Why I laugh at anarcho-capitalists.

The title of this topic is a bit generalized. So I'll admit right now that there are probably intelligent anarcho-capitalists out there. I haven't seen any, but there are always some in every group.

What is an anarcho-capitalist? It's a person who wants absolutely no government whatsoever with a completely free and unregulated laissez-faire economic system of trade.

Here is a blog post from one such individual explaining his...plan...to create such a society.

http://abyssalstorm.soup.io/post/275773410/Pro-Freedom-Anti-American

Oh, and he's a bisexual racist male prostitute. Not that this counts against his points of course, I just thought that was hilarious when I found that out, and that matches the topic title.

So this blog post is essentially this guy...Fringe is what he calls himself, apt name I believe, explaining that his plan is to move everyone like him to Alaska, and secede from the Union. He plans to do this legally, thoguh if the U.S. intervenes and goes, "lolno" then he'll call for Chinese and Russian troops to support them, forcing the U.S. to either allow them to secede, OR commit an act of war against China and Russia. If one does not think this plan is a good one(as I think many rational people would) he says, "Well what other ideas would you have? How about cells within the army to turn traitor when the revolution occurs? Come on, let's have an anti american brain storm!" Which to me is just...hilarious on so many levels.

I mean, hey, if you want to encourage soldiers to form a mutiny and turn traitor against the US feel free. We haven't had a good ol fashioned execution for treason in a while. But seriously, the only way in which Alaska will be able to as the blogger says, "Legally secede" is if ALL the states got together and had a brand new constitutional convention and totally changed the constitution to allow for that. Because as it stands now, seceding is unconstitutional, so it's completely not legal.

Also, IF this strange fantasy were to come true, Russia and China would be the aggressors, as their support by being on Alaskan soil would be invading United States sovereign territory, which would justify the use of force against China and Russia as an act of self defense. Article 1 of the nation's charter would show that the nation is well within its rights to defend itself.

Article 5 of the NATO charter would be invoked, which means some of the native states would be dragged into this russia v United States war.

There's no right under national law to request help from outside powers. And the right to self determination under international law applies only to indigenous territories and colonies. It wouldn't apply to Alaska. They're not...a colony. Nor indigenous.

This would also plunge us into WWIII and plunge the world economy into the toilet as the world's three most powerful powers go to war.

Also, why the FUCK would Russia and China step in to help this guy's strange new nation secede? Would they really risk their own territorial integrity by setting a precedent that they're ok with territories simply breaking off and forming new states? I don't think so. China wouldn't want a third power like, say, India, to get involved in Tibet for instance.

Also, what the hell is the air force and navy going to be doing during all of this? Are they just going to stand aside and let Russian and Chinese transports drop off troops in Alaska? Just, "Oh yeah that's totally ok, you go ahead and help those revolutionaries out. We don't mind."? That's absurd in the highest degree possible.

Plus, our Pacific air force and navy are large enough to take on Russia and China's fleets combined. So...that wouldn't end well for them.

What about South Korea? And Japan? We have thousands and thousands of troops and billion and billions of dollars invested into their defense, are they just going to sit idly by as their most powerful ally goes to hell? No, I don't think so.

What about Canada? I'm not sure they'd be too happy about a Russian and Chinese power grab on what used to be their soil, and what is quite literally right next to them.

What about the NATO allies in Eastern Europe? They already have a terrible history with Moscow, and Beijing just became allies, you think they'll enjoy watching without doing anything as these two powers just grab new territory? Even if it's for someone else? Against...their ALLY?

To top off some of this blogger's inanity he says, "Hey, well you know if China decided they didn't wanna leave they treat Hong Kong ok, so it wouldn't be that bad." Even though China's FAAAAR more authoritarian than the United States, so much for anarchism.

This plan doesn't make any sense.

Why would we even agree to this? This would show any state or group that they can just leave whenever they want to, this would totally destroy federal authority. Plus we'd lose a huge chunk of territory, PLUS the resources in that territory, but we'd also lose all claims to those resources in the Arctic Sea.

Also, why the fuck would ALASKA go along with this? Why would the people in Alaska be ok with this movement? They probably wouldn't appreciate a bunch of immigrants coming over and going, "We're taking over. No more government for you."

Alaska even benefits the most form federal spending in the first place. They receive more per capita in federal spending than any other state in the union. Alaska's economy DEPENDS on money that flows from the federal government.

So...who else thinks forming some sort of sovereign state and trying to secede? Who thinks this is a good idea? Who is pro anarcho-capitalism? How exactly do you plan to go through with this ideology? Because it seems to me that this ideology is totally and completely impossible in the real world as it is now. Hence...why I laugh at them.

Your forgetting a couple factors,
-The idea that russia or china would want those territories.
-That china and russia is willing to waste that money on a fight with no gain, money which russia doesn't have.
-That china would be harming a country that is already in debt to them and crippling them into not being able to return the debt.

Though I don't feel like reading all of it, the blogger didn't think very far into his plan, that...
-Russia or China would expect something in return for their assistance.
-That they would not be antonymous unless they could buy there own independence as Hon Kong did, which sounds impossible, by his cultural perspectives. Even then china still has influence in Hon Kong.
-That after all this is done, whats to stop Russia and China from just invading them as extensions of there territories or far more physical means. That they'd only be pawns.
-What do they plan on doing by turning the world against them by instigating a world war, how do they plan on fighting?
-The idea that he can recruit soldiers in the army into traitors through means monitored by the army. That he himself can't be stamped out if the government felt he was any bit dangerous.

