-term, even if that isn't always in the best interest of short-term profits.