Impeach Bush
|
Submitted by: RonPaul4All  Subscribe to this Author Paste this code into your site to promote this story! |
http://youtube.com/watch?v=BDZ8seg4Nr4&feature=related
Type of Content: Video Dennis Kucinich presents Bush impeachment articles on June 9, 2008. Is anyone paying any attention to him? Read »
Created 11 weeks 2 days ago
Made popular 11 weeks 2 days ago |
- Flag as offensive
- Login or register to post comments
- 393 reads
Ummm.... dude... you are talking in theoreticals here. Great Britain? THE "monarchy" Great Britain?
If you are lucky enough to travel the world, the one glaring thing you will notice is how much better everything works here in the US. Some people returning actually kiss the ground as they arrive. Why?
We are a civilized nation with laws.
What are laws? Agreements by the people here how they want everything to work. Why do things work? because a majority of people make those agreements abide by them. How do we enforce those agreement to those who don't go along?
Government coercion.
What other option is there? Violence. Retribution. Stick waving... Putting pee in the gas tanks of those who have slighted you...
It ain't pretty man, this notion of yours...
Big guys like me always end up winning.
THe CONSTITUITONAL monarchy, and the freest society in history, next to the United States. I actually travel quite a bit. I can say first hand that I feel much freer in Germany than I do in the United States of 2008 - that goes for business and civil liberties. I import some things from China, and they are now much freer than we are when it comes to business regulation, although they still "kind of" practice communism outside of the SEZ's. One of the biz development guys I worked with from the German company just moved to Shanghai and he marvels at the work ethic and general ease of doing business in their society.
THese societies are by no means perfect, perhaps not yet even better than ours, but they are moving away from socialism and toward more freedom. And they are passing us by as we move toward more socialism/authoritarianism.
You keep distorting my comments into meaning that I somehow support anarchy and the absence of laws - and I repeatedly say that I support no such thing. I merely point out that just laws are laws that defend people from violence or fraud - period.
All other laws are born of the weakness of those who would USE the threat of violence for their own gain, rather than compete fairly in the marketplace for wealth.
All of this will bear out. The United States is spiraling into an authoritarian, socialist nightmare, much as Rome was at its end. People will be kissing the ground OUTSIDE the United States within our lifetime if this trend does not reverse.
Here's a nice article about high school graduation attendees arrested for cheering, just to make the point:
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/52033
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
"True libertarianism is not only practical, it is the ONLY sustainable way for people to live together. History has proven this over and over."
Ummmm... Name one single libertarian society with a population density at least equal to, say Arkansas... History will shyou that it has never occured. You beleif structure is hardened into absurdities, and I can now understand why you have trouble converting people to your cause...
If BTM is a purely libertarian site, I guess I best be moving on...
We common, practical sorts don't get too caught up in idealistic extremisms, or movements peopled by fanatics...
"True libertarianism is not only practical, it is the ONLY sustainable way for people to live together. History has proven this over and over."
It sounds crazy in today's America. I guess Truth is also "crazy" in the empire of lies.
However, ancient Athens, Rome, Florence, Great Britain, and most of all the United States were civilizations that were sustainable and growing to the extent that they allowed their citizens to deal with one another by mutual voluntary consent. When they fell into authoritarianism, whether by the tyranny of the majority, a despotic prince, or a power elite, they ceased to be sustainable economically and began to decline. The United States achieved an almost perfect libertarian society (if you weren't black or a woman) in the 18th and 19th Century, then was seduced by authoritarianism in its spiffy new label - socialism. We've been declining ever since.
Please don't leave the site - it wouldn't be any fun around here without a closet dictator to fight with! (yes, I'm kidding. :)
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
Now see... This is where your strict views (dogma) get you into trouble.
It blinds you and makes you unreasonable.
Suddenly BTM is about libertarian ideals, and not actual life...
The reason libertarianism never catches on completely is because when push comes to the nitty gritty, it doesn't solve any problems. It simply talks in theories that don't actual work without causing regular folk to suffer at the hands of those who are anti-social and self-centered to an extreme.
There is a balancing act that occurs between the rights of an individual, and the rights of a society as a collective (which a society, by definition, IS). The trick is not to speak in absolutes but to discover that balance and attempt to maintain it. BTM desires to remove the power from the federal beauracrats which I fully agree with. Where I disagree with the full blown libertarian view is that community government is inherantly bad. I say it is most judiciously beneficial to individuals...
Take another stab at resolving any issue I put forth, without causing harm to the person whose rights are being violated by a thoughtless other...
Take a practical approach... If you can...
Yes, BTM is a libertarian site.
The reason that libertarianism hasn't caught on in the past 30 or so years is that our society has become conditioned to using government coercion to solving everything.
Our country WAS a libertarian country, with flaws, for most of its history. We are now a "social(ist) democracy," and because of that we are in decline.
True libertarianism is not only practical, it is the ONLY sustainable way for people to live together. History has proven this over and over.
