❝❝Save us from the crusaders. “Here I come to save the day!”

Whatever form WestCiv and America specifically ends up with, you're still going to have to live with people who disagree and hate everything you stand for. You don't build communities by excluding people you don't like.

Crusading just means "your" side will win for a short while. And the the whole cycle starts again.

---

Unknown today. In his time, his writings were very well known and pretty influential. He wrote Our Enemy, the State among other things

I cited him in the first place is because a top down approach doesn't work for very long, if it works at all. People resent being told what to do, especially if you force them. I don't have a detailed plan because I don't think that any one person or any one group has all the answers. I think a big, big part of the problem is that we usually phrase our social problems in dualities, this or that. Dualities exclude other choices, it's all or nothing. So when I see phases like "save Western Civilization," it tells me that someone is reinforcing the original problem, not finding a solution.

No matter how good their plan may be, anything based on a dual choice and only a dual choice is doomed. That's the point that Nock tried to make in that article. People won't submit to Greater Authority for Their Own Good. The people you might convince won't listen until after the stuff hits the fan.

---

To start with, we could enforce the Constitution. The Tenth Amendment clearly outlaws most of the Federal government.

Given how little the Federal government pays attention to the Constitution and it's own laws, I don't think additional restrictions would work.

---

The Constitution was designed to rein in government. I'd encourage anyone interested to read the Federalist papers and the anti-Federalist papers. Unless the power is specifically granted in the Constitution, the Federal government doesn't have it. Or at least it shouldn't.

The one time that the Constitution was amended to restrict the people was a disaster.

It wasn't until the progressive movement of the late 19th and early 20th that the public perception of limited government turned to expecting an activist government with virtually unlimited powers.

I don't care about SCOTUS in the 20th Century, I'm pretty sure that time travel causes unintended consequences.

---

See, I'm not sure if adding more government is the solution to bad government. Hmm, I might have said something like that before.

And I don't think trading insults is the way to go. Sometimes winning isn't nearly as important as keeping the other guy from reaching the goal.

---

Isn't adding things like term limits and engineering the constraints adding to government?

I wasn't talking about insulting the voters. Imagine a boxing match. Which shows more skill, the ability to take and dish out punch after punch? Or the ability not to get hit while letting the other guy hurt himself trying to hurt you?

Which leaves you better able to go to work after?

---

Yes, the Constitution is a restraint device. But it hasn't worked. Why should another work? This is where you lose me.

Whatever Trump may or may not be, what happens next? Trump is rare, most people can't fight dirty for an extended time. If the only structure we can build depends on fighting dirty for every advantage, how are we better off?

---

No, it hasn't, not for at least 85 years. Although I think a strong case can be made that it hasn't more than a century. What we've been living under is the illusion that the Constitution is working and that more government is a good thing.

I've argued that term limits are meaningless when the major parties control who gets on the ballot. I've also argued that primary elections divert attention away from the real stakes. CGP Grey has a great video explaining why first part the post voting is not a good thing.

I keep returning to this because I think it is critical. We've been indoctrinated for generations to think that the way to fix a corrupt system is through system management. We've moved beyond the black mold stage, the pieces are so radioactive that using them not only risks our health but also could contaminate any new pieces we add. The benefits of "playing the system" and exploiting others and yes, even fighting dirty and ugly so outweigh long term thinking that there are actually severe disincentives to a long term IPD.

Case in point, and this one isn't even a libertarian thing. The US has more military bases in more foreign nations than any other power in history. Our military spending is bigger than the next thirty nations combined. We actively discourage other nations from establishing their own bases. We meddle in their internal affairs and throw hissy fits when people from other nations buy advertising aimed at our own elections. We bully others and tell ourselves that we fight the really bad bullies "for the little guy."

Why?

Do you think that Trump would stand down? Maybe close ten percent of our overseas bases? Do you think that American intervention leads to a safer world? Would you accept it if other nations did the same to the US?

Why is it bad when the deep state does it, but OK when Trump uses the same tools?

---

You misunderstand. I'm waiting for the system to rip itself apart. I don't have to work actively against it, I just don't have to patch it up or compensate for it's failure.

One area we do disagree is that the right is somehow more moral than the left. Another is that a system controlled by the right is preferable to one controlled by the left. The right gave us the USA PATRIOT Act, and the left gave us Obamacare. Hard to say at this point which has done the most damage. As for Trump, well, trade and tariffs alone are balanced on a knifeblade between what might possibly work if we are extremely lucky and what might cause disaster so epic as to make the Great Depression and World War II look like last Tuesday.

---

It's not the voters I don't trust. I don't trust the "options" the voters are allowed to have. You can have your left arm or your right leg cut off, but you must choose one.

I'm willing to let my principles compete without the coercion of the state or what is "morally right." That's more than either the right or the left want, they want to hold a gun to people's heads for Your Own Good.

The right is self-limiting? The War on Drugs. Too big to fail. An ongoing overseas war that for the first time in American history, has soldiers fighting who weren't even born when it started.

While I marginally prefer conservatives, no one and certainly no institution gets a pass because of the label. Branding is a horrific way to govern. What have you done for me lately?

---

The duality is an illusion. More accurately the duality is a condition required for the system to work. But that doesn't mean the system is a good idea or the best idea. Yet that duality by it's nature locks us into either/or and calls it the best choice.

The system wants us to choose the best baseball team when I want to swim.

My problem is that I see statists on "both" sides, and the right is no less threatening than the left. Your premise is that the right is a better choice and my premise is that statists (any statists) threaten freedom.❞❞

Tags: Western Civilization ∙ America ∙ disagree ∙ crusade ∙ Albert Jay Nock ∙ top down ∙ dualism ∙ Constitution ∙ Tenth Amendment ∙ restraint ∙ government ∙ Federalist papers ∙ Anti-Federalist papers ∙ SCOTUS ∙ progressive ∙ solution ∙ Donald Trump ∙ term limits ∙ primary election ∙ CGP Grey ∙ first past the post ∙ system management ∙ milirarist ∙ right ∙ Left ∙ voters ∙ statist

Two criticisms of my libertarian ideas is that they are juvenile and too simple.

I'm frequently told by conservatives, “I used to be libertarian but I grew out of it.”

Let's not forget “The world doesn't work like that. We have to live in the real world.”

Is this really how the World works? Or is this how the self-appointed “experts” want you to think how the World works?

Let's take the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Remember that the Constitution limits government, not people.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

So is there anything there about barrel length, how big the magazine is, or if it's a scary black color or not?

It wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that every Federal gun law violates the Second Amendment.

Yes, that reading is subject to interpretation. By experts determined to prove that their expertise should trump your common sense.

Don't you believe me? Toss in the Tenth.

“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.”

Taken together, it's hard to dispute that every Federal gun law is invalid. Nothing about using guns only for hunting. Nothing about gun registries or background checks. Nothing about which guns can be sold to what people.

And that raises some interesting questions. Because if the experts are overcomplicating gun laws and regulations to get around the Constitution, what else might they be doing?

Except for the much abused interstate commerce clause, there is nothing in the Constitution that grants the Federal government power and authority over medications or intoxicants.

There is nothing that gives the Federal government power and authority over education.

There is nothing that gives the Federal government power and authority over banking, stock markets, and commodity markets.

Chances are if the Federal government claims authority over speech, elections, commerce, it doesn't have it.

So why do we think it does?

Because that's what the politicos, the technocrats, and the experts have told us.

The people don't benefit from complications. The experts do.

Let's make this basic. You know what a car should do. You know that the more extras you throw in, the more expensive the car is to own and operate. You know that a more expensive car is harder to design and is full of trade-offs. That last boost in performance is the most expensive. So you have to make a choice. Do you want something reliable that you can afford, or do you want to impress people?

Make it legislation instead of a car and that is the choice of the average Congress critter.

Do you want something that can do the job, or do you want to make yourself look important?

Experts complicate things that should be simple.

Tags: libertarian ∙ juvenile ∙ simple ∙ experts ∙ Federal government ∙ Constitution ∙ politicos ∙ technocrats ∙ legislation ∙ 2nd Amendment ∙ 10th Amendment

““I believe in the United States of America as a Government of the people, by the people, for the people; whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed; a democracy in a Republic; a sovereign Nation of many sovereign States; a perfect Union, one and inseparable; established upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice, and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes. I therefore believe it is my duty to my Country to love it; to support its Constitution; to obey its laws; to respect its flag; and to defend it against all enemies.””

— The American's Creed as quoted in Embracing the American's Creed

❝❝Regarding the creed.

No.❞❞

— NeoWayland, comments on Is #AOC-ward (aka Ocasio-Cortez) a mere puppet for sinister people?

So here is this marvelous piece of 1917 poetry, and I said no. Why?

It's the difference between the Dream and the actuality.

