I LOVE the way you put things...I was brought up to buck the traces, but boy, could I have done with your take on the whole shebang years ago when I was a teen!!! Your napkin 'cons-titution' is perfect.
You're very welcome...by the way, I have to unsubscribe for a week, because I won't be near my computer and I don't want a heart attack when I get back and see a million emails, aaagh!...and back I WILL be.
From the crooked timber of man, no straight thing was ever made. You’re not founding stock so you would not understand what the real world is like when you go to found a government. The men then had higher average IQs than they have now and were trying to do the best with the filthy broken rusty tools they had - that is, human nature - when they constructed the Constitution. The notion that because you can conceive of a personal fancy in which you do better means that you are qualified to critique their work is part of that sick, wretched human nature you believe is perfectible. Every man who has held out for the better angels of mankind to implement his utopia has ended up shedding rivers of blood. The Founding Fathers did an amazing thing in the sorry, twisted history of the human race when they created America and the peanut gallery has been highlighting their mistakes ever since on those occasions they can turn up sober. I want congratulate you on your hubris but men like you never ever achieve things like this and they never will. Founding stock need a requisite level of mettle that is simply not present biologically in most of the human race. When I won the Ironman in the Army (150 miles a week training for 8 months, 4 weight sessions a week) I met a guy on the bus on my way back to post who told me he could have beaten me if he only could have given up drinking and smoking. Things always look easy for men who can’t do such things.
I think you missed the point completely... My argument is that you can't have a moral, legitimate "government". Period. In any way, shape or form. I am arguing that the "government" was a scam from the beginning because it is logically and morally impossible for anyone, even "founding stock", to acquire rights that others do not. You can't delegate a right you don't possess yourself to a "government"... You can't be bound by a social contract you didn't sign... and if my girlfriend and myself can't vote to rob you because there are two of us and one of you then it doesn't matter if there are three of us, ten of us, or three million of us. If you disagree with this basic morality then please explain to the other readers how, if you were stranded on an island with nine friends, how you and five others could morally and legitimately "found" a "government" that could logically and morally "tax" (steal) from and make rules for the other four without violating their natural law right to disagree and be left alone by the mob?
Oh! I got your point. But your point is the last. It has no effect. They have already removed your name from the book. Even what you believe is true in the past. It is the end so carries no weight.
Those who wrote the US constitution had social standing, money, education of the norms of society at that time and determination to set up a system under which they could thrive...they may well have had perfectly good intentions, but laboured under the age old concept that they, with their education, determination and standing should bring about the normal status quo of a governing body over and above the majority. That concept was of its time, these times are different, they are changing, humanity is evolving and we need to replace the old system that has rotted with the taking of responsibility for ones own life, not kowtowing to commandments that do not serve us well. From this will arise another way forwards, hopefully saner, more loving, caring and compassionate towards each other and the planet that gives us life, than those previous, competitive, warring, thieving, cheating, dominating old ways. Nothing is as yet cut and dried...a challenge to us all...let's not fail.
You're right, humanity is changing. You all now have an average IQ of 95, that's TWO DERIVATIVES adjusted lower than when I left the country in 1992. That's called a clinical definition of cretinism in psychology. That's the AVERAGE, meaning half of you or more have an IQ even LOWER than that. You aren't EVOLVING or ADVANCING or any of that sick crazy marxist crap ... you're retreating to slime mold and changing into a bunch of gammy eyed whackos who castrate children and saw off young women's breasts. The crazier you all get, the more of this satanic "Age of Aquarius" faggotry we have to listen to about how you are rising up towards the stars when MOST OF YOU CAN'T EVEN READ OR WRITE ABOVE A 2nd or 3rd GRADE LEVEL. You're not going anywhere except straight down. That's why these people are running slipshod over top of you and cutting off your food, water and any options but mealworms and crickets. THEY THINK THE SAME OF YOU THAT I DO AND THEY LAUGH AT ALL THIS STUPIDITY ABOUT GOING FORTH INTO A BRIGHTER NEW UTOPIAN TOMORROW. I bet you got vaccinated and triple boosted which means we won't be able to argue these points much longer.