"The collective" has no rights - only the individual does. An employee who quits a job because he doesn't like the terms under which the owner of the business who PROVIDED that job to him is not a victim - his rights have not been violated. No one has a right to a job.
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
Where were all of our good Congressmen when they voted to give up "our constitutional rights" by abrogating their authority? President Bush did not have the authority to attack either Afghanistan or Iraq without Congressional approval. Our Congress failed us miserably. Political expediency?
How come Kucinich is not on the front page?
How does this not headline the news? Articles of Impeachment? What did they lead with instead, Brittany Spears latest meltdown?
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8Doy_7sOoM
Here again, is what happens when society decides that collective laws are harmful...
There no "freedom" here...
You have not satisfactorily resolved a single issue. You have stated an "ideal" that doesn't fully function, and to demonstrate it, I have posed questions that, one by one, have not been resolved. The closest resolutions you have are marketplace solutions, which, in practice, cause great upheavel and financial degradation to those who are forced into them by the actions of another. Again, your basic premise of violating someone's rights (making them quit one job to go find another, for example) violates your own ideals.
Without the use of some form of collective coercion, I am left to resolve each of these issues manually and individually, which translates in real world terms to attempting to beat the crap out of someone.
That is why laws are a necessary part of "civil" society.
Let me be clear--
I have NO PROBLEM with people-mandated government coercion. ZERO.
As long as it is truly representational and from the bottom floor upward. Individuals within a community have a right to dictate both the limits of their community, and the level of social sharing i.e. community libraries, fire stations, what have you...
Collectively, humans can be pretty reasonable to one another, but singularly, there are some who can cause a boatload of trouble and need the weight of a collectively decided upon group of laws to keep them from ruining "civility"...
"I have NO PROBLEM with people-mandated government coercion. ZERO."
You should be very happy in the new America, as it is today. You're actually going to get a lot more of what you like.
I'm not sure what brought you to BTM, but the site is founded on the mission to defend our rights, basically, from you.
Democracy can be every bit as tyrannical as dictatorship or monarchy, which is why the founders were so suspicious of democracy.
I have no problem with laws backed by the use of force, as long as those laws only authorize the use of force in DEFENSE against violence or fraud.
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
i think Scott means the local level not federal. which does make sense.
So if I live in an area with no HO's and someone moves in next to me and proceeds to create both a fire hazard and an eyesore, and is not ammenable to my asking that they clean up their act, I need to move, taking my property value losses (created by the mess next door)? Is THAT your great society?
"He has not lowered your property values new
0directly by what he does on his own property"
Ummmm.... you are 100% incorrect in this statement. A trashy property next to this one could lower my value here by about 60,000 dollars.
Cookie or no cookie.
a johnny on the spot? Woh, friend I suggest you sue your real estate agent.
So WHO gets to decide whether he is harming my property value? Me? What if I think his lawn is too long and it harms my property value? Do I get to make a law that says no grass should be longer than, say six inches?
Where is the division where his trash on his property actually harms me and my property value personally?
WHO makes the distinction? Each property owner?
As for smoking, are airlines public or private places? Buses? What about restaurants in shopping malls that share ventilation systems with other places? What about open food courts?
What about an open air restaurant open adjacent to a bar, and the bar has its windows open?
What about those required to attend meetings in places (say, work related) where their bosses are smokers and choose a smoking establishment?
What about the poor schmuck who is required to deliver beer to the smoking establishment? Should he have to quit his job if cigarette smoke is an allergen to him?
What if your only jobskill is as a waitress and the only restaurant in town allows smoking, but you are allergic?
The point to all of this is, is that there is no clear cut definition of "rights" or "infringement of rights" and communities should declare what it is that they agree upon for themselves...
I have already answered, if you give it some thought.
My observation of your stance and your need to fight this point is that you absolutely do not want to let go of government coercion as your means to solve problems, even if the government, or "the people," have no right to use coercion. You are not alone. While this site is arguably a cross-section of the more "freedom-loving" percentage of society as a whole, there still seems to be an addiction to government coercion whenever the results of freedom seem inconvenient to them. In a truly free society, all of your questions above would be answered without anyone's rights being infringed.
Remember, no one is forced to deliver beer for a living, no one is forced to work for that airline, no one is forced to go to that mall.
At the same time, employers compete for quality employees -as I do myself - and in a market where quality employees would jump for a "smoke-free workplace," for example, employers would provide it. The fact that our society opted for coercion instead is symptomatic of its employing coercion to solve EVERY problem, and also symptomatic of its prohibitiveness of true competition.
The problems we face in the U.S. are never going to be solved until this addiction to using government coercion to solve our problems - and your examples, fairly stated, are the least harmful examples of coercion (welfare programs are much worse, for example) - is finally beaten. We are so conditioned to look to the government that even "freedom fighters" find themselves doing it.