He's just some crack pot, full of hot air, not worth wasting time. Only seeing things in means that are convenient for him, but kudos on trying, I'll give him that. I could never, even as a joke, post something so asinine, so foolish and delusional as that, in a sane state, that is assuming that he is serious.

Ya that guy sounds like a huge troll to me from what you have described. Alaska wouldn't be able to survive by itself as its own independent nation and would probably be invaded by a foreign power. That whole guy's post is ridiculous.

Secession is NOT illegal, or if it is illegal God help us all. The Founding Fathers specifically instituted the role of government to be at the state and local level, with the federal government being little more than an arbitrator. The fact that the Federal Government now actually governs local and state, and that little can be done without the Big Bad monster is the greatest tragedy in American History.

Further, Self-Determination is not a premise of international law, but a premise on human rights. However, the Western Powers have foregone this idea of Self-Determination completely(See: The indignation of the Palestinians)
As well as middle eastern affairs in the attempt to create democracies in the region.

Indeed, those true and tried political philosophers who once created America, who were at the center of our government are now gone, with modern-day "thinkers" who have/had the arrogance to think they can possibly do better and that our Founders were "outdated."

The only thing to which I'll ever differ from the Founders, as it regards to modern-day thinking is that I don't believe the Republic, the philosophical idea of a limited government can exist in today's America. Because to do so requires the average American to take up government, which he is wholly incapable of, even in the dependent state of today.

What's needed then, is a government to unite and centralize the individual forces, eliminate those forces which are betraying the continent as well as a sense of flexibility within the market and society. I believe that Fascism is truly the right path for this country. With Freedom, comes responsibility. With a centralized government and economy, responsibility would rein in and the country as a whole would flourish.

What constitutes treason is very simple to me: He who would betray his countrymen, his home land for his own petty gains. Washington, in it's entirety is treasonous against the continent with it's lobbyists, with it's partisan politics. I'd even say the average American citizen is committing treason against the country on the account of being stupid enough or blind enough to vote traitors in every four years, for the past 60 years(Republicans or Democrats)

[color=#2e1a6b]I like the intentions, but there's a few problems with his plan. Here's a much better plan off the top of my head:

Texas declares itself a sovereign state. The first thing we do is form a militia; if we get half the population to join, we'll have 13 million armed citizens. We then release a statement that says:

"we acknowledge the powers of the federal government to be only those described in article I section 8, article II section 2, and article III of the U.S. constitution. If and When the government extends beyond these powers, we will refuse to provide revenue to the federal government".

We get rid of all executive branch departments residing here. If they attempt to exercise some sort of governmental power, we will treat it as a crime. Since the government extends beyond their constitutional powers, we'll obviously cut revenue to the federal government, which will cause them to retaliate in some way. They don't really have a legal basis to say that we must fund their unconstitutional budget, so I doubt they'll send in armed forces (we have a militia anyways). What they'll probably do is cut all services to Texas. So no government programs, no army to protect us, no regulations to help us, no welfare or medicare. We cease all involvement with the federal reserve, and create a stable currency based on precious metals. We'll have charities instead of a welfare state. We let the free market build our economy with free trade and almost no regulation. As other states see our success, they too will declare themselves sovereign states. Eventually, the federal government will go back to what it should be, so that it can at least exercise its constitutional powers

Ok Lelouch, firstly I'd say this is only 'better' in the sense that anything would be better than on that post. But here's some huge problems with your idea here.

Firstly...militia of 13 million? Are you insane? You wouldn't get to 1000 before the ATF Inspection Regulations would permit the government to come in and take a look at wtf you're doing. They would then find this insurrection mission statement of yours and be fully legally allowed to jail everyone who joins your 'militia'.

Why? Because it's treasonous. And I'm sorry, but treason is an unconstitutional thing. You wouldn't get past Step 1 in your plan before everyone's in jail. So...yeah.

It seems to me that just about any plan anybody with this intent tries to pull off is doomed to fail from the onset. So...I see no point.



The Founding Fathers understood after the debacle with the Articles of Confederation that there is a need for some federal power over the states. Such is the reason of the bill of rights, states aren't allowed to supercede the federal government concerning legality of anything.

As far as secession being illegal: yes it is.

According to the 1869 Supreme Court Case Texas v. White, The Union is older than the States, and among the things made illegal in the initial formation of the Union in the Articles of Confederation, secession was illegal. So, this was seen to have been carried onto the federal constitution.

Of course that was just one argument of many, but essentially the Court ruled the only way a state can successfully secede is if all the States agree they're allowed to(And there's no way in hell you're getting the states to agree to let go of Alaska) or through violent revolution, which, as stated before, will allow the federal government to send federal troops in to put them down.

So yeah, it's unconstitutional according to the supreme Court.



You're equivocating Self Determination of the individual and Self Determination of the State. Foreign territories that aren't official states of the united states are allowed to have self determination, and cast us off. Official states can't do that. Sure, the individual is allowed to leave a country whenever they want to if they desire to, but they don't have the right to use the government's facilities and services(like...roads...) if they declare themselves no longer a citizen of the country.



Well, our Founding Fathers were pretty bad in a lot of ways. So I don't find it to be all that unlikely we can do better. For instance...they're not the ones that made slavery illegal.



I think the vast majority of americans have things so good, that they have not the first clue what to complain about. I can't tell you how many people talk to online and IRL that go, "Man we should just vote third party. Pot's still illegal!" It's like, "Really? You're voting on the basis of who's going to legalize pot? So if the nazis ran on the premise of legalizing pot you'd go 'hey guys, the Nazi's aren't so bad!'?"