Di Lorenzo is a scholar. Robert E. Lee was of the opinion slavery would end. Slavery was ending. The war arose over tariff, not slavery. On December 28, 1861 Dickens published a lengthy article, believed to be written by Henry Morley,[19] which blamed the American Civil War on the Morrill Tariff:
If it be not slavery, where lies the partition of the interests that has led at last to actual separation of the Southern from the Northern States?... Every year, for some years back, this or that Southern state had declared that it would submit to this extortion only while it had not the strength for resistance. With the election of Lincoln and an exclusive Northern party taking over the federal government, the time for withdrawal had arrived.... The conflict is between semi-independent communities [in which] every feeling and interest [in the South] calls for political partition, and every pocket interest [in the North] calls for union.... So the case stands, and under all the passion of the parties and the cries of battle lie the two chief moving causes of the struggle. Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this, as of many other evils.... [T]he quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel.
DiLorenzo is no scholar. He didn't magically find new information about Abraham Lincoln 140 years after Lincoln was killed. He takes Lincoln's quotes out-of-context to fool "the people" because he knows that very few people will take the time to read & understand the seven Lincoln/Douglass debates or Lincoln's speeches & letters. DiLorenzo, Rothbard, Tucker, & Rockwell are charlatans fooling "the people" into believing that anarchism is valid for liberty. It is for tyrants but not for individuals.... not here on Earth because some anarchists are warmongers and rulers. And those anarchists will not obey the rules of society.... King Charles III and all the king's men who are spraying our skies controlling the weather are doing evil to "the people" here on Earth just like the divine right of kings have always done.
“Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints. Liberalism is not anarchism, nor has it anything whatsoever to do with anarchism.
The liberal understands quite clearly that without resort to compulsion, the existence of society would be endangered and that behind the rules of conduct whose observance is necessary to assure peaceful human cooperation must stand the threat of force if the whole edifice of society is not to be continually at the mercy of any one of its members.
One must be in a position to compel the person who will not respect the lives, health, personal freedom, or private property of others to acquiesce in the rules of life in society. This is the function that the liberal doctrine assigns to the State: the protection of Property, Liberty, and Peace.”
Nonsense. Fake history. The first two generations of "the people" enjoyed virtually unbounded liberty, peace and prosperity until Andrew Jackson destroyed America's National Bank, chased BlackHawk and his family off their land, and left a trail of tears for people who wanted to live free lives.
Alexis de Tocqueville's Introduction to Democracy in America
“AMONG the novel objects that attracted my attention during my stay in the United States, nothing struck me more forcibly than the general equality of condition among the people. I readily discovered the prodigious influence that this primary fact exercises on the whole course of society; it gives a peculiar direction to public opinion and a peculiar tenor to the laws; it imparts new maxims to the governing authorities and peculiar habits to the governed.”
What facts presented are you calling fake? I agree with you completely that the overwhemling majority of people on the continent enjoyed unbridled prosperity but it was because the infant "government" was relatively weak and could only project power over a small area and the people had hard money. But with the Con-stitution the poison was already seeping into the system and would ultimately create the tax slavery we live under today. The Con-stitution sounds good... "looks good on paper" but has utterly failed to limit "government" or even protect the basic rights outlined in the BoR. It simply didn't work and it didn't work because it was illogical and immoral at its core. You can't delegate rights you don't have yourself to a "government". If you are going to claim any kind of "government" is a good idea then please explain to the other readers how you can have a legitimate moral "government". I'll make it simple for you. You become stranded on an island with 9 other friends... How do six people acquire the moral legitimate right to "tax" (Steal) from the other four and make up rules for them against over their natural law rights to disagree and be left alone?
“illogical and immoral at its core” - Etienne de la Boetie2
Baloney.
Supreme Laws of the Land are not immoral between land owners. They are necessary. Ownership of the land was the “Divine Right of Kings” to rule over the lands before the U.S. Constitution. After the U.S. Constitution, laws of the land became between “the land owning people” who became land owners because the King lost his divine right to own the lands in America, and they created a self-governing body to enforce the laws from non-voluntary anarchists. In other words, individual homeownership, and the laws necessary to keep the peace, came with the Constitution. It is not only logical but it is a moral way to divide the lands among “the people”.
“You become stranded on an island with 9 other friends... How do six people acquire the moral legitimate right to "tax" (Steal) from the other four and make up rules for them against over their natural law rights to disagree and be left alone?” - Etienne de la Boetie2
If 10 people get stranded on an island, then 3 or 4 of them will kill, steal, or assault others with impunity if there are no laws to prevent them from doing so.