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
But according to your view, he has lowered my property value and infringed on my rights to maintain my property value. Therefore, I should have that right.
directly by what he does on his own property. If your buyer doesn't want to live near him, that's just the way the cookie crumbles. You have plenty of opportnity to choose the type of community you would like to live in. If you want a restrictive HOA agreement that closely governs your behavior on your property and likewise that of your neighbors, you can choose to live there. If freedom from hassle or your personal preference for a pink mailbox is more important to you than such strict control of your neighbors, you can choose a neighborhood with a less restrictive HOA. If you don't like the idea of anyone telling you what to do with your own property, then you can choose a neighborhood with no HOA - accepting the risk that your neighbor might paint a his house florescent yellow. IN all cases, both you and your neighbors are voluntarily agreeing on what the standards are, and no one is pointing a gun. You seem highly resistant to the idea of living without unnecessary government coercion, which I argue is presently an affliction in America, but I it should never be used except when necessary, and in your example, it's not necessary.
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
Do I have a right NOT to be subjected to the smell of cigarette smoke and its residuals? What if it causes allergy symptoms? What if it triggers asthma? What if it ruins an appetite?
selling the porta potty and getting a regular apartment?
On the smoking thing, yes, on your property or public property (public meaning "owned by the people," not public meaning "serving the public, as in a privately owned restaurant or bar. There, it is up to the owner of the establishment to decide if people can smoke, and up to the customers to decide to eat there or not).
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
"True libertarianism advocates that you can do whatever you please, so long AS YOU DO NOT violate the rights of others. It does not "let everybody do what they please" without limit."
Do I have the right NOT to stare at someone's eyesore everyday? In other words, do I have a right to ask my community to require that all individuals keep up a reasonable standard of cleanliness around their personal properties?
(Remember, if I own property near them, my property value is dimished...)
to it. That is why you must get that person to voluntarily sign an HOA that contractually obligates them to certain standards in property upkeep. Freedom works.
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
"Kucinich's "liberal stances" advocate the government stealing the property of one individual and giving it to another."
Understood. But on a local level, this is not a bad stance to have. It is only when the responsibility for taking this stance gets air-lifted to someplace mystical like Washington DC, that real problems arise.
For example, if my local government says to me "we have decided that we need to buy a new firetruck" and are levying a tax on blah blah blah..." they are taking from and giving to...
If I am against the new fire truck, I can advocate that they not levy the tax. I can advocate that they be removed from the postion of levying the tax. I have advocacy on my own behalf.
I am not against "government" levying a tax to keep up the safety of my community. I just want an actual hand on the lever.
"Government" should be a "by the people" endeavor. The closer "goverment" is to your front door, the better it functions and serves those within the community.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8Doy_7sOoM
A short video demonstrating "the rights of the individual" in action...
"Our country and the liberty movement in general is based upon individual rights."
Yes, but an individual has the right to protect himself and his property and family from other individuals via laws.
The whole "libertine" notion of letting everybody do as they please actually produces less liberty and personal rights, while inviting chaos, increasing damage to self and property, etc...
Collective "laws" are less restrictive to the individual than some kind of anarchy, IF they are truly collective and based on a general consensus of those who they are governing. Truly "government by the people".
My position is that communities have their own "culture" and that the establishment of collective "laws" should be centered in power there, where shifting times and feelings can eadily alter the laws to accomodate their needs. Again, "government by the people".
As with all absolutes, true Liberarianism doesn't work for the same reason Communism doesn't work-- humans are not ideal citizens. A small percentage will always ruin it for the vast majority. Laws are there to stop the ruination of society by the miscreants among us. The trick is to make sure the laws accomodate the community in which they are serving. My position is that the federal government is not the place to make laws of this kind.
"Yes, but an individual has the right to protect himself and his property and family from other individuals via laws"
THat is exactly right. However, Kucinich's "liberal stances" advocate the government stealing the property of one individual and giving it to another.
True libertarianism advocates that you can do whatever you please, so long AS YOU DO NOT violate the rights of others. It does not "let everybody do what they please" without limit.
Also, the idea that "absolutes" are bad is one that socialists make great use of all of the time. By distorting the real meaning of terms like "freedom," "liberty," "capitalism," etc., they are able to shift the argument, falsely showing that, for example, too much liberty is bad, like too much of even nutritious food is bad for you. This is a fallacy, and it allows them to get concessions even from defenders of liberty, who mistakenly view "moderation" as a virtue in this case. This is what prompted Barry Goldwater to quote Cicero in saying "Let me me remind you, that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
The thing about Kucinich (besides that he must be hung like a horse to nab a wife like his) is that he operates on his principles and his conscience, just like Ron Paul.
His feel-good liberal stances are common in America, and many have merit. The thing to consider, is how to convince Dennis that the federal government IS NOT the place to implement his liberal notions. Those ideas are best suited for community government. Local, maybe up into state.
I have no problems personally with local communities banning guns from their communities, if that is what they, as a community, choose. As with all issues that bounce back and forth in America and never get resolved, the paradoxes and dilemmas built in to either position is what keeps the issues lucrative as campaign stances for candidates.
Different parts of America think differently about the issue of gun control. Let the communities demonstrate their will and get the federal government out of the equation altogether.
Go Dennis!