One topic I've been debating recently is the emergency powers of the President. If you accept that the President has the power to declare emergencies, it's not exactly “of the people, by the people, for the people.” It's literally what one man said, not subject to debate or dissent. Theoretically it can be revised by Congress, but in practice it never is.

It doesn't stop there. Some agencies have power to regulate the people and the states. While sometimes these powers are subject to Congressional review, usually these regulations have the power of law without actually being law. What's worse is that the agencies often have administrative courts with different requirements. It's outside the normal court system and not subject to the rules of law. These regulations do not come from the "consent of the governed."

America has not been “a sovereign Nation of many sovereign States” since at least the Civil War. Everything from education to Prohibition to the EPA has been forced on the states, often in direct violation of the wishes of the citizens of the states. There's very little way to opt out.

America was never meant to be a “a perfect Union, one and inseparable;”. The phrase comes from the preamble of the U.S. Constitution, but somehow the creed left out one word that changes the meaning. We're not meant to have a perfect union, we're supposed to have a more perfect union. As in we haven't done it yet, it's a work in progress. We're still arguing over what that means and how we can do it.

And yes, that means that if people don't like it, they can leave it. Even whole states.

Those ideals of “freedom, equality, justice, and humanity” are mutually incompatible. Specifically, freedom and justice aren't about equality or humanity. For most of the 20th Century, the idea of equality was used to rein in exceptional and unusual people. They couldn't be allowed to challenge the status quo. I don't know what the ideals of humanity are, but I am pretty sure we don't agree.

Speaking of justice, there are unjust American laws. Mandatory minimum sentencing, civil forfeiture, eminent domain, vice laws, laws and regulations preventing the use of precious metals as legal tender, mandatory union dues, "free speech" zones, zoning laws, the list goes on and on.

Nobody, no person, no institution, and certainly no nation deserves love without reservation. If you do not question what your nation does, you have failed as a citizen. The Constitution is not perfect and certainly the law is not perfect. And lest we forget, this nation was founded on the biggest and most polite "screw you" in human history. You can't choose liberty unless you embrace the right to walk away.

That's it. That's why my response is a simple word.

No.

Tags: American's Creed ∙ United States ∙ of the people ∙ by the people ∙ for the people ∙ just powers ∙ consent of the governed ∙ freedom ∙ equality ∙ justice ∙ humanity ∙ Constitution ∙ Dream ∙ emergencies ∙ President ∙ Congress ∙ regulation ∙ more perfect union ∙ unjust

““I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground that 'all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people.' To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power not longer susceptible of any definition.””

— Thomas Jefferson

Tags: Thomas Jefferson ∙ states rights ∙ Constitution ∙ United States ∙ powers ∙ Congress

““The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.””

— James Madison

Tags: James Madison ∙ states rights ∙ Constitution ∙ Federal government ∙ state government

I'd argue that the writing was on the wall when marriage was legally defined and moved away from being a religious rite to being a secular right.

Tags: marriage ∙ religion ∙ secular ∙ Bookworm ∙ permissible ∙ mala in se ∙ mala prohibita ∙ damage ∙ undesirables ∙ interracial marriages ∙ force of law ∙ Constitution ∙ man ∙ woman ∙ English common law ∙ Bible ∙ 20th Century ∙ Emperor Nero ∙ Mesopotamia ∙ China ∙ John Boswell ∙ Orthodox Church ∙ Native Americas ∙ third gender ∙ two-spirit ∙ mating ∙ pairbond ∙ raising a family ∙ Divine ∙ Old Testament ∙ biological ∙ monogamy ∙ permissible ∙ choice ∙ privilege ∙ right to vote ∙ Christian

If money was really speech, there would be no legal limit to campaign donations.

Tags: convention of states ∙ Constitution ∙ amendment ∙ New York ∙ Democrats ∙ guns ∙ Jamal Khashoggi ∙ dollar ∙ global reserve ∙ currency ∙ Common Core ∙ public schools ∙ small business owners ∙ hatefest ∙ Pittsburgh ∙ shakedown ∙ Portland ∙ Facebook ∙ Maine ∙ Paul LePage ∙ caravan

Changing the Rules

Why Is Social Media So Toxic?

Have we really wiped out half of all animals?

If Dems win the House, ‘climate committee’ will return – seeking energy taxes

Napolitano Teaches Basic Civics to Desperate ‘Fox & Friends’ Hosts

We Need a #MeToo Movement for Political Consent

How Trump Is Winning The Midterm Elections

Pakistan acquits Christian woman on death row

Surveillance Cameras Can Identify Anyone by “Talking to Their Cellphones”

Everything you need to know about economics you can learn in the pet food aisle

'Stalked within your own home': Woman says abusive ex used smart home technology against her

If You Liked 'Axis of Evil,' You're Gonna Love 'Troika of Tyranny'

Foxconn: Failure & Fraud

Tags: internet ∙ social media ∙ animals ∙ election ∙ Democrats ∙ climate committee ∙ energy taxes ∙ Andrew Napolitano ∙ Constitution ∙ Donald Trump ∙ political consent ∙ Pakistan ∙ Christian ∙ surveillance cameras ∙ economics ∙ pet food ∙ smart house ∙ tech abuse ∙ Cuba ∙ Venezuela ∙ Nicaragua ∙ Foxconn ∙ failure ∙ fraud

❝❝Did I ever mention how the income tax isn't designed to produce revenue, but to spy as needed on American citizens?

---

Yep.

You can start with how the IRS is the "go to" agency whenever someone does something the Federal government doesn't like.

You can continue with the fact that your employer and any financial institution you do business with are required "under penalty of law" to report any transactions on demand. There's a reporting threshold for "as they happen," but the IRS still has the (questionable) power to demand any and all going back for years.

Speaking of penalty of law, have you read that bit on the 1040? In fact, take a close look at the entire form. It doesn't say you are required to report your income, it just says that it must be accurate reported on the form before you sign.

No one, including the IRS understands the tax code. It can be manipulated and interpreted as needed. And remember, the first few levels of the tax courts are administrative courts run by the IRS with their own rules of evidence. The presumption of innocence doesn't apply. You have to prove the IRS wrong, and then you might get your seized money back.

By definition, a "standard" deduction means taxes are too high.

---

What, you wanted it stated in the authorizing law?

Everything I said was drawn from truth.

From Al Capone on, the IRS has been used against those the Federal government doesn't approve of. Or occasionally found politically inconvenient. Any other uncovered crimes are just a bonus.

Reporting financial transactions have proven so useful in so many cases that it has become literally the reason the IRS exists.

The 1040 form is unusually and carefully worded.

Since at least the 1970s, IRS agents and supervisors have been shown to have a very focused knowledge of the tax code and an appalling ignorance about the rest.

The IRS does have it's own court system with it's own rules of evidence. And you are not presumed innocent until proven guilty.

More importantly, look at how Presidents have used the tax code against their enemies.

---

Al Capone went to jail for tax evasion because they couldn't get anything else to stick.

You tell me, if you were a prosecutor and you knew you had a guilty man and you had the evidence, would you want to charge them with murder or tax evasion?

Prove me wrong instead of labeling it conjecture and innuendo. It's right there, I showed you were to look.

Remember, it took amending the Constitution to make a Federal income tax legal.

---

Going after him for tax evasion wasn't even part of the plan.

Pay attention, because that is a critical point.

Did you know that the IRS was used to enforce Prohibition?

That was a critical point too.

I understand your confusion. Many assume that Government is a Good Thing. It's not commonly acknowledged that taxes can be some of the worst abuses of government authority. Might I suggest Adams' For Good and Evil: The Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization as a starting point?

---

No I am not.

I'm stating that law is not good in and of itself, and that law is more likely to be abused than not.

For example, people are usually taught that the progressive income tax in particular is a way to get the rich to pay "their fair share." That's not true and it never has been. We know that whole histories industries have grown up to help people use tax loopholes. What's more, we know that politicos and technocrats benefit from selectively applying the law.

Which returns to my comment, that the income tax as designed is intended to spy on American citizens. It's not uniformly applied. It's subject to change and political influence. And the majority of the public is locked out of changes. And for what? A mala prohibita law. Not paying taxes is does not harm someone, it's just bad because government has declared it to be bad.

The graduated income tax has done more harm and destroyed more freedom than any other law in American history. "Innocent under proven guilty" stopped because of the income tax and no longer applies in American law.

I should have warned you. Never argue taxes with a libertarian.

---

Yeppers.

That standard deductions line makes people think. And it should.

That's usually when I point out that if they are getting a refund, they just gave the government an interest free loan.

---

Oh my, that's just so adorable!

Look at it this way.

Taxable income = 100 dollars
Standard deduction = 17 dollars
"Taxed" income = 83 dollars

You are still paying taxes. It's only on paper that there is a difference. They messed with the rate, not with the tax.