That fact of human nature is documented in the Library of Congress. If “the island people” do not make laws of the lands, then the peaceful people have to put up with the shenanigans of the violent anarchists.
They all have the right to life, liberty and their home… i.e. (laws against trespassing, murder, theft, kidnapping, assault, etc). Laws of the land attempt to deter the non-voluntary anarchists from violating the rights of the others.
First, for the record you weren't able to dispute any of the facts presented in the article as requested. Second, I am not arguing against land ownership or property... I agree completely with Natural Law and that people have the right to be safe and secure in their homes and property... I am saying that "government" is an affront to private property and rights... That no one should have the "right" to steal (Tax) or enforce rules on people for victimless crimes if they aren't hurting others... Not even "governments" YOU are saying that it is possible for some people (the "government") to legitimately acquire "rights" that others don't... I am asking you how the majority on the island would legitimately acquire rights the others don't have... which you dodged... You don't need a "government" to protect your rights and property against thieves... so "government" isn't necessary... Because you have the ability to protect your life and property you can legitimately delegate that right to a private security company... no "government" needed... BTW, You have been "chumped" and "tricked" by the inter-generational organized crime system running "government" on you to tax farm you about what anarchy is... Anarchy doesn't mean no rules.. It means: No Rulers. There is no implied violence or theft in : No Rulers BUT because the organized crime system doesn't want you to know there is an option on the menu that would give you everything you want from "government" without the violence, extortion, and indoctrination they have used their media system and control of schools / dictionary, etc. to TRICK you and CHUMP you into thinking that real freedom is bad... and fake freedom is good... If I am wrong then simply answer my original question about how the majority on the island can create a legitimate, logical and moral "government".. If you can't do that then maybe you need to abandon advocating a system based on violence and extortion... This article will explain how they ticked you about Anarchy: https://artofliberty.substack.com/p/why-the-organized-crime-media-misrepresents
No one is "tricking" me into any philosophy. I have studied history and I know how the constitution protects my unalienable rights. I know my rights.
I do not have a 'right' to own my home. Homeownership is a "privilege" which requires governance against creepy anarchists. Anarchism is the problem we endure today which is promoted by charlatans and paid for by the supreme anarchist monarchy, King Charles III, who rules the world today. The Federal Reserve System of 'elastic' money is a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
I am a voluntaryist who doesn't believe in the legitimacy, necessity or desirability of having a "government". I am exposing that "government" has been a trick of inter-generational organized crime to "chump" the population into going along with something that isn't in their interest and getting tax-farmed. It has been a scam the entire time... But.. because they ran a bag of unethically manipulative tricks on you in the mandatory "Government" school, scouting and the military, they got you to internalize it as a pseudo-religion. https://artofliberty.substack.com/p/the-religion-of-statism
You're mad as a hatter and likely have never been punched in the face and knocked down. Mankind is rough trade, partner. Rough, rough trade. The best of them is still little more than a bloody ape in a house dress. The majority of men are extremely complex life support systems for a pair of testicles. Whether you reflect deeply enough or not to know it, your essay above is itself proof you are an ape trying to assert dominance over the Renaissance geniuses who founded the United States. It's just another long range hail mary pass to impress girls. I don't believe you say these things because you are altruistic or driven by a noble imperative but rather an envy that you will never found a nation of your own and certainly never one as successful as the United States. In order to be taken seriously you would have to be as withdrawn from the fray as I have been the last 60 years and in contrast to you I feel nothing but the deepest admiration for the Founding Fathers and their Constitution and attempt at a universal Bill of Rights. You assert the problem is that it's a flawed document and oppressing you. I can't help but wonder where you live. Also, I looked in your "About" Etienne and you neglected to mention which war you fought in. Sounds like all of them. You are childlike in your assertions and know nothing of just how ugly this world really is and how fallen mankind is. It is difficult to believe that their revolution was successful even for a week, much less the slow decline of the last 250 years. If you knew anything of history you would know America has made it to the 250 year mark intact and even if it falls apart within the next few years (its doing that right now) it will still be the most amazing performance seen in recorded history of an attempt to keep these chimpmanzees from killing each other for a couple hours.