You know what LA, I just don't even know what to say anymore against someone who honestly thinks fascism is a tenable political position. It just blows my mind way too much. So I'm just gonna let you go on that one Lustful.

[color=#2e1a6b]The fact that you actually think this is just saddening.


[color=#2e1a6b]btw, we've already got over 8 million armed citizens.

Your pitiful understanding of the Bill of Rights is appalling. The Federal power of the Government, strictly lied within the State Government(Hence, why we have a Congress).

I'll reference you to Amendments 9 and 10:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.



Thanks for reminding me why I'd abolish the Supreme Court if I were nominated Commander in Chief. Firstly, it's said that the U.S. Constitution supercedes the former Articles of Confederation. As such, one cannot make a ruling using the Articles as a guide. Secondly, if those Justices did their jobs(which they never do), which is to interpret according to the will of the Founders and no else. You'd understand why the Confederation was drafted the way it was drafted, and why the U.S. Constitution is drafted the way it was drafted.

The Confederation isn't even a binding document, it was a declaration of war against Great Britain! The reason secession was made illegal, was that this was actually a civil war. It would be easy(and tempting, consider the improbable odds the Founders were facing in their seemingly insurmountable enemy) for the English Nationals to change sides to return to their colonial occupation if it was seen that the beacon of freedom was all but lost.

But now, after Shay's Rebellion, the Founders were constituting a Federal Government. The Farmers, peasants and the Middle Class voiced strong opposition.
This led to the need for open discussion(which, modern day Liberals would never
do) in the form of the Federalist Papers.

I'll refer you specifically to one of America's Greatest Men and Leader: James Madison.


http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_10.html

He explains clearly that the spirit of freedom cannot and should be constrained, no, if it's constrained then there's no such thing as a republican government. The argument for the Federal Government, was to keep the country together, lest the disarray and violence further erode economic and social prosperity.

But the reason, a Republic can be held is clearly in the will of the State Governments. The State Governments, which in Madison's own words would promote the National Good,

Today's "Government" grossly violates this stature, an example can be seen in the incompetence of FEMA and I'm not just referring to Hurricane Katrina. In the Californian/Texan areas, there as a huge wildfire. The State Fire Department sought it's own strategy, the federal government, it's own.

Instead of the states colluding against each other as feared, the situation today is that you have the states acting independent of each other, while being strangled in modern day Feudalism.

Even IF you could make the argument that you can somehow use the Confederation to overrule the ninth and tenth amendments of the Constitution, I can use that against you and invoke the Declaration of Independence, specifically the part that states:

"All men are created equal and there are certain unalienable rights that governments should never violate. These rights include the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. When a government fails to protect those rights, it is not only the right, but also the duty of the people to overthrow that government. In its place, the people should establish a government that is designed to protect those rights. Governments are rarely overthrown, and should not be overthrown for trivial reasons. In this case, a long history of abuses has led the colonists to overthrow a tyrannical government."

Knowing you, you'll cite trivial reasons. What's trivial in my mind, is the continued rule of modern political leaders, even as their train of thought destroyed Rome, Greece and as far as I'm concerned this continent.

Ironically, King George sent his soldiers abroad in various wars, often torturing them and keeping them from the human rights and dignity to which they deserve. We see this today in our modern federal government, even as a couple of centuries have past since that revolution.

King George manipulated his currency, and overtaxed his people. Today, we have quantitive easing and the manipulation of our currency. Even as we engage in inflationary policies however, the government still feels the need to sustain itself in the form of taxes.

The old adage used to be that these taxes went to hiring teachers, building bridges, roads, etc. Yet, our civilization pails to that of Modern Europe or that of Asia. We haven't had a boom since the boom of the New Deal. We've had the spending, but no where near the effects. Modern Thinkers have certainly outdone themselves in this epic failure to which we can witness for our own eyes. Even you, are a witness to this failure.

Ask your parents/grandparents if this country is any different, in any fashion from the one they grew up in as far as domestic production is concerned and they'll say it got worse.(Obviously, the 90's economy kicks this economy's ass)

To me, this government is guilty of treason and high treason, and as such, let's take even your definition: Fine, we shall invoke the will of if not 300 million Americans, than 160 million(a majority). A majority for real, actual reform that if need be, constitutes legally putting in a new form of government.







A Government is a political entity, in other words it's an artificial existence derived of men. It holds no such territory, or even so much as a right(You yourself, argued this), yes the government is in the same position as the fetus, in fact it's as much of a leech on the American Citizen in the same fashion.

I can be a citizen of the country, and not declare my allegiance to the government which portrays(key word) to run it. The old saying is to be Patriotic, is to be loyal to your COUNTRY.

I'm loyal to my fellow brethren of all descents who live here, I'm a law-abiding man who shall continue to abide by the law. I have no allegiance however to a federal government which portrays itself hollier than thou.

If they even want me to shift my position to said portrayal, then they once more, must serve the commonwealth. The Modern Thinker establishes his own power base, then justifies his power hungry lust as serving the commonwealth.

I refute said justification, serving the commonwealth means the prosperity of all Americans, not the fulfillment of a political theory.





Are you REALLY that ignorant of history? The North/South were split. Remember, at the time, produce=commerce(rather than a monetary commerce base that we have now.)So Slavery was a lot more than just having someone work for you for nothing, the slave was also economic collateral.

The Founders, most of whom were from the Northern States tried to break free from slavery(States such as Pennylvania, were famously known as 'Free States'.). This forged the Great Compromise, wherein the 3/5ths rule came into existence.