They lie.

Don't even get me started on itemized deductions.

ETA: I'm the one with the line of "by definition, a standard deduction means taxes are too high." I'm proud of it, so I want credit.

---

Yep, and the claim stands.

The politicos and technocrats are playing word games to convince people that the IRS is looking out for the little guy.

They don't reduce the tax, they tell you that there is a standard deduction.

Speaking of which, let's look at that word standard. As in, everyone gets it. If it were really about "giving something" to someone with lower income, you'd think the deduction would be less for higher incomes. But then it wouldn't be a standard deduction.

Nope, we give everyone a standard deduction.

And that certainly looks like taxes are too high.

---

The fact is that the government hides to actual tax rate to make people think they are getting something for nothing.

The tax rate is too high, so they play word games.

The graduated tax is another issue.

The point is, the mere existence of a standard deduction means that the standard is to deduct. Hence, by definition and the admission of the government, taxes are too high.

---

That's the same form that is worded to hide the fact that they don't care about you paying your taxes as much as they don't want you to lie about it and make sure that it is correct, right?

The whole thing is deceptive from the payroll deduction to the falsity that a progressive tax that impacts higher tax brackets more to which deductions may be allowed this year if you are lucky enough to know about them.

Not to mention the undeclared interest free loan that many make to the government every year without realizing it.

If it were really just about the income, the whole thing could be done on half a postcard.

Including the instructions.

---

But this US doesn't do it simply. The code is created to distract, to obfuscate, to hide what government wants.

It's not about the revenue.

It's about tracking the flow of money. Something which isn't authorized by the Constitution.

The whole business of a "standard deduction" is just another way to confuse citizens and convince them that they are getting something for nothing.

It's three card monte by government regulation. You aren't supposed to look close.

Meanwhile there is a surveillance system that is the envy of tyrants all over the world. And Americans accept it even as they complain about it.

---

Tax income, but not track money.

The 16th was a product of the time, and NO ONE at the time expected it to be used against the poor and the (emerging) middle class. It was sold as a way to make the rich pay "their fair share." I'm pretty sure that if people knew then what the income tax would become, there would have been another revolution.

The graduated income tax was intended to foster class envy. At that point, the upper class did not have the political clout to protect themselves.

Don't you find it interesting that a sales tax doesn't require nearly the administration that an income tax does?

Don't you find it even more interesting that no one understands the tax code and just accepts that is how it is supposed to be?

And then there is the fact that in the name of "protecting" the poor, they still have to declare their income under penalty of law.

---

As I said and have shown, the American income tax system is more about spying on the American people than producing income.

All you are doing is saying that the system is necessary.

---

One of the things I quickly learned as a Corporate Clone is that the budget expands to consume the sales income. It's always easier to spend someone else's money.

Remember I said that taxes are too high.

Still, I stand by my point. The spying on the American public is more important than the revenues.

---

If you state a tax rate and then give everyone a "standard deduction," then taxes are too high.

Taxes are too high for many other reasons, but I agree that distracts from this argument.

---

A standard deduction goes to everyone, not someone on a graduated scale.

Deductions have nothing to do with a graduated tax, especially since most deductions go to the middle and high end income groups.

---

It's not a reduction of tax on graduated income, it's deliberately confusing what the rate is.

Which isn't necessary for the higher ends of the income scale who can afford to have someone do their taxes. On the very high end, that means hiring a professional accountant to minimize tax liability.

Deductions are not intended to help the poor. Even if they are standard.

Of course the easiest thing of all would be actually lowering the tax without deductions.

---

Not true.

The modern version of the income tax started as a class tax. It was not expanded to a mass tax until WWII. Even then (in 1944), the "standard deduction" started as ten percent of taxable income. When the standard deduction was changed to a flat fee, that fee deliberately wasn't linked to the rate of inflation. Which means that over time, people on the lower end of the income scale paid more. But that wasn't the justification in 1964 when the deduction was changed from a percentage to a fee.

Because the fee amount wasn't linked to inflation, inevitably people started falling through the cracks. Meanwhile the income tax provided an unprecedented (and expanding) monitoring of cash flow (not the economy). That monitoring power could not be sacrificed.

And that is where the Earned Income Tax Credit came from. A direct payment from government that did not interfere in the existing tax structure or the government's ability to monitor cash flow. If anything, it expanded the latter.

---

And if you lower taxes, you don't have to lie about deductions to convince people that they are getting something that they are not. The actuality is that it's easier to manipulate a fee than a percentage all while hiding that people are paying more and getting less while being told what a Good Thing it is.

Reagan signed the expansion of the EIC, but it was originally created in 1975. It's also constitutionally questionable.

---

And if you eliminate the standard deduction and lower the tax rate to 8%, they pay less.

Manipulating the process is not the answer.

---

Um,yes.

Because now we are going to talk about the unintentional side effects of a graduated tax system.

Higher taxes aren't just absorbed by businesses and those with more income. The higher costs are passed on. In the case of a business, that means higher prices. In the case of an individual, that means they will buy less, which means few jobs creating or selling.

All this results in lower economic opportunity overall, but especially on the margins. That in turn means that those trying to increase their income will be most affected, especially if they are on the lower end of the income scale.

These are well known second order effects. Look them up.

Simply put, modifications and exceptions to the rules usually benefit those most able to influence the system. Or, as I like to put it, government authority tends to be used against those least likely to resist.

The more complex and convoluted a law is (any law), the bigger negative impact it has on the lower levels of income.

---

Extra rent and utilities due to displaced costs $50 per month or $600 per year.

Extra costs of food $15 per month or $180 per year.

Extra costs of clothing and miscellaneous $60 per year.

Company downsizing and freezing salary, adjusted for inflation $200 per year.

Just for the stuff I've listed, $1040 additional costs per year due progressive and distributed taxes.

---

Taxes are costs. They certainly aren't revenues to the people who are paying them.

The costs I provided were approximately middling. See, it's not just the amount of the tax that is shifted. It's also the cost of collecting and administering the taxes. Not to mention all the other costs of government, from the salary of Congressional pages to the paperclip allowance in the Department of the Interior.

Economies are based on the movement of value, we usually talk cash flow as a shorthand. The movement of value acts a lot like water. You can block it off, you can divert it, you can tap it, and you can channel it. Every change influences the whole system, you can't isolate one bit from the other without removing the cash flow. Think water pressure and you're close to the mark. The more you mess with the pluming, the more unstable the system becomes.

Governments tend to use the myth that the economy can be managed and controlled. But it is a myth. The only reason some governments can get away with it is because the cash flow is usually high enough to compensate for the really stupid things.

But if the goal is more money and not lower taxes, then the people with the lowest cash flow (i.e. water pressure) will be most impacted by any changes.

That's why lower taxes alone is a false and misleading measurement.

---

If you reduce taxes and costs go up, then there is no benefit to a "standard deduction"

Manipulating the system at a higher cost is going to hurt the people the deduction is supposed to help. The government sells a line, "We're going to reduce your taxes." But the politicos never admit the obvious, it's going to cost more.

Revenues are not neutral, that is another lie. There is an increased cost to administer the system. Any changes in process will increase this cost. And government has no incentive to reduce this extra cost.

So in the name of compassion, the system screws the people least likely to resist.❞❞

Tags: spying ∙ taxes ∙ IRS ∙ tax code ∙ tax courts ∙ politicos ∙ Prohibition ∙ income tax ∙ technocrats ∙ goverment ∙ standard deduction ∙ Constitution ∙ Al Capone ∙ economics ∙ movement of value ∙ cash flow

❝❝The Constitution and the Bill of Rights limit government, not people.

The way I see it, you are free to say and do as you want SO LONG AS you accept responsibility and the consequences. Anyone who promises you freedom from that is lying.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: Constitution ∙ Bill of Rights ∙ people ∙ responsibility ∙ consequences ∙ lying

❝❝The U.S. Constitution doesn't mention the Christian God except in the date.

It's wholly remarkable in that it may well be the first document in history that didn't claim government power derived from the Divine.

Men of faith and men of reason deliberately chose not to make a public declaration of religion even as they acknowledged it's role in individual action.

They knew that faith must be chosen, not compelled.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ Constitution ∙ government power ∙ Divine ∙ declaration of religion ∙ individual action ∙ choice ∙ compelled

❝❝WH, you are way off base with your opinion about Islam having no Constitution protections. Religion is between you and the Divine and no one else.

That being said, *ahem*





It may be a religion, but if it relies on force, any and all opposition is justified. And if someone chooses to walk away, that's their right.

If your religion depends on force, you're doing it wrong.

---

That's not your place to decide. And Story was wrong.