I live in the US... Was a cub scout and boy scout and fell for the program until someone explained to me how the crooked game works... I do the same for the others... You have completely dodged my question... If you are asserting that "government" is legitimate then answer the simple question: If you disagree with this basic morality then please explain to the other readers how, if you were stranded on an island with nine friends, how you and five others could morally and legitimately "found" a "government" that could logically and morally "tax" (steal) from and make rules for the other four without violating their natural law right to disagree and be left alone by the mob?
Etienne, if you live in the United States then whether or not you are bright enough to figure it out, your feet have already taken a vote of their own on where they'd like to live. I can assure you, I know many people who are also big on critique and they have long vacated for other doomed third world hellholes in Italy, England and elsewhere. I would not call any of these people bright but unlike you they are at least consistent. There is a biological name for critters who partake of an ecosystem as they simultaneously eat at it's substance, they are parasites. If you're serious about making America a better place to live then I encourage you to GTFO and spend the rest of your life writing diatribes from some crumbling ruins in Italy in a cheap little flat where nobody will bother you. Until then you're just more tragic eurotrash who can't seem to get his boots and his lips synchronized. You didn't serve in the military because you are not masculine enough to appreciate the privilege of living here and you lack the guts to sacrifice for anything. Guys like you will never be capable of building anything, you are one of those sickly runts of the litter you see in nature documentaries running around the edge of the herd honking at chads mounting females. It's not you don't want. It's that you are frustrated by what you can't get. I truly demonstrated over the course of my life I did not want the same things as others, even when they were handed to me on a silver platter. I turned down commissions to West Point twice by men who had tears in their eyes trying to convince me I should take a leadership role. Unlike you, I genuinely did not want these things. That means when I do critique of anything, it means I can be taken very seriously. If I truly rejected honors and a better position in life then when I tell you what is wrong with something I am likely to be very accurate. I assure you from my knowledge of history that there was never a better nation created than the United States anywhere in terms of the value placed on the individual and their autonomy. Such a nation must have been inspired by God because men are bastards who are incapable of ever recognizing the worth of the individual. We were a meritocracy and even a Republic for a little while and Ben Franklin knew it would only be as long as we could keep it. If you've never been shot at I reckon you and I cannot have a serious conversation on this subject. Your childish analogy above about the island made me feel like blushing for your sake to think of how simpleminded you must be to repeat it. Traditionally on desert islands half the men eat the other half and then one man eats the rest, it's happened many times when people were shipwrecked. Your adolescent notions of people sitting around negotiating who gets what is hilariously sheltered.
I have answered the questions you have posed to me, but you have now dodged my question yet another time proving that there is no way to create a moral and legitimate "government" OR that you are not intelligent enough to understand how and/or articulate it. There is simply no other option otherwise, you would have explained it instead of continually dodging what should be a simple question. Here is a free download of my book which will explain the unethically, manipulative techniques used on you in the school, scouts and military to turn you into an immoral order follower who doesn't understand how he is getting tax farmed and chumped: https://www.dropbox.com/s/knrmogkua8j9i6j/Government-The_Biggest_Scam_in_History__Sharable-emailable.PDF.pdf?dl=0
May 29, 2023·edited May 29, 2023Liked by Etienne de la Boetie2
Ye Gods! Male testosterone at full gallop! I suppose you think the current system which stems from 'government' is hunky dory, doing, fine, looking after the well being of the population, not just the ones with the most money and nothing needs to change?...or is this just a bit of..." I know history better than you do" Blah, Blah, Blah??
Every one is entitled to their own opinion and you don't have to insult people if you don't like what they say, you can just simply take your leave dear man, it's still a free-ish world at the moment.
Anarchist always avoid the land debate because it exposes their failure. American anarchism came to America after the constitution because the constitution laid the groundwork for their Utopia which is only possible if everyone was an angel or saint. Voluntary anarchists do not understand the King. As a matter of fact, Hans Hermann-Hoppe argues for monarchy over constitutional government and the dupes believe him.