The Founders knew full well, that they themselves could never create the political existence of a social state(Heck, they already tried. See above). The only such creation of a social state would come from the will of the people.

The Hidden Amiosity that many proclaim exist today, exists in large part because of the Federal decisions made then by Abraham Lincoln, and then Brown V Board of Education.

The general public did not concede to the notion of equality, they were forced through the civil revolution to eventually swallow it. I myself, don't even concede to the notion of equality.

We are equal in our Being, that is to say as Humans we have fundamental rights(to education, to clothing and to our own happiness and freedom provided we don't violate the will of another person(IE:Law). However, there's a difference between Biological Equality and Social Equality.

The African-American and the Caucasian-American are Socially different, their Social Equality can only be had in the separation of the two Social States which have noncompromising differences in the way they wish to live.

This is neither for nor against, but rather a natural occurrence of their differences. True Equality recognizes these differences, and the ability for them to live independently of each other.

Their co-operation will come, as their independent will is left in tact. But force them to come together under the false notion of equality, and all you've managed to do is put a cat and a dog together and forced them to live together.

If you're lucky, they might live in harmony(IE: They realize their stuck together and their social pattern is changed). But this harmony is rather weak, if the animals were to stay away from each other for a while, their natural instincts to be enemies would resurface.

We humans are much the same, younger generations have been trained to accept the false notion that Biological Equality and Social Equality are one in the same(they're not). Meanwhile, the older generations have been trained through the violence of the 60's Revolution. They don't want to repeat that and so, they keep quiet.

Ironically, perhaps it would be possible to maintain this false notion of a state under the current conditions. But think of the Trayvon Martin incident. How the Media wanted to(and succeeded) in creating a firestorm, attempting to make it out to be a racial crime, when there was no such evidence of racial motivation.(And clearly, as the case has now been outlined there was no basis for such. But rather it was Zimmerman's own ego which led him to take the life of another.)

Think of the NAACP and others, we have AIPAC and all of these minority rights groups speaking out about a supposed inequality. This, in a state where Social and Biological Equality was forcefully and falsely jointed to the hip.

The Media, for the purpose of sensational journalism and political groups for the purpose of political power, have created a dent in the false social state of equality for all, be damned of social differences.

We want these minorities to flourish? Either one of two things: They'll have to submerge into the American/European community. No more having an Asian bloc here, or an African bloc here or there. If we're going to talk about unity, we should then talk about the failed experiment called the "Melting Pot", it melted into not a single ingredient but many failed individual ingredients which weren't meant to go together at all.

The Submersion into American/European consciousness, and our way of living goes against their Biological Rights however. In light of that, the only way Man can live and progress is to live individually. Yes, Mexico needs to once more be governed by the Mexicans.

The African-Americans in our country might just want to pay a little more attention to the African Nation, and develop it. Because their sense of a social state, and the sense of a social state as identified in European/Asian cultures is completely and utterly different.

It's not discrimination to acknowledge one's differences and to live according to one's culture. No, it's discrimination to force these elements upon each other(For example, the African-American continues to proclaim some kind of inequality in spite of all of our progress. This proclaimation stems from the fact that the European/American mindset has not fully integrated into their idea of a social state.)

To uphold man's Social and Biological Equality, is to allow their independent existence of other Social Groups. These groups eventually come together of their own will, but their individuality allows for them to co-exist.

Without individuality, there can never be a collective.







This is so hilarious, and clearly an Ad Hominen attack against Libertarians. The war on Drugs, more so than the war on terror has been a failure of massive proportion. Both in the millions of tax payer dollars wasted(yet, constant inability to protect our borders) and in the fallacy of incarceration.

These drug dealers, addicts, etc are labeled Felons with max.security prison, meanwhile serial killers, rapists and pedophiles roam free. While I believe in a drug free society, the war on drugs isn't doing it's job. Especially in the context of pharameutical drugs and prescriptions.

The Government is the pot calling the kettle black in this instance.

Aside from that, there's alot to complain about. We have unemployment that is seemingly stable...for now. What the media doesn't mention is we have now engaged in Q3, to continue to artificially keep rates down in an attempt to create economic spending.

However, spending does NOT equal productivity and without jobs there simply cannot be productivity. In addition to the deflation of the dollar's value, we're vastly moving into Weimar Republic territory.

It's not just us, it's Greece, Japan, even China. The World Economy of massive, inflationary spending, the 'Global Economy' which has diluted and destroyed the national economies on which it was built in the first place is about to collaspe.

And you think all is rosy in the world, because hey, we've got computers, cars and we're "Americans", unlike most of the world. Well, if inflationary spending,
pork barrel projects, etc shall continue. You'll find that our items will be worth crap, just as the Deutchmark wasn't worth shit in 1926.







Here, I'll help you out: Fascism believes that the State(IE:America) is of the utmost importance. America's future, America's progress and the livelihood of our youth is what's at stake.

Currently, in our country CEO'S make 500 times that of the American Worker. As a Fascist, I scoff at that. It shouldn't matter whether you're a CEO, or a worker, a student, lawyer, etc. It is your Human Capital, which is the basis of your economic value.

Fascism values the American Individual, not the American Business. Businesses will start anew, and they are started by people.

Equally, a Fascist Government under my regime understands the value of the Citizen as such, that my government shall not strip them of their value(IE:Taxes). The future Government, must become wholly self-sustainable and independent.

I want you to imagine for a moment the possibility: A nation-state, whose sole purpose is only in the maintaining of the continent, of the citizens and of our security, freedom and prosperity.