If you start excluding religions from protection, sooner or later someone else is going to exclude yours. No other nation has America's pluralism. It's what threatens all monotheistic Islam. Religious choice is exactly that, choice,

On the other hand, we must insist on an even playing ground. Islam gets no special treatment and no special protections.

I'd be perfectly happy seeing a law that required anyone, regardless of faith, who participated in an honor killing or female genital mutilation to be executed, wrapped in pigskin, boiled with pig dung, and buried under a pig farm. Of course, the pigs might object…

---

Religion is a hot button topic for me, if for no other reason than I have had Christians use theirs against me, and tell me in no uncertain terms that any religion except Christianity should not be allowed. I'm related to some of those people.

Story himself specifically excluded Judaism. Which is interesting considering (among other things) the history of the Newport, Rhode Island Hebrew Congregation.

Here's what both you and Story are completely overlooking. The English Civil War was relatively recent. No proto-American wanted another church telling their church what to do. But that is minor. No, the big thing is that for the very first time (that we know of) in the history of Western Civilization, the defining document did not say that government power derived from the Divine. Except for the date, there is no mention of any god in the Constitution.

The SCT made a mistake with the Mormon ruling. It wouldn't be the first or last time that the Court goofed. Kelo v. New London comes to mind, as does Pace v. Alabama. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the Federal government authority over marriage, and certainly nothing that gives it authority over religion. Under the Tenth (and yes, I know politicos love to ignore the Tenth), that means the no power, period.

Most importantly, there were many things that did not exist in 1791. Radio, automobiles, telegraph, and baseball come to mind. There were many things that were unknown in 1791. No American had seen the Mariana Trench, the Grand Canyon, Mount McKinley, or a coyote.

---

Story was commenting well after the fact, he was not a signatory to either the DOI or Constitution. The fact that he excluded Judaism reflects on him and not the Founders. Jews may have been a minority faith, but they were a well established faith.

Using law to force the rules of your religion was wrong then and it is wrong now. I'm sure you'd object if Muslim prayer calls were enforced in American law, or if Kosher dietary restrictions were part of the legal system. Almost all of the mala prohibita laws have a religious basis. It's no secret that I believe most of the problems in American society are because of too much government and mala prohibita laws. If your religion says no shopping on Sunday or no selling liquor, that's up to you. Using the law to restrict other's choices based on your religion, well, that doesn't say much for your faith.

Start respecting the "commonalities of Christianity" and you're going to fast approach respecting the commonalities of faith. The Ethic of Reciprocity or "Golden Rule" is the keystone of Western Civilization. It is arguably the single most important and universal basis for human advancement and is the basis for all true liberty. But it did not begin with Judaism or Christianity.

Once you eliminate specific mentions of any god, pluralism between sects pretty much leads to pluralism between religions. It may have been an accident. I suspect some of those Deists took a hand, or pen as it were.

I can't stress that enough. That simple idea takes religion and religious choice out of the public sphere and puts it back into individual behavior where it belongs. The teachings of a faith should matter only to the individual, not to the state. I don't want a Congresscritter demanding that I observe the Christian sabbath, any more than you want another Congresscritter demanding that you participate in ritual sex with same sex partners under the next full moon. And no, I don't do that.

Because that sets up the next bit. Radical Islam demands that the state require and prohibit according to the interpretation of the imams. The state becomes an extension of Islam. There is no provision for other faiths except in very subservient ways. The state becomes religion.

The ideas of liberty expressed in the Constitution reflect the universal ideals well beyond "Judeo-Christianity." Parts of it originated with the ancient Greeks and the Roman Republic as you've pointed out. It's a good idea because it works and not because of it's origins.

When the Founders wanted to limit freedom, be it slavery, restricting the vote to male landowners, or originally not enumerating human rights, it was wrong and it failed miserably. There was no way the Founders could foresee what would follow. We celebrate the universality, the protection of liberty from government and those who would abuse government power.

❝We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.❞

---

It's not your place to decide if you require others to sacrifice their freedom for yours. And as a citizen of this country, that's something I will defend fight against.

Constitutional America was not founded as a Christian nation. Nations are not Christian, individuals are. Yes, even the nations with established churches. Just as one very obvious example, nations can't participate in the Christian rite of communion. If a "Christian nation" goes to war, does that mean that Jeshua ben Joseph signed the marching orders?

Story may have been closer chronologically, but that doesn't mean he was right. I've already told you the biggest piece of evidence. The Constitution clearly states that political power comes from the people and not the Divine. This was unheard of, as far as we know it had never happened before.

Protecting rights means protecting people from the whims of the majority. You don't stop having freedom of speech because your city voted for "free speech" zones.

As I explained to WH above, radical Islam means that the state becomes an extension of Islam. Pluralism is pretty much the only thing that can resist that and not become tyranny.

Radical Islam is depending on special privileges and protections not granted to others. They can't do it on a level playing field.

Since the practices I mentioned are exclusive to the more radical versions of Islam, then the rest of us don't have to fear that punishment, do we?

---

Story was still wrong on this. Veritas. No one person, no one group has all the answers. I distrust anyone who says that they do. I refer back to the source document. The Constitution remains one of the clearest pieces of English ever put to paper. There are reasons why the Founders, some of the best educated people of their time, deliberately chose not to include the Christian Deity in the Constitution. It's not because of their faith. It's not because they were not pious. It's because they didn't trust men when they claimed to speak for the Divine.

❝Religion can not be allowed the coercive power of the state and the state can not be allowed the moral justification of faith.❞ That's one of mine.

I'm not advocating paganism and especially not my version. I am saying that your religion does not govern my behavior. Just as mine does not govern yours.

Our nation was founded on principles that transcended Christianity. Some of them predate Christianity. The Founders were wise enough to know that they didn't know everything. The Enlightenment thinkers did not spontaneously create their philosophy, they drew heavily on history. There's no need to label these ideas as Christian or Hottentotten, it's enough that some very wise men found ways to pass along truths that worked. Civilization rises from wisdom after disaster. You're arguing over the labels so "your side" can take credit. Yes, Christian people (as opposed to Christianity) have done some wonderful things. And Christians have done some terrible things with huge costs to humanity. ❝The vice or virtue is not in the label, it's in the individual.❞ Labels borrow merit, although they do get blamed.

I didn't say the EoR was universal, I said it was the keystone of Western Civilization. Our best law and principles rest on the simple idea that we're fair to others because we expect them to be fair to us.

I've said it before, ❝Christianity is not the source of all that is good and righteous in our society.❞ Christians are better and nicer when they aren't the only game around. “One path among many” means Christians usually pay attention to what others say. It means Christians have to defend what they say and do without hiding behind scripture or a "higher truth."

Our law should not be defined in terms of A religion. Certainly not if everyone doesn't share that religion.

We should celebrate the ideas, not the labels.❞❞

Tags: faith ∙ religion ∙ Constitution ∙ force ∙ force of law ∙ Joseph Story ∙ Founders ∙ Christianity ∙ islam ∙ Christians ∙ pluralism ∙ Judaism ∙ Judeo-Christian ∙ English Civil War ∙ Western Civilization ∙ Divine ∙ Supreme Court ∙ Kelo v. New London ∙ Pace v. Alabama ∙ marriage ∙ mala prohibita ∙ Golden Rule ∙ Tenth Amendment ∙ Muslim prayer calls ∙ Ethic of Reciprocity ∙ public sphere ∙ individual ∙ behavior ∙ kosher

The Right to Discriminate

““The left has created a macabre myth that runs counter to the whole experience of mankind. The left has persuaded the gullible masses of America, including, sadly, most conservatives, that "discrimination" by individuals and businesses is wrong and that it violates the Constitution.

Precisely the opposite is true. All serious cognition and all honest moral judgments involve discrimination. When individuals and businesses are not free to discriminate, then the power to determine what is true and false and good and bad becomes the sole property of the state – or that even more odious creature, that lobotomized Frankenstein monster, "society."

Instead of diverse opinions and actions freely manifest, which are what happens when the state and society are denied the power to force a certain viewpoint down the throats of private citizens and enterprises, what happens is that all debate, all differences, and all individuality are crushed based upon what those who run the state or manipulate society deem sacrosanct.””
     — Bruce Walker

Tags: guest content ∙ clipping ∙ Bruce Walker ∙ discriminate ∙ left ∙ America ∙ Constitution ∙ individual ∙ business ∙ society ∙ diversity

Tags: Frank Zappa ∙ civics ∙ memes ∙ high school ∙ Constitution ∙ social studies ∙ nobody knows

“Delusions of Justice”

Tags: California ∙ secession ∙ Constitution ∙ American history professors ∙ politicos ∙ technocrats ∙ people ∙ state ∙ water rights ∙ Southwest ∙ Arizona ∙ Nevada ∙ Imperial Valley ∙ Mexico ∙ SCOTUS ∙ splitting the state ∙ treason ∙ MacGuffin ∙ Dred Scott decision ∙ Minersville School District v. Gobitis ∙ United States v. Rabinowitz ∙ First Amendment ∙ Tenth Amendment ∙ commerce clause ∙ individual citizens ∙ Thomas Jefferson ∙ Declaration of Independence

❝❝So if elected officials no longer honor the Constitution and rig the game so it isn't possible to elect anyone not approved by national party leadership, what obligations do citizens have to honor and respect the government?❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ elected office ∙ honor ∙ Constitution ∙ national party leadership ∙ obligations ∙ respect ∙ government

❝❝I just want to point out that American "defense" policy involves military action against nations when Congress hasn't declared war.