I believe this is due to Federalist cohesion. Like say everyone supports the institution created by the conquest of the Federal idea. Patrick Henry surrendered his sword to Washington and he was opposed to Federalism. The honorable position of the Anti-Federalists is defeated by a vote of the enfranchised. However this is due to power still seated in the several states as Federal power remained limited. As Federal power waxed and the power in the States began to wane some men like Calhoun insisted on the meaning of the Constitution was for a weak Federal power so that "nullification" of Federal law by the State was legitimate. The Civil War evidently put an end to the notion.
America's Civil War was clearly waged by slave owners backed by the British monarchy, paid for by London bankers, to nationalize slavery for world empire.
Back up a moment. Slavery was legal and importation of new slaves was not. As far back as Calhoun some states supported nullification of Federal law on State's rights ground. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_crisis
The war was by Lincoln. Congress adjourned Sine Die. "Without a day." At that moment no more Union. Lincoln backed by Eastern industrialists waged war by Executive Order-not by Constitutional law. On the other hand the South was backed by England but not very much, and not as France backed American Independence.
The war was NOT by Abraham Lincoln. Those lies are pervasive yet untrue. Lincoln was anti-war for empire and against the enslavement of people all his life. That was the debate of their day. Slavery as the divine right of kings (slave owners) by the grace of God because of the Curse of Canaan from the Bible. King Charles II had given Carolina territory to his descendants along with perpetual slaves to the political class according to John Locke. Liberty for them was tyranny over the lower classes. Charleston, South Carolina has since been the hotbed for slavery and war... and it still is.
See: Carolina Constitution of 1663.
Lincoln spent 2 years in the halls of congress (one term) from 1846-1848 and they hated him for being against "Manifest Destiny" and sent him back to Illinois after his anti-war speech against President Polk's war for slave empire in Mexico. They got it in Texas. Lincoln retired from politics until the Kansas Nebraska slavery question became the hotbed of the expansion of slavery issue. He then started speaking out against the nationalization of slavery (as a private citizen) and was such a great speaker that he became politically powerful even though he officially did not hold any official power. The charlatans, paid for by 'elastic money' promotes Lincoln as the wager of war is Hegelian dialectic. It was, after all, Skull & Bones President William Howard Taft who memorialized Lincoln as "A child born to poverty on the edge of the wilderness; a ruler whose word became law over a continent, wide as the Atlantic; a martyr whose name is a talisman in remotest corners of the earth.”
Which is total BS because Lincoln warned "the people" in his first inaugural address, that if the Supreme Court ruling against Dred Scott was to be honored and respected, then "the people" would lose their self government. Lincoln was right.
What I can gather from this conversation is that Men, who've been in charge of all this for generations have made a right cockup of the planet and they should go home and think about their misbehaviour.
Prior to Albert Pike's usurpation of Freemasonry, Freemasons were a force for "good".Why Albert Pike's Statue Must Fall The Scottish Rite's Ku Klux Klan Project by Anton Chaitkin
True it does not matter how much virus or no virus vaccinated comes in contact with. We are all ends to our DNA. 90% of the population. Only one person can win the game.
All school grade history lie in fact if you include everything you want. The taught material and system would find a way to also lie to our children. Whoever wins write the history of tomorrow. History and truth have always been at odds with reality.
Roger Sherman, the man who was involved in the Articles of Association, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the United States Constitution tells us the real reason the Articles of Confederation had to be discarded in favor of the U.S. Constitution. Static weights and measures, laws of the land, along with milita defense were the primary reasons.
The Purse & The Sword by Dr. Edwin Vieira Jr.
The anarchists from Rhode Island wanted to cheat "the people" in the other States by passing off their worthless paper money for trade, with the support of their courts, "wink wink" and live the good life at the expense of honest folks like the Sherman Brothers from other States.
I LOVE the way you put things...I was brought up to buck the traces, but boy, could I have done with your take on the whole shebang years ago when I was a teen!!! Your napkin 'cons-titution' is perfect.
Thank you!
You're very welcome...by the way, I have to unsubscribe for a week, because I won't be near my computer and I don't want a heart attack when I get back and see a million emails, aaagh!...and back I WILL be.
Thanks Etienne. The napkin says it ALL!