I was a disgruntled Democrat after Obama had broken his promises on spending, and I sure as hell wasn't going to become a Republican. But after seeing the crowds of people that the likes of Mussolini/Hitler summoned, the vast economic stories of recovery. I knew there was a future in Fascism, the true third party ideology.

In fact, when you get past all the bullshit, you realize that Fascism and the Republic are closer in nature. The only difference is, the Founders believed in a de-centralized state of affairs. We may have centralization now, but this centralization is in the hands of Wall Street, not America.

I want to centralize it in America, and overthrow the barons of tyranny, just as our forefathers and all of Europe once did.

...Yeah...but they're not an anti-american militia. Which is pretty much what you outlined.

The fact that you think your idea is even remotely plausible makes me sadder than you could possibly be for me believing your idea is silly and would never work.

As I outlined earlier, Government=Country is a false notion. A Government is equal to that of the fetus, seemingly attaching itself to the woman's womb(in your outlined definition of victimhood.). The Founders themselves, never saw the Government as the country.

The fallacy of that premise, has been seen throughout history. Including up to the American Revolution against Great Britain. But seemingly, it's beyond your comprehension.

The Country IS the Commonwealth. Not Republicans, not Democrats. Not even my own hypothetical regime would make that claim. The Country is the commonwealth. It's you and me as a citizen, despite how much I disagree with your position(and yours my own).

If say, there were some government violence against citizens and a gun were pointed at you, I would gladly stake my life on your(and hopefully our collective) survival.

Governments have perished in the face of history, when civilizations and people perish however, there can be no turning back.

If such a rebellion were to occur, in the light of the massive debt, in light of the crushing constant sorties of our brigades and of the inevitable escalation of these problems, such a militia wouldn't be Anti-American, nope, they would have been pro-American, because they were willing to die for the Commonwealth.

Without the Commonwealth, there is no country.

And your poor reading comprehension skills is equally appalling.



Neither of which you seem to understand.



Yup, if the constitution says you have a right, it doesn't mean you can take rights NOT mentioned by the constitution away from others. That's all that means.

Where exactly does it say the states have say over the federal government? Because it doesn't.




Yup. If the constitution doesn't mention it, the states...or the people...have the right to decide on it. And who represents the people when it comes to law making in the federal government? Our elected officials, and who makes the laws that deal with things not expressly granted or taken away by the constitution, are delt with by...our elected federal officials.

Also, just because the words aren't directly expressed in the constitution, since it is a living document and is not meant to be interpreted through clauses found within the constitution. For instance: Marijuana legalization. Do you know how it was criminalized? It was found to be a constitutional law under the Commerce Clause of Article II of the Constitution. In fact, it's through the commerce clause that the ffederal government can make trade of just about anything they want illegal. Your 9th and 10th amendments don't stop the federal government from doing just about anything you seem to think it's supposed to stop them from doing.



Well you couldn't do that under our current system anyhow...Article III and all.



They can if something is in the articles that is not expressly changed in the constitution. How can you say the constitution supersedes the Articles on any one issue if the Constitution doesn't even mention it?



I've said this before and I'll say it again, if you're arguing for original intent interpretation, you're arguing against original intent interpretation. Because the Founding Fathers were a bunch of rich white racist elitist fucks who, if we interpreted the constitution through THEIR perspective, would ban most people today from being able to vote. Including anyone under 21, that's not white, and rents. Original intent is a joke. The reason the Supreme Court justices don't interpret the constitution that way is because it's fucking stupid.

By the way, one of my friends, who likes to advise me on issues like this because he gets off on it, has a Master's in political science, and he laughed so hard at your statement, and poitned out what I pointed out already, what you said violates the constitution on so many levels, and at the same time you go, "We need to interpret the constitution the way our founding fathers would!" Your double think is on an insane level. He asked me to ask you this: "On what fucking authority does the POTUS have to eliminate the Supreme Court?"



That's the Declaration of Independence not the Confederation you dumbass.



While the federalist papers are an important thing and are rightly used in legal decisions frequently, all they really WERE were op-ed pieces for newspapers.

Which liberals write all the time.

So you're full of shit.



Unfortunately the regularly don't. So they had their chance, fuck them, I say. If I could, I'd take direct democracy away from all american people. That of course includes people who agree with me on issues. Why? Because educated people who are intelligent don't have the time nor energy to lok up every single issue as it comes into legislation. And most other people aren't educated, and vote like idiots anyhow. Everyone at my work is essentially voting for Romney because A. He looks neat. or B. He's white.

That's your State Government for you. That's why I say fuck them. Need more? Prop 8 anyone?




So the govenrment infringes on State's Rights because you don't like FEMA.

That's hilariously silly. And it's not really an argument either.



So you're saying, "It's all good! The states aren't warring against each other! They're just...not working with each other!" I'm sorry, how is that a good thing again?




No you can't, lol. The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document. It's in no way whatsoever legally binding. It was just a laundry list of complaints against King Richard. That's all it was. It wasn't even a legally binding document when it was first written. So I'll be skipping the quote, since the Declaration of Independence is nothing but a symbolic middle finger to the British.



Even though shit's been going pretty great as far as civil and political rights are so far in the United States. It's a pretty upward trend, with crime being cut in half in the past 20 years even though our population has grown by 50 million.

We've got the Exclusionary Clause being used in the cases of illegally obtained evidence, which wasn't happenning until the 60's, we've got seperation of church and state, which wasn't being used until the later 40's, we've got black people the right to vote, we've got women the right to vote, things are going pretty damned good, as far as civil rights go.