---

Even Trump complained when Obama launched military actions without Congressional approval.

You tell me. Should we change the Constitution so the President can attack any other nation on his authority alone? Or should we insist Congress does it's job?

Is this about America, right or wrong?

Or is it about liberty?

---

How about multiple missile attacks?

---

And is it right to launch missiles into other nations? You've said that eight months is sufficient. Is four months? Is four weeks? Is four days?

---

Is it right for other nations to launch missiles into our country?

After all, we have a proven record of meddling in the governments of other nations.

---

So you are saying that the U.S. has the unique power to fire missiles into other countries.

So much for freedom.

---

Obviously there is.

And it's even covered by that top ten list of yours.

---

At the very least, I think using a missile against innocents qualifies as murder.rob

---

Too late.

I do have a solution for the opium fields. But it doesn't involve armies. It would be a lot more effective though.

---

---

Oh?

There are an awful lot of people who got shot at who would disagree with you.

ETA: Not to mention all those overseas military bases.

---

You're arguing over definitions and a matter of degree.

---

Might doesn't make right. I've told you that before.

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do something. Or that you are justified in doing it.

---

Justified?

And if we're wrong, does that make us weak? Or just a bully that no one wants to face?

---

There is a century old story that I tell sometimes. Back during the Russian revolution, President Wilson sent American troops to intervene. The "mission" was murky at best, which led to failed promises and out-and-out lies. Wilson did this without Congressional authorization, we weren't at war with Russia.

Fast forward a couple of decades. Some of the Soviet General Staff had faced American soldiers in the trenches. They knew exactly what American words were worth.

And after WWII, that shaped the Cold War.

All because an American President took it on himself to intervene in a revolution without Congressional authority.

---

Don't get mad at me. It's right there in the Constitution. And if Congress hasn't declared war, then why are American troops fighting?

Considering who has been President, do you really want no checks and balances when it comes to war?

---

So why do we have troops fighting when war has not been declared?

---

Politicos have sacrificed the nation's honor and the lives of American troops for what?

Why do we have troops fighting when war has not been declared?❞❞

Tags: picture ∙ American ∙ defense ∙ military ∙ Donald Trump ∙ Barack Obama ∙ Constitution ∙ presidential power ∙ Congress ∙ missiles ∙ Robert Taft

❝❝I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on the internet. As nearly as I can tell from a fast scan, Federal case law says that states are responsible for setting voter qualifications within certain limits. Apparently you can't restrict someone from voting for something like not paying poll taxes, or by requiring them to pass a literacy test.

I'm pretty sure it can't be done by a city, but it looks like it may be possible for a state to create voters.

Gods, that's a huge loophole. It may well be legal to be a voter without being a citizen.

---

There's a small problem. I've looked over the Constitution, paying special attention to the 14th, 15th, and 19th Amendment.

It looks to me that Congress (and therefore the Federal government) has no power to deny people the power to vote, citizen or not. Congress only has limited powers to prevent the States from denying people the vote.

Which means that most Federal election law is illegal. And the loophole remains. If a state permits non-citizens to vote even it's a Federal election, there's nothing the Congress or the Federal government can do.❞❞

Tags: voter ∙ citizen ∙ FedGovs ∙ states ∙ Congress ∙ Constitution ∙ Federal election law ∙ election

If the Civil Rights Act of 1866 had worked, there would have been a need for another in 1871, in 1875, in 1957, in 1964, a Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Fair Housing Act of 1968, the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, and the Civil Rights Act of 1991.

Tags: racial discrimination ∙ religious discrimination ∙ protected groups ∙ MLK assasination ∙ privilege ∙ humans ∙ labels ∙ Civil Rights Act ∙ 1866 ∙ 1871 ∙ 1875 ∙ 1957 ∙ 1964 ∙ 1991 ∙ Voting Rights Act of 1965 ∙ Fair Housing Act of 1968 ∙ Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 ∙ stoplights ∙ 13th Amendment ∙ 14th Amendment ∙ 15th Amendment ∙ Constitution ∙ Hammurabi ∙ public accommodations ∙ fair is fair ∙ prohibition ∙ Lawrence W. Reed

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: War on Drugs ∙ opoid crisis ∙ Mexico ∙ military invasion ∙ Afghanistan ∙ drug experation dates ∙ government ∙ Congress ∙ boycott ∙ israel ∙ lawmakers ∙ Constitution ∙ Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ∙ CFPB ∙ economy ∙ Donald Trump ∙ Republican ∙ Democrats ∙ establishment ∙ Obamacare ∙ Kid Rock

Our heroes are defined by what they have done and how they inspire us.

Tags: Crux Files ∙ Robert A. Heinlein ∙ Lawrence W. Reed ∙ certainty ∙ perfection ∙ government ∙ promises ∙ good intentions ∙ price distortions ∙ prudent person ∙ Congress ∙ new regulations ∙ second order consequences ∙ third order consequences ∙ feedback loop ∙ politicos ∙ loan game ∙ free money ∙ something for nothing ∙ Second Amendment ∙ neither help nor hinder ∙ Christians ∙ outsourced wages ∙ industrial nations ∙ free to choose ∙ Judeo-Christian ∙ Christianity ∙ Constitution ∙ E pluribus unum ∙ one from many ∙ united we stand ∙ codified law ∙ public morality ∙ religious system ∙ The Moral Authority ∙ personal morality, ∙ multiple faiths

❝❝Simple questions.

Why should any religion be enshrined in law? Raised above all others as THE Moral Standard?

Perhaps more importantly, would you accept it if it were not your religion?

Or at least something calling itself your religion.

---

Pardon, but that isn't the question.

Why should any religion be enshrined in law?

Shouldn't faith be between you and the Divine?

Shouldn't religion be your choice and not imposed on you by some government functionary?

Coke may be less disagreeable than Pepsi, but I don't want armed special agents making sure I drink it.

---

Only if you think government must be predicated on or derived from religion.

Which, thankfully, the Founders did not.

---

But it's not about if religions are "equal" or not.

It's about if a single religion should be enshrined in law. And what happens if you are not a member of the religion that is made part of law.

Should you be bound by a religion you are not a part of?

---

Yep, I did. And for very good reason.

I also said this:

Perhaps more importantly, would you accept it if it were not your religion?

---

I've really tried to be polite on this board, but believe when I say I've seen more than enough Christian intolerance to last me several lifetimes. It's not every Christian, but it is there. Nor are Christians alone in their intolerance.

What I am trying to say is that by making religion a part of government you're setting the grounds for much more intolerance.

Even if you stuck to Christians, you'd be asking for trouble. Should Catholics have precedence over Baptists? What about the Mormons and the Methodists?

---

Yep, that happens too.

But when someone defines intolerance as everyone else not putting that someone's religion over every thing else, well, the someone crossed the line and they are fair game.

---

No, that isn't what I said.

Look at what Moore said in the article. He's talking about defending Christianity in the law. And creating more law that incorporates "Christian principles."

"Do not murder." That's a good idea. It also predates Christianity by quite a bit and is shared by many cultures and faiths.

"Do not murder because of the Ten Commandments and what Jesus said." That's not the same thing and it adds baggage to something that should be simple.

---

Pardon, but that is an opinion.

My gods prefer that people work it out for themselves.

That's an opinion too.

---

You mean other than Roy Moore up there in the original post?

You’re talking about overturning God’s natural order ….

That's certainly a religious point of view.

---

Nondenominational? Ah, I see.

It's only the Christians that need apply? You don't need the Jews.

I live next to the Navajo reservation. Will you exclude the Sky People?

One of my neighbors three doors down is a Buddhist. Doesn't she get a say?

One of my companions is an atheist. She's also one of the wisest women I know. Should she get a say?

Why or why not?

---

And I've answered it several times, twice directly.

When you assume that government is based on a religion you are imposing and enshrining that religion.

When it comes to religion becoming the law of the land, the devout don't need it, the non-believers don't want it, and the politicos will corrupt it.

---

Then why is Roy Moore making so much noise?

---

I'm not demanding that you give up your faith.

I'm asking why religion should be enshrined in law.

Faith is between you and the Divine, no other person can change that. It's up to you and your choices.