From the crooked timber of man, no straight thing was ever made. You’re not founding stock so you would not understand what the real world is like when you go to found a government. The men then had higher average IQs than they have now and were trying to do the best with the filthy broken rusty tools they had - that is, human nature - when they constructed the Constitution. The notion that because you can conceive of a personal fancy in which you do better means that you are qualified to critique their work is part of that sick, wretched human nature you believe is perfectible. Every man who has held out for the better angels of mankind to implement his utopia has ended up shedding rivers of blood. The Founding Fathers did an amazing thing in the sorry, twisted history of the human race when they created America and the peanut gallery has been highlighting their mistakes ever since on those occasions they can turn up sober. I want congratulate you on your hubris but men like you never ever achieve things like this and they never will. Founding stock need a requisite level of mettle that is simply not present biologically in most of the human race. When I won the Ironman in the Army (150 miles a week training for 8 months, 4 weight sessions a week) I met a guy on the bus on my way back to post who told me he could have beaten me if he only could have given up drinking and smoking. Things always look easy for men who can’t do such things.
I think you missed the point completely... My argument is that you can't have a moral, legitimate "government". Period. In any way, shape or form. I am arguing that the "government" was a scam from the beginning because it is logically and morally impossible for anyone, even "founding stock", to acquire rights that others do not. You can't delegate a right you don't possess yourself to a "government"... You can't be bound by a social contract you didn't sign... and if my girlfriend and myself can't vote to rob you because there are two of us and one of you then it doesn't matter if there are three of us, ten of us, or three million of us. If you disagree with this basic morality then please explain to the other readers how, if you were stranded on an island with nine friends, how you and five others could morally and legitimately "found" a "government" that could logically and morally "tax" (steal) from and make rules for the other four without violating their natural law right to disagree and be left alone by the mob?
Oh! I got your point. But your point is the last. It has no effect. They have already removed your name from the book. Even what you believe is true in the past. It is the end so carries no weight.
Those who wrote the US constitution had social standing, money, education of the norms of society at that time and determination to set up a system under which they could thrive...they may well have had perfectly good intentions, but laboured under the age old concept that they, with their education, determination and standing should bring about the normal status quo of a governing body over and above the majority. That concept was of its time, these times are different, they are changing, humanity is evolving and we need to replace the old system that has rotted with the taking of responsibility for ones own life, not kowtowing to commandments that do not serve us well. From this will arise another way forwards, hopefully saner, more loving, caring and compassionate towards each other and the planet that gives us life, than those previous, competitive, warring, thieving, cheating, dominating old ways. Nothing is as yet cut and dried...a challenge to us all...let's not fail.
You're right, humanity is changing. You all now have an average IQ of 95, that's TWO DERIVATIVES adjusted lower than when I left the country in 1992. That's called a clinical definition of cretinism in psychology. That's the AVERAGE, meaning half of you or more have an IQ even LOWER than that. You aren't EVOLVING or ADVANCING or any of that sick crazy marxist crap ... you're retreating to slime mold and changing into a bunch of gammy eyed whackos who castrate children and saw off young women's breasts. The crazier you all get, the more of this satanic "Age of Aquarius" faggotry we have to listen to about how you are rising up towards the stars when MOST OF YOU CAN'T EVEN READ OR WRITE ABOVE A 2nd or 3rd GRADE LEVEL. You're not going anywhere except straight down. That's why these people are running slipshod over top of you and cutting off your food, water and any options but mealworms and crickets. THEY THINK THE SAME OF YOU THAT I DO AND THEY LAUGH AT ALL THIS STUPIDITY ABOUT GOING FORTH INTO A BRIGHTER NEW UTOPIAN TOMORROW. I bet you got vaccinated and triple boosted which means we won't be able to argue these points much longer.
Di Lorenzo is a scholar. Robert E. Lee was of the opinion slavery would end. Slavery was ending. The war arose over tariff, not slavery. On December 28, 1861 Dickens published a lengthy article, believed to be written by Henry Morley,[19] which blamed the American Civil War on the Morrill Tariff:
If it be not slavery, where lies the partition of the interests that has led at last to actual separation of the Southern from the Northern States?... Every year, for some years back, this or that Southern state had declared that it would submit to this extortion only while it had not the strength for resistance. With the election of Lincoln and an exclusive Northern party taking over the federal government, the time for withdrawal had arrived.... The conflict is between semi-independent communities [in which] every feeling and interest [in the South] calls for political partition, and every pocket interest [in the North] calls for union.... So the case stands, and under all the passion of the parties and the cries of battle lie the two chief moving causes of the struggle. Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this, as of many other evils.... [T]he quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel.