It's been like that since at least Reaganomics' time. What happened with him? He cut taxes by a shit ton, then had to raise them several times during his presidency. Also, what human rights are we keeping our soldiers from having? We have these things called the Geneva Convention and the NATO Act and other things that kind of force us to be as humane as possible to at the very least POW's and our own soldiers. Now of course, granted, you still have things like Guantanamo Bay, but Bush qualified as a war criminal for the things that went on there, so he's still subject to international treaty laws, and it's not gonna be closing any time soon. Not because the government loves torturing people, but because it literally CAN'T be closed without pretty much just up and executing everyone being held there. Neither the president that will be elected/re elected this year, nor the president after them will close it. Guarantee you. Because they can't.



Our civilization pales(that's how you spell that jsyk) in comparison to Asia and Europe? I suppose you want China's communistic dictatorship? And what about Portugal and Greece? Their economies are worse than ours. But yeah Europe is awesome sauce. Our taxes go to plenty of things that are useful. Yeah, roads and bridges and public workers are among them, but there's also things like...oh I dunno...LIGHT? Or would you rather burn oil lamps again? IS that what we should go back to? Oil lamps and angry letters?



ZOMG! Times change? You mean we don't live in the same era as our ancestors? You must be kidding with me.



Well nobody really cares if you think the government is treasonous...nobody who matters anyway. Because the only people whose opinion counts as far as what the contitution says goes? Are the Supreme Court. I don't care that you think their interpretation style is shit. Until you wear that black robe and sit on that bench, your opinion as to what the constitution says means nothing. And therefore, your accusations as to who's a traitor or not are worth nothing, unless you have a Supreme Court Case to back it up. Like...I provide.

Oh, and we don't live in a direct democracy, so nobody cares if you get 160 million people to vote on something, that doesn't end the decision.

And another point. The government isn't a person. You can't take them to court. You can sue cities, you can sue corporations, you can't sue the federal government.

Oh by the way, your post is horribly long. And while I've made long posts in the past, I don't feel like making this as long as going through your post line for line would be, so I'm just gonna cut out chunks of your post that I just don't care about.



Territories are political entities as well. So yeah they do.



Which you just said is a political entity. So it's like...what are you being loyal to? The political entity of the country you live in.



Well you don't really refute anything, you're pretty much just saying, "I view this as bad." That's not a refutation. That's just your opinion. The majority of citizens don't know what they need or even want. So yeah, political theory is more important than 'the will of the people'.



Lol, and you call me ignorant of history? Most of the founders were from the Virginian and Kentucky colonies. Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Jackson, Hamilton...

All southerners. The only two people who wanted to get rid of slavery of our founding fathers were Hamilton and Adams. And arguably Paine, but he argued both for and against slavery, so he was a known flip flopper.



Fuck the will of the people. The will of the people is regularly wrong.



Just so you know, Lincoln didn't even want to free the slaves...if he didn't have to do it due to the civil war, he wouldn't have. And Brown V Board wasn't until the later 90's...and the federal government had to enforce the Civil Rights Act forcibly in many states. Hence why Ron Paul, for instance, wants to get rid of it. Because much of the 'will of the people' didn't want desegregation. Which, as you say, you agree with. So I really have to wonder how you can be pro "will of the people" knowing this full well. It's very confusing to me.



The only rights we have are the rights the government gives us, and through social contract theory. We don't have anything that's inalienable.



So you're pro-segregation, but voluntary segregation, got it. Just wow.



This isn't about libertarians, it's just about ignorant voters who don't say anything about anything that actually matters.



You accuse me of an Ad Hominem, in yet you strawman the hell out of me. I've never said anythign along those lines whatsoever.



Fascism believes whatever the autocrat in power believes.



I think Lelouch would have an issue with that idea. That we're only worth how much we can work.



Fascism doesn't value anything. That's the point of it.



Under your regime maybe. But you cannot possibly gaurantee that any of this will happen uder fascism unless YOU'RE the autocrat in power. ad even then, power necessarily changes people, so you can't even 100% gaurantee that.



Sure. I want you to imagine a city-state with only the most greatest of minds lives in one place, all doing their very best towards producing new things every day to make great things. Yeah, I can imagine just about any utopia you want. IT's not gonna happen though. Just saying.



I know what you want to do. But what you want to do and what is...realistic...is two completely different things.

[color=#2e1a6b]anti-american? oh, well, I must have missed the clause that says "but its ok to infringe upon this right if we call you anti-american".

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. The whole point of the 2nd amendment is to allow the people a means of self-defense. Jame's Madison specifically said that it's our greatest assurance against tyranny.


[color=#2e1a6b]Being part of a militia is not anti-american, it's pro american. An army is the tool of the government, but a militia is the defense of the people. As LA just said, The government is not the same as the country



[color=#2e1a6b]no no no no no... no.

That's not how it works. If you want to insult what I said, you have to justify that insult with arguments/evidence. I justified my insult by supplying evidence showing that you were wrong. If you want to insult my idea, go ahead, but you have to justify it with some sort of argumen/evidencet. You have yet to provide any argument/evidence against my plan, so until then, STFU

It's called being treasonous. I'm fully within my rights to shoot you on sight if you attempt to secede...as is the government.



Shay's Rebellion, you might want to look that up. The constitution was specifically set up so that you WOULDN'T be allowed to do things like that.

I love when YOU of all people say, "You clearly have no idea what you're talking about." Lelouch, you're like one of those college students who takes a week of psychiatry and thinks they understand all human behavior. You're a walking Dunning-Kruger and you want to accuse ME of not knowing what I'm talking about.