I'm asking for no sacrifice unless you believe that your religion should govern the faith and religion of others.

And if that's the case, I'm asking why.

---

No, actually we weren't.

The U.S. Constitution doesn't mention the Christian God except in the date.

It's wholly remarkable in that it may well be the first document in history that didn't claim government power derived from the Divine.

Men of faith and men of reason deliberately chose not to make a public declaration of religion even as they acknowledged it's role in individual action.

They knew that faith must be chosen, not compelled.

---

Talk about timing…

I always find it amazing when I have to point out the U.S. was not founded as a "Christian nation" when one house of the national legislature is called the Senate.

I've written about this many times before. But please don't take my word for it.

http://www.usconstitution.net

That's a site created to explore and explain the Constitution. Look for yourself. Try to find any mention of the Bible or the Divine.

---

Considering the custom of the times, omitting "those words" was even more revolutionary than the Declaration of Independence and the battles that followed.

Again, that doesn't mean that the Founders weren't devout. It does mean that they knew about the English Civil War and the problems caused by some colonies and their religious restrictions.

I'd like to think that each of the Founders decided that if his church wasn't going to be "top dog," no one else's would be either.

And that is why Roy Moore is wrong.

---

Can you show where I'm wrong?

---

The question you should be asking yourself is not if the Founders were religious or if the U.S. was founded as a "Christian nation."

No, the question is why the Founders, among the best educated men of their time, chose not to make the Constitution dependent on any faith.

I'll give you a hint. Too many people are in religion for the politics.

---

I am, and it relates to the question in the title of the post.

If anyone thinks their religion needs the force of law to back it up, then they are doing it wrong.

The law should neither help nor hinder religion. But no religion should rely on force either.

---

If it's a straw man, then why did Roy Moore say what he did?

There's a difference between personal faith and public policy.

---

Pardon, but I think that's wrong.

It's not that the American people hate the Divine. And I don't think they may object because it is a Christian policy.

I think they object because it is a religious rule made policy.❞❞

Tags: religion ∙ enshrined ∙ English Civil War ∙ Senate ∙ government power ∙ faith ∙ religious restrictions ∙ Bible ∙ Divine ∙ Christians ∙ Christianity ∙ Christian ∙ religious rule ∙ policy ∙ force of law ∙ Founders ∙ Constitution ∙ Christian nation ∙ Roy Moore

❝❝The argument is not over sexual practices but over who gets to call the shots. I disagree with you on this one.

Let’s leave aside the fact that “Judeo-Christian” excludes every person who is not a Jew or a Christian. Let’s leave aside the face that many Jews are offended by the notion of being lumped in with the Christians. Let’s even leave aside the point that “Christians” includes faiths such as Baptists, Mormons, and Catholics who are barely even on speaking terms with each other.

The real question is why should any group be in charge? Why should one morality have the force of law while others do not?

Competition keeps us honest. If you can’t convince people that your morality works without being backed by law, then you’re doing it wrong. “Do it our way or we’ll force you.” “Do it our way or The Officially Sanctioned Authority Figures will point guns at you.” “Do it our way or you’ll be tossed in jail.”

If you don’t like what they are doing, fine. They shouldn’t force you. But that means you shouldn’t force them either.

I’m a big believer in the family. That’s one reason I support the age of consent. I’m from my mom’s first marriage, and I have stepsibs including one from my stepdad’s first wife’s first marriage. I think that the family is the strongest thing is a society.

But people have to make the choice of their own free will and without coercion or it counts for nothing.

Virtue under threat is not virtue, it’s slavery.

---

I realize you and I are using atheist in different ways. I am no more an atheist because I don’t worship your god than you are an atheist because you don’t worship mine.

If I am reading this right, you want me to rally to your banner and fight in the name of your faith to establish your morality over all in a glorious victory. And then we’ll haggle over my crumbs later.

To which I reply KYFHO.

I think it was yesterday I was reading Limbaugh’s site. He tried to make the point that just because the Republican leadership were a bunch of wimps, that wasn’t a reason to vote Democrat to spite them. He was wrong. Either/or is not a choice, it’s a trap.

Freedom is what matters. If all we fight for is who gets to call the shots, then freedom has lost.

I will not exchange one overlord for another.

---

And if folks weren't pushing a "Judeo-Christian" rule system for everybody, it wouldn't matter.

We can agree on a public morality without making personal religion the governing factor.

---

This nation was founded by Christians, Deists, and others, but not on a Judeo-Christian basis. They borrowed from anything and everything they thought would work. And then they argued over it. For years and years they argued. They still goofed some things up. Slavery is the obvious example.

---

I didn't say anything about the worth of Judeo-Christians values, I just said that they weren't the paramount source of all that is good in our society.

If you reread everything I have said on this thread, you will not find one place where I criticized Judeo-Christian values.

I did say that people should choose for themselves whether to put Judeo-Christian values at the center of their lives. And I objected to anyone choosing those values for everyone else.

---

Again, my objections are not about Christianity.

It's about Christianity being the "default" choice.

As I said above, either/or is not a choice, it's a trap.

Tell me, what would you do if someone insisted you had to abide by the morality of Confucianism? Would you not speak loudly and say that wasn't your choice?

---

I of course live in the United States where freedom of religion is the law of the land.

Not freedom of Judeo-Christian religion, not Judeo-Christian religion placed first, but freedom of religion.

The Founders were among the best educated and enlightened men of their time. Why do you supposed they chose to make it like that?

---

They did accept it.

It took a Civil War to stop it. And even then, Lincoln didn't begin the war with the idea to end slavery.

That came later.

---

Must have been some Brits.

The Treaty of Paris was signed in 1783. The Continental Congress adopted the Constitution in 1788.

---

First, I wasn't the one who started with the "Judeo-Christian" phrase, that was RSM in the original article. It's what started this.

Second (and this is the Really Important Bit), the Founders deliberately did not put religion in the Constitution. It's not because they did not have faith, it's because they believed one man should not dictate the faith of another. It has nothing to do with the merits of Christianity and everything to do with personal choice and responsiblity.

BTW, I don't read either Zinn or Maher. I think the last history book I read was Churchill's autobiography.

---

Still doesn't change the point.

You wouldn't want to live under the rules of another belief system even if it was a good system and was for everybody.

---

C'mon.

Your insistence that the Judeo-Christian basis is the only possible choice has made that point very clear.

---

DING!

I answered which makes it responsive.

You might ask yourself why you feel threatened by the merest possibility.

(P.S. I insist on better sound effects)

---

Pardon, but that's the point. If you put law a rung or two below your religion, you'll expect others to defer to your religion. Even if they don't share that religion.

---

Would you defer to my religion?

---

Should any nation embody a religion?

---

It doesn't matter. Under the terms that people on this thread have set, the religion is immaterial. It only matters if the nation has a basis in that religion.

No matter what yours may be, you must submit.

---

Most importantly, my religion doesn't require you to submit.

Neither does Christianity, despite what some say.

Even here on this thread, I'm not denouncing Christianity. I'm just telling Christians they can't use the precepts of their faith to rule another.

---

Some of them are good rules. Some of them are not.

My point is that one religion should never be considered The Moral Authority for a society. Morality is too important. We need to argue over it. Competition keeps us honest.

Once we say that The Moral Authority Religion is what tells the society that murder and theft are morally wrong, it's way too easy to say that TMAR says that this sexual partner is wrong, or that this fabric should never be sewn to that fabric, or that we should only eat from religiously approved diet.

---

I am totally for live and let live. It's the core of my most deeply held beliefs.

I really don't care about someone else's beliefs or politics unless they want to impose those on everyone else.

Going back to my original post on this thread, if the choice is between the absolute on the left side or the absolute on the right, I am going to pick freedom despite both.

I respectfully disagree with you on that.

---

I disagree. I think "free to choose" applies to more than just economics. I think ideas work best in a "free market" too.

---

"Given that, for example, I like the morality embodied in Judeo-Christian law…" But not everyone does.

"…and that we also know that other people would gladly choose anarchy by their own free will…" Oh? All others, or did you have a specific group in mind?

"it seems to me as if a stable culture does need to have reasonable, enforceable codified laws." I agree with the conclusion but not your reasoning.

"Which means that somebody's standard of morality has to set the bar." Yes.

"And I think that if you put to the vote which system of law would people prefer, Sharia law, Judeo-Christian or anarchy…" Why are these the only choices on the menu?

"…most Americans would say Judeo-Christian (given that a large component of that is "don't screw with me and I won't screw with you.")" I wish more people accepted "live and let live," I really do. I think Americans would accept it. But I don't think that's a substantial part of Christianity, especially as it is practiced today.

---

"Also, I think you confuse the practice of true Christianity with the practices of lying liars who lyingly claim to be Christian because it suits their lying agenda." Some are liars, yes. Some are devout Christians with the best of intentions.