So the Colanist reaction caused concern in the Wealthy Power Barron's who owned American Wealth?
DiLorenzo is no scholar. He didn't magically find new information about Abraham Lincoln 140 years after Lincoln was killed. He takes Lincoln's quotes out-of-context to fool "the people" because he knows that very few people will take the time to read & understand the seven Lincoln/Douglass debates or Lincoln's speeches & letters. DiLorenzo, Rothbard, Tucker, & Rockwell are charlatans fooling "the people" into believing that anarchism is valid for liberty. It is for tyrants but not for individuals.... not here on Earth because some anarchists are warmongers and rulers. And those anarchists will not obey the rules of society.... King Charles III and all the king's men who are spraying our skies controlling the weather are doing evil to "the people" here on Earth just like the divine right of kings have always done.
https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/dishonest-about-abe
Ludwig von Mises,
“Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints. Liberalism is not anarchism, nor has it anything whatsoever to do with anarchism.
The liberal understands quite clearly that without resort to compulsion, the existence of society would be endangered and that behind the rules of conduct whose observance is necessary to assure peaceful human cooperation must stand the threat of force if the whole edifice of society is not to be continually at the mercy of any one of its members.
One must be in a position to compel the person who will not respect the lives, health, personal freedom, or private property of others to acquiesce in the rules of life in society. This is the function that the liberal doctrine assigns to the State: the protection of Property, Liberty, and Peace.”
Nonsense. Fake history. The first two generations of "the people" enjoyed virtually unbounded liberty, peace and prosperity until Andrew Jackson destroyed America's National Bank, chased BlackHawk and his family off their land, and left a trail of tears for people who wanted to live free lives.
Alexis de Tocqueville's Introduction to Democracy in America
“AMONG the novel objects that attracted my attention during my stay in the United States, nothing struck me more forcibly than the general equality of condition among the people. I readily discovered the prodigious influence that this primary fact exercises on the whole course of society; it gives a peculiar direction to public opinion and a peculiar tenor to the laws; it imparts new maxims to the governing authorities and peculiar habits to the governed.”
It took a Civil War to destroy free America.
AmericanCivilWar.club
What facts presented are you calling fake? I agree with you completely that the overwhemling majority of people on the continent enjoyed unbridled prosperity but it was because the infant "government" was relatively weak and could only project power over a small area and the people had hard money. But with the Con-stitution the poison was already seeping into the system and would ultimately create the tax slavery we live under today. The Con-stitution sounds good... "looks good on paper" but has utterly failed to limit "government" or even protect the basic rights outlined in the BoR. It simply didn't work and it didn't work because it was illogical and immoral at its core. You can't delegate rights you don't have yourself to a "government". If you are going to claim any kind of "government" is a good idea then please explain to the other readers how you can have a legitimate moral "government". I'll make it simple for you. You become stranded on an island with 9 other friends... How do six people acquire the moral legitimate right to "tax" (Steal) from the other four and make up rules for them against over their natural law rights to disagree and be left alone?
“illogical and immoral at its core” - Etienne de la Boetie2
Baloney.
Supreme Laws of the Land are not immoral between land owners. They are necessary. Ownership of the land was the “Divine Right of Kings” to rule over the lands before the U.S. Constitution. After the U.S. Constitution, laws of the land became between “the land owning people” who became land owners because the King lost his divine right to own the lands in America, and they created a self-governing body to enforce the laws from non-voluntary anarchists. In other words, individual homeownership, and the laws necessary to keep the peace, came with the Constitution. It is not only logical but it is a moral way to divide the lands among “the people”.
“You become stranded on an island with 9 other friends... How do six people acquire the moral legitimate right to "tax" (Steal) from the other four and make up rules for them against over their natural law rights to disagree and be left alone?” - Etienne de la Boetie2
If 10 people get stranded on an island, then 3 or 4 of them will kill, steal, or assault others with impunity if there are no laws to prevent them from doing so.
That fact of human nature is documented in the Library of Congress. If “the island people” do not make laws of the lands, then the peaceful people have to put up with the shenanigans of the violent anarchists.
They all have the right to life, liberty and their home… i.e. (laws against trespassing, murder, theft, kidnapping, assault, etc). Laws of the land attempt to deter the non-voluntary anarchists from violating the rights of the others.