Just...hilarious.



[color=#2e1a6b]Being part of a militia is not anti-american, it's pro american. An army is the tool of the government, but a militia is the defense of the people. As LA just said, The government is not the same as the country[/quote]

And as I said before to Lustful, the Federalist Papers were opinion pieces. They don't make our law, nor are they used to establish law today, merely to provide insight as to what the founding fathers intended for our laws to mean. And in some instances that's important, but the second amendment is so out dated as far as its usage, it doesn't apply to modern day america like it did during the time of the Founding Fathers.

Besides, your plan is to form a 13 million person militia(which, considering there are gun owners who would rather shoot YOU than join you) when you yourself say there are around 8 million gun owners in the first place. Even if all the other stuff were realistic, you have to admit that this is not.

But sure, I'll use your own quote against you if you want.



That same ambition can be applied to you saying it's a fantastic idea that you hold Texas' resources at ransom.



Yes yes yes yes yes... yes.



Which I did, and you essentially just called it sad. So...obey your own rues mothafucka.



I have. You ignored it, and just said the way I think is sad, and that you have second amendment rights. Completely and utterly ignoring the Act that I cited that would prevent you from doing even Step One of your idea.

It's like, you're saying, "I can do this." and I demonstrate that legally you can't, then you become a Supreme Court Justice and go, "According to the CONSTITUTION I can." Like it matters what you think the constitution means.

Edit: Oh, and as far as you 'missing the part where you can be shot for being anti-american" You might want to check out the preamble. You remember that bit about "To form a more perfect union"?

Well...


To form a more perfect Union
The phrase "to form a more perfect Union" has been construed as referring to the shift to the Constitution from the Articles of Confederation.[69] In this transition, the "Union" was made "more perfect" by the creation of a federal government with enough power to act directly upon citizens, rather than a government with narrowly limited power that could act on citizens (e.g., by imposing taxes) only indirectly through the states.[70] Although the Preamble speaks of perfecting the "Union," and the country is called the "United States of America," the Supreme Court has interpreted the institution created as a government over the people, not an agreement between the States.[71] The phrase has also been interpreted to confirm that state nullification of any federal law,[72] dissolution of the Union,[73] or secession from it,[74] are not contemplated by the Constitution.

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution#To_form_a_more_perfect_Union

[color=#2e1a6b]source?

And my plan never involved Texas succeeding. We'd still be under the constitution.



[color=#2e1a6b]oh... ok. So whenever you decide that an amendment is outdated, the government can just ignore it and arrest us for exercising our rights! I'm so sorry for suggesting that you don't know what you're talking about.



[color=#2e1a6b]You're right, the people are barriers against ambitions such as mine. But if they agree with such a plan, then they aren't barring such ambitions.



[color=#2e1a6b]But I already rebutted it.



[color=#2e1a6b]proof you aren't reading my responses



[color=#2e1a6b]You didn't cite an act, nor do you even comprehend that the 2nd amendment allows us to form a militia



[color=#2e1a6b]The constitution is the only document that gives the federal government any right to govern within the states. If the constitution says I can, then I can. If you disagree, then I'm clearly overestimating you.



[color=#2e1a6b]I'm going by what it says. You're the one saying "I think it's outdated and therefore doesn't mean that".



[color=#2e1a6b]The preamble is not a law, but states the purpose the law, just like... the federalist papers!

[color=#2e1a6b]source?

And my plan never involved Texas succeeding. We'd still be under the constitution.[/quotye]

No, your plan is to say, "WE interpret your rights over us to be this this and this, and if you decide otherwise, we have Texas' resources hostage."

Sorry, but Article III says the only people who are allowed to say what the constitution applies to are the supreme Court. Not...you. So you're going against the Constitution, to say you're pro-constitution. Do you see why your plan is silly?



No, when the SUPREME COURT says an amendment, or the constitution means something, THAT'S binding. And as such, they have decided that the federal government is allowed to put insurrections against their authority down. Like your plan.

Let's be clear here Lelouch. The only people who's opinion matters as to what's sconstitutional and what's not...are the Supreme Court. You want to justify your plan? Give me a supreme court ruling that shows your plan is constitutional. If you can't, you're fucked. Because I already showed the supreme Court says the federal government can stop shit like what you proposed. It's that simple.



No you didn't. You just said, "Second amendment rights!" like it means anything, and it doesn't.



Proof you don't understand why your responses are inadequate.



1. I didn't cite an Act? Well if you wana get technical it was a set of regulations passed by a specific act called the Gun Control Act, but what I cited was the...you know what? I'll quote myself.



So yeah, you don't know what you're talking about, further proof.

and 2. You cited the second amendment as if it MATTERED what you thought it meant. And it doesn't. That's the FACT of the matter.



If the supreme Court says you can't, then you can't. If you disagree with that, you clearly aren't as 'pro constitution' as you seem to think. You don't agree with the Gun Control Act that created the ATF Regulations, then take them to the supreme Court. Until then, you've got nothing.



No, I'm citing Acts, Regulations, and Supreme Court rulings, and you're going, "Well I think the constitution means this, and here's an opinion piece by a founding father that doesn't even really agree with me or help me justify this stupid plan of mine, but I'm still right."

Which is lulzworthy at best.



The difference is the federalist papers are opinion pieces. The preamble is in the official constitution, and has been RULED ON BY THE SUPREME COURT to mean you can't do your little plan. So unless you wanna say, "Well let's just throw Article III out the window", which only the dumbest of the dumb would do if they consider themselves pro-constitution, you're kind of screwed my friend.