"…the (Judeo-Christian based) Constitutional law as implemented originally for this Republic…" I'm sorry, but I have to stop you right there. It wasn't Judeo-Christian based. Look at the Constitution. Other than the date, there is not a single mention of Christianity. This was very unusual for any government document at the time. This was deliberate.

Christianity was only one of many influences. It's amazing I even have to mention this when one house of the national legislature is called the Senate and the other has a ceremonial mace based on a Roman fasces.

E pluribus unum. The original motto of the United States, roughly translated into "one from many." Or as I prefer, "united we stand." It's not just the people, it's the ideas.

And it is not specifically or even mostly Christian.

---

And the first question is why didn't the Founders see fit to put it in the Constitution?

The second question is why are people offended when I point out that Christianity may not be the sole source of goodness in Western Civilization?

---

And would that Christian belief system be the Protestants or the Catholics? Perhaps the Quakers?

Since the idea of democracy predated the "Judeo-Christian" basis we might have to consider a few other things.

Your problem is that I won't acknowledge the "fact" that Christianity is primary source of Western Civilization and of the United States.

Which pretty much brings us full circle to my first post on this thread.

---

You know, since we've spent so much time on this thread about the Founders, I can't help but wonder if the Brits thought they were being "willfully obtuse."

I know people thought Bill Gates was "willfully obtuse" when he had this crazy idea about copyrighting software and building a company on it.

So it really depends on your point of view, doesn't it?

---

I'll let you in on a secret.

I try to treat people online as they have treated me. I'm nice until someone shows they don't deserve it.

For life in general, I have three rules.

THE GOLDEN RULE - Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

THE SILVER RULE - Do for yourself at least as much as you do for others.

THE IRON RULE - Don't do for others what they can do for themselves.

---

I think the Founders made a wise choice. They didn't want an official religion but they didn't want to interfere with personal religion.

It ties into individual choice and responsibility. It's bottom up. The Founders wanted individuals to draw from their faith and influence the nation, not the faith to shape national law and policy and so rule the individual.

Most importantly they wanted people of faith to watch government closely.

---

I didn't say no codified laws.

I just said that I thought we could do public morality without enshrining a religious system as The Moral Authority.

While I agree that religion can be an excellent source of personal morality, I don't think it works on a cultural level if there are multiple faiths in that culture.

So we have to start from another basis.

---

But not Judeo-Christianity alone.

BTW, many Jews are really offended by that term.

---

And a lot aren't.

And they are still offended.

Are you accusing the Jews who dissent from your views of being anti-Christian and unAmerican?

---

I said,

"BTW, many Jews are really offended by that term."

I don't have to be a spokesman for the Jews to know that many resent the term "Judeo-Christian." It implies a continuity which is not recognized by their religion.

---

So apparently it's either/or. I have to accept that law only has a Judeo-Christian bias or we do without law?

We couldn't just sit down, find out what we and others agree on, and make laws based on that?

---

So if I disagree that American society had a "Judeo-Christian" basis and that all that is good and wonderful comes from the actions of enlightened Christians, I can take a hike?

It's not me you have a problem with, it's dissent.

You might want to think about that.

---

Take Daylight Savings Time, that's not moral, just annoying.

Why does a nearly microscopic flake of cannabis on the passenger seat cost someone their car but three "suitcases" of beer in the trunk doesn't?

Why can't you legally buy a high flow toilet?

---

Laws are not moral.

We should be arguing over them.

---

"And, like it or not, 51% of the humans will impose its vision of society and its morality on the remainder." Actually I'd argue that most of the Bill of Rights specifically forbids the Federal government from doing exactly that. Not to mention the other checks and balances built into the system. Originally when Senators were chosen by the state legislatures, it was supposed to balance the populism of the House of Represenatives.

"Like it or not, Judeo-Christian ethics and morality have stood Western Civilization and indeed the world in good stead for a long time." Except Western Civilization was never just Judeo-Christian. Nor were it's ideals and morality.

"Personal liberty is more than putting whatever you want into your mouth or finding some new way to excite your genitals." Except I was talking about freedom which implies responsibility. Especially in an American context.

"Again, I defy anyone to demonstrate a social system better at doing that while protecting the dignity of the individual better than those based upon a Judeo-Christian foundation." You mean other than the American one that I already showed was not based solely on that Judeo-Christian foundation?

ETA: Sorry, I missed an important one.

"You say, such choices should be made "individually" and without societal influence," Except I said without coercion, as in no use of force.

But if you adopt a religion's moral code into the law, we can't do that. It's not up to the people. It's up to the leaders of that religion.

---

Not a weasel word.

Just a point again that Western Civilization did not begin and end with Christianity and Christian thought.

Some laws are not moral. For example, right now many police departments are partially funded by civil forfeiture laws.

Something like 40% of the Export-Import Bank's loans have gone to support one company, Boeing.

Not so very long ago, the Federal government decided that the U.S. should be forced to switch to the metric system.

---

"That immoral people have taken advantage of it doesn't discount the original intent."

Yeah, it kinda does. Your own religion has some interesting things to say about good intentions.

And no one has yet addressed my macro argument. The real question is why should any group be in charge?

You've all been so busy telling me how much the U.S. has a "Judeo-Christian" basis, not one of you has bothered to say why Christianity is a superior system.

I'm willing to work with people to get an acceptable set of laws. But the second you tell me it's Judeo-Christian based I will walk away. Not because I hate Christianity, but because I do want ANY religion given the force of law.

We need people of faith questioning government.

ETA: Pardon, that is my goof. that should read "…but because I do not want ANY religion given the force of law."

You two had me typing so fast last night that my hands couldn't keep up with my brain.

---

Thank you. I was waiting for someone to introduce the Ten Commandments.

Number One on the Hits List there doesn't apply to anyone not a part of that religion.

Unless you want to point a gun at my head until I put your god first?

Don't you see? I'm not attacking the Christian faith. I'm just saying you can't use the law to impose it on anyone else. Your choice is your choice, their choice is theirs.

---

Please tell me again how the Ten Commandments are the "fundamental principles of America."

Please tell me again how me NOT putting the "Judeo-Christian" morality above and beyond my own morality rejects American principles "because of their ethical monotheist origin."

It certainly seems that you have issues with every single American who does not embrace Christianity immediately and on your say so.

---

And you honestly believe that the Judeo-Christian basis is the only possible source of morality for the Founders?

How curiously limiting.

---

I called the Founders among the best educated men of their time. I pointed out that the deliberate omission of ANY god in the Constitution. And I told you they argued and debated for years to do the "right" thing even as they made the occasional mistake.

---

You're right. I'd walk away from the group. I wouldn't walk away from the issue.

You see, I have this thing about freedom…

---

" You wish to have morality without any consequence." I do not. If you'll check some of my previous posts on other threads, I usually stress choice with consequences.

"Western values have a Judeo-Christian foundation…" Among other things.

You did see the bit above where I stressed how important family was, didn't you?

---

I never said all systems are equal.

I said people should make their own choices. And if you can't convince people that your system is a good one except by using force, then you're doing it wrong.

---

No, it's a matter of agreeing on morality instead of saying "the Bible tells me this is good SO THIS IS WHAT WE WILL DO or else!!"

---

Then why isn't the Christian God specifically mentioned in the U.S. Constitution?

Why did it take a Cold War to (mistakenly) change the national motto to "In God We Trust?"

Why does the Constitution specifically forbid a religious test as a qualification for office?

Do you get the picture yet? You can be as Christian as you choose.

You just can't choose that OR any other faith for another.

---

Because government documents of the time routinely did put it in.

I keep telling people. This was not an accident. It was a deliberate choice. It was shocking. It stirred debate in the Continental Congress. It was unheard of.

---

Articles of Confederation.

You can find a copy at www.usconstitution.net, a very good reference site.

---

But it wasn't adopted as the national motto until 1956.

The Founders didn't do "givens," they liked to nail things down. If you don't believe me, take a look at the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers.

---

Yep, I knew that. That's why I mentioned the Anti-Federalist Papers.

Actually if you examine the Constitution you'll find that broad framework has some very specific anchors.

Which makes the omissions all the more important.

---

Speaking of coinage, have you heard of the Fugio cent?

Designed by Franklin, one face had "We Are One" and the other face had "Mind Your Business."

---

Whole wars have been fought by Christians on both sides over that "objective morality."

Whatever the Divine perspective, human understanding is limited and very subjective.❞ class="ghoster">❞

Tags: Judeo-Christia ∙ Jews ∙ Christians ∙ family ∙ virtues ∙ faith ∙ Founders ∙ Deists ∙ Civil War ∙ Treaty of Paris ∙ Continental Congress ∙ Constitution ∙ defer ∙ Golden Rule ∙ Silver Rule ∙ Iron Rule ∙ offical religion ∙ dissent

This 1998 classic was published by the Cato Institute

Tags: Edward L. Hudgins ∙ 1998 ∙ Giustino DiCamillo ∙ What is an American? ∙ loves life ∙ want the best ∙ not satisfied ∙ future ∙ better tomorrow ∙ action ∙ exertion ∙ effort ∙ initiative ∙ fortune ∙ challenges ∙ achieving ∙ risk ∙ economic prosperity ∙ personal liberty ∙ Declaration of Independence ∙ Constitution ∙ guest content

Another classic that I've used in the sidebar for years.

Tags: Crux Files ∙ reform ∙ politicos ∙ government ∙ other guy ∙ collapse ∙ not our fault ∙ system ∙ Sara Palin ∙ John McCain ∙ Star Parker ∙ Christianity ∙ Christians ∙ for your own good ∙ vice law ∙ Tammy Bruce ∙ Chris Matthews ∙ government screw-up ∙ submit ∙ conservative ∙ virtues ∙ libertarianism ∙ Constitution ∙ rights ∙ taxes ∙ Daniel Webster ∙ Frederick Douglass ∙ rulers&masters

r/libertarian vs r/socialism

Tags: war ∙ Congress ∙ Constitution ∙ George Washington ∙ James Madison ∙ Donald Trump ∙ reset ∙ Syria ∙ Iraq ∙ North Korea ∙ China ∙ Russia ∙ mainstream media ∙ intelligence agencies ∙ politicos ∙ freedom ∙ American hegemony ∙ tribute

After she was arrested, Susan B. Anthony showed just what a woman could do.

Tags: Susan B. Anthony ∙ vote ∙ rights ∙ 1873 ∙ Constitution ∙ qualification ∙ disfranchisement ∙ consent of the governed ∙ guest content

❝❝The 23-cent gender pay gap is simply the difference between the average earnings of all men and women working full-time. It does not account for differences in occupations, positions, education, job tenure, or hours worked per week. When all these relevant factors are taken into consideration, the wage gap narrows to about five cents. And no one knows if the five cents is a result of discrimination or some other subtle, hard-to-measure difference between male and female workers.❞❞
     — Christina Hoff Sommers, No, Women Don’t Make Less Money Than Men

Tags: Donald Trump ∙ Constitution ∙ rights ∙ persons ∙ property ∙ vote ∙ gender pay gap ∙ Christina Hoff Sommers ∙ sexualization of women ∙ past wrongs ∙ privilege ∙ responsibility ∙ reproductive rights ∙ women's rights ∙ favorites

Almost nobody bothers to ask if the screws should exist in the first place.

Tags: Constitution ∙ right vs. left ∙ Donald Trump ∙ Hillary Clinton ∙ Bill Clinton ∙ Robert A. Heinlein ∙ attacks ∙ government ∙ none of the above ∙ IRS ∙ DOJ ∙ Clinton Foundation ∙ charity ∙ parity test ∙ companion

We’re at the point where the American republic may fall.

At this point, I’m honestly not sure it can be saved.

I’m not sure it should be saved.

There are some ideas I have been playing with the last few years or so. I’ve tried to talk these out with people I trust. And now I am putting them here. All are Constitutional amendments.

Remember that the Constitution was designed to restrain the actions of government, not citizens. Remember too that many of the checks and balances have been removed over the years. And finally, the Federal government was never intended to run smoothly and efficiently. The checks and balances were designed to protect freedom.

Liberty is the goal, not democracy.

• Repeal the 16th Amendment

The income tax is one of the biggest threats to freedom ever enacted. With it, the Federal government assumes you are guilty unless you can prove that you are not. This is a complete reversal of the rule of law prior to the amendment.

With the 16th, the Federal government is not restrained by the need for a warrant. Your employer, your bank, any financial company that you do business with, all are required by law to report transactions over a specific amount or any “suspicious activity.” There are “rewards” if other citizens turn you in. Effectively, everyone around you is required to spy on you and penalized if they do not.

Tax cases are heard in an administrative court run by the Internal Revenue Service with it’s own rules of evidence. Your money and property can be seized and the only way you can get it back (less interest) is to prove that the IRS is wrong by it’s own regulations. Regulations that are so complex that it is literally beyond the ability of any one person to understand.

The “progressive” tax system is designed to foster envy and “class” disruption. The income tax is one of the most despised Federal laws in American history. The only thing that keeps Americans from hanging IRS agents is that citizens think the “system” hits someone else worse. It fosters scapegoats so it seems “fair.”

An income tax system inevitably leads to political corruption. Unpopular groups find themselves under extra scrutiny. Politicos use it to keep their enemies and rivals in line.

There are technicalities that I could spend pages and pages examining. For example, if there is a “standard deduction,” then by definition taxes are too high.

The income tax took away your freedom. You have to acknowledge this every year by signing a Federal form. Under penalty of law.

• Repeal the 17th Amendment

Brought to you by the same merry madcaps who gave us the 16th, the 17th Amendment reduces freedom in the name of popular democracy. The 17th has made Senators political bosses in their own states, with control of the Federal money spigot and a guaranteed spot high up in the political parties.

The popular election of Senators took away some of the oversight the state legislatures were supposed to have on Congress. But since Senators no longer answer to their state legislature, they have become tools of their party.

This does not serve freedom.

This part of popular democracy destroys freedom. It’s an illusion designed to expand the major political parties while fooling the voter into thinking that they have influence.

There’s a place for popular democracy, but not unrestrained popular democracy. The Bill of Rights is the best example.

• None of the Above and Alternative Voting

Every election should have a None of the Above choice. If NOTA won, then those candidates on the ballot would be barred from serving in that office for that term.

One choice that people should always have is the choice to walk away.

We should never assume that the default is to elect someone. Especially if the voters aren’t picking who gets to run.

Alternative voting just means ranking the candidates in order of your favorites. The biggest advantage is that the minority candidates have a better chance of being elected and major parties are forced to pay closer attention to all the voters. Instead of voting against a bad candidate, voters could choose someone closer to their beliefs and priorities.

• Laws and Regulations

As things stand now, there will always be more laws and regulations unless Congress takes direct action. Think about that carefully.

The default state of the American Federal government is more government.

That is not freedom.

I suggest a three pronged attack.

First, ALL government regulations would sunset within three years unless made law by Congress and the President.

Second, state legislatures would approve Federal regulation before it applies in that state. This approval could be withdrawn at any time. Congress has the power and authority to pass laws for the nation, but it can’t delegate that power. Every single Federal regulation that governs individuals and states is unconstitutional.

This would reduce Federal regulation to it’s proper scope and shift coercive power away from millions of unelected technocrats.

I know this seems excessive, but it is actually well within Constitutional principles. There’s nothing in the Constitution that provides for regulatory agencies except the much abused and overused commerce clause. Certainly there is nothing that provides for administrative court systems outside the Federal courts.

Third, each state legislature could choose one Federal law annually for referendum at the next Congressional election. Each Congressional election, there could be up to 100 Federal laws on the ballot. And if a law does not get a national majority voting to retain it, it would be gone.

Practically, this would effectively be automatic repeal. Unless it was a very good idea, I can’t see a majority voting to keep a law. But the possibility is there. The automatic repeal means that Congress would have to convince voters of the worth of each and every law. And if the state legislatures are canny, one carefully chosen law could defang dozens of others.

In other words, this proposal gives the states direct oversight of Congress.

There are other things that I would love to see done. But these four would do wonders. I welcome your comments and ideas.

Tags: American republic ∙ repeal ∙ amendment ∙ technocrats ∙ Constitution ∙ President ∙ amendment proposal ∙ referendum ∙ 16th Amendment ∙ income tax ∙ IRS ∙ 17th Amendment ∙ Senate ∙ none of the above ∙ alternative voting ∙ Congress ∙ more government ∙ Federal regulation ∙ default state ∙ sunset clause ∙ exempt ∙ automatic repeal ∙ commerce clause ∙ Republic ∙ classic ∙ favorites

Any robo-caller demanding money is almost certainly a scam

Tags: Constitution ∙ amendment ∙ The Wild Hunt ∙ Christopher Blackwell ∙ Founders ∙ Amerindians ∙ slavery ∙ Negro

What changed?

Tags: Constitution ∙ rights ∙ powers ∙ Obamacare ∙ banning bullets ∙ internet ∙ scanners ∙ disrobing ∙ sobriety checkpoint ∙ no knock warrant ∙ SWAT

Bookworm is looking for scapegoats

Tags: taxes ∙ freely chosen ∙ 16th Amendment ∙ Constitution ∙ IRS ∙ White House ∙ Barack Obama ∙ repeal ∙ Richard Nixon ∙ Bill Clinton