So here's the ultimatum Lelouch. Cite Supreme Court rulings and passed Acts that you can use to legally do what you plan to do, or have a nice hot glass of stfu. :)

[color=#2e1a6b]Your argument is predicated on the word "only", a word which is not used when describing the supreme court's power.



[color=#2e1a6b]You NEVER quoted a supreme court's ruling on the 2nd amendment. And the ruling you did quote actually goes against what you're saying:

"The phrase has also been interpreted to confirm that state nullification of any federal law,[72] dissolution of the Union,[73] or secession from it,[74] are not contemplated by the Constitution."


[color=#2e1a6b]The only thing you've cited by the supreme court is their interpretation of "a more perfect union". Which as I explained above, shows that the federal government doesn't have the power to stop awesomeness like what I proposed.

But since you're demanding a supreme court ruling, here you go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Decision


[color=#2e1a6b](note that "unconnected with service in a militia" is not saying that a connection with the militia voids this right. They said that because past rulings have required that gun owners be connected with militia, which the court doesn't think should be required)


[color=#2e1a6b]So, militia is a purpose for the right to keep and bare arms. Joining a militia does not limit our right to keep and bear arms



[color=#2e1a6b]Most Texans are already pissed at the federal government. I'm not holding them ransom, this plan requires that a majority of texans agree with it.


And the rest of your response was just you ranting about supreme court rulings, which was kinda funny given that the only one you cited contradicts your claims.


EDIT: HELL YEAH! FPoD is BACK ONLINE!

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii

Let it be stated for the record, that Article three does not impose(nor would the Founders impose anything on the people, at a time of controversy and potential uprising) the Supreme Court. The only relevant sentence is that the judicial power shall be vested in the Supreme Court.

In other words: "We give the Supreme Court judicial power" But the third article says nothing about whether or not we could remove the Supreme Court. Therefore, the power to remove the Court is relegated to the People(or to the States.) As defined by the Tenth Amendment.

The mid-1800's ruling that Lelouch refers to, and therefore what I assume to be the universal belief(not surprisingly) of the now corrupt, corporate supreme court justice system actually rewrites the tenth amendment. Indeed, we might as well strip "people" out of that language entirely.

The powers would be relegated to the States, which as Lundi points out, whose officials are for all intents and purposes federal.

This is Stalin's Communism at work, the Modern Thinker's political ideology believes the people to be mere luggage of the State, of the Government, etc. But Lundi, just as Stalin was on the wrong side of history, so too are Liberal thinkers who emulate that thinking.

Without the People, without the Commonwealth there is no State, there is no Government. The decree of the people, must be the ruling philosophy for a government to exist at all.

Sure it is. and it's been that way ever since Marbury v Madison.



I see you cut out the preceding sentence, which if you go to the link, is referenced by legal precedence.






Well actually I have, it was to Lustful though. My bad for thinking you read the whole topic.



But yeah, you're not one to read people's whole posts...as you demonstrated above, you just like to take whatever you can attack.



It'd be fantastic if you could give a Supreme Court Ruling that actually shows that you'd be allowed to do what you propose.

And if you...read your whole source...

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, in federal enclaves.

So yeah...you can bear arms...for lawful acts. Revolution...is not a lawful act. You Dip. Shit.



Note that this includes lawful acts of self defense, not militias formed to revolt against the federal government. MEaning you've still yet to provide what I asked for. What just happened is, I asked for a supreme court case ruling that shows you're allowed to do what you propose, and you give me a supreme court ruling that doesn't, as if it means anything in your favor.



It does if the purpose of that militia is to revolt against the federal government's laws. As I've cited above in the case of secession, and as I've pointed out in the wiki article that you ignored a line in to try and use a seperate line as if it supports you.



I'm excited too, FPoD is an interesting individual. Anyhow you're a liar, as the rest of my post actually completely refutes your accusation that I "Never cited an act" among other things, you just won't address the Gun Control Act, and the Regulations that were created pursuant to the act. You just...totally ignored that outright. So is this how our relationship is going to be Lelouch? I show that you don't know what you're talking about, and you cut it out of your response, take only parts of my citations to attempt to use it against me dishonestly, and overall provide no substance whatsoever? Because I can do that too.

Edit: If either you or Lustful have Skype, I have a room FILLED with people who would love to have a chat about politics.

[color=#2e1a6b]I don't see this getting anywhere. I've got lots of schoolwork this week, so this will be my last response here.

Earlier, I said that my plan doesn't involve seceding, but you have repeatedly implied that my plan is secession, and that this is illegal. But, seceding means that we're no longer governed by the law. It doesn't matter whether or not seceding is illegal, because seceding withdraws us from the law. This is like saying "it's against the law to break the law". Now, you could argue that physical force could prevent seceding, which is most certainly true. However, law cannot stop secession, which is what you're claiming



[color=#2e1a6b]You did the exact same thing when you ignored this:

[color=#2e1a6b]But I'll respond to your gun control act just to make you happy:

The ATF is not an act, it is an organization within the department of Justice. In a later response, you said that by mentioning the ATF, you cited the gun control act. The gun control act of 1968 dealt with restriction on buying and selling guns, basically saying that you can't sell a gun to a felon. This has nothing to do with the claims you're making.



[color=#2e1a6b]I remember the last time an argument transitioned to video format, and that was just 1 person. Now I get to argue in a room filled with those kind of people? oh boy!



[color=#2e1a6b]DipShit