Anarchists - https://sovren.media/p/263932/68d4cd47e8e7f8102532a844f8e42525
The U.S. Constitution has failed because “the people” fail to understand how the Constitution protects their unalienable rights … so they ignore it.
First, for the record you weren't able to dispute any of the facts presented in the article as requested. Second, I am not arguing against land ownership or property... I agree completely with Natural Law and that people have the right to be safe and secure in their homes and property... I am saying that "government" is an affront to private property and rights... That no one should have the "right" to steal (Tax) or enforce rules on people for victimless crimes if they aren't hurting others... Not even "governments" YOU are saying that it is possible for some people (the "government") to legitimately acquire "rights" that others don't... I am asking you how the majority on the island would legitimately acquire rights the others don't have... which you dodged... You don't need a "government" to protect your rights and property against thieves... so "government" isn't necessary... Because you have the ability to protect your life and property you can legitimately delegate that right to a private security company... no "government" needed... BTW, You have been "chumped" and "tricked" by the inter-generational organized crime system running "government" on you to tax farm you about what anarchy is... Anarchy doesn't mean no rules.. It means: No Rulers. There is no implied violence or theft in : No Rulers BUT because the organized crime system doesn't want you to know there is an option on the menu that would give you everything you want from "government" without the violence, extortion, and indoctrination they have used their media system and control of schools / dictionary, etc. to TRICK you and CHUMP you into thinking that real freedom is bad... and fake freedom is good... If I am wrong then simply answer my original question about how the majority on the island can create a legitimate, logical and moral "government".. If you can't do that then maybe you need to abandon advocating a system based on violence and extortion... This article will explain how they ticked you about Anarchy: https://artofliberty.substack.com/p/why-the-organized-crime-media-misrepresents
No one is "tricking" me into any philosophy. I have studied history and I know how the constitution protects my unalienable rights. I know my rights.
I do not have a 'right' to own my home. Homeownership is a "privilege" which requires governance against creepy anarchists. Anarchism is the problem we endure today which is promoted by charlatans and paid for by the supreme anarchist monarchy, King Charles III, who rules the world today. The Federal Reserve System of 'elastic' money is a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
EndTheFED.world
This guy is a revisionist and likely a proto-communist or anarchist. This is what they do, sit up in the bleachers and curse the referees.
You are spot on - it was about as ideal as could be expected with mankind up to the Civil War.
It took the rape of the South and the razing of the lower half of America to create "the perfect union" for carpetbaggers and bankers.
Even then a residual degree of freedom endured up to the creation of the Federal Reserve.
I am a voluntaryist who doesn't believe in the legitimacy, necessity or desirability of having a "government". I am exposing that "government" has been a trick of inter-generational organized crime to "chump" the population into going along with something that isn't in their interest and getting tax-farmed. It has been a scam the entire time... But.. because they ran a bag of unethically manipulative tricks on you in the mandatory "Government" school, scouting and the military, they got you to internalize it as a pseudo-religion. https://artofliberty.substack.com/p/the-religion-of-statism
You're mad as a hatter and likely have never been punched in the face and knocked down. Mankind is rough trade, partner. Rough, rough trade. The best of them is still little more than a bloody ape in a house dress. The majority of men are extremely complex life support systems for a pair of testicles. Whether you reflect deeply enough or not to know it, your essay above is itself proof you are an ape trying to assert dominance over the Renaissance geniuses who founded the United States. It's just another long range hail mary pass to impress girls. I don't believe you say these things because you are altruistic or driven by a noble imperative but rather an envy that you will never found a nation of your own and certainly never one as successful as the United States. In order to be taken seriously you would have to be as withdrawn from the fray as I have been the last 60 years and in contrast to you I feel nothing but the deepest admiration for the Founding Fathers and their Constitution and attempt at a universal Bill of Rights. You assert the problem is that it's a flawed document and oppressing you. I can't help but wonder where you live. Also, I looked in your "About" Etienne and you neglected to mention which war you fought in. Sounds like all of them. You are childlike in your assertions and know nothing of just how ugly this world really is and how fallen mankind is. It is difficult to believe that their revolution was successful even for a week, much less the slow decline of the last 250 years. If you knew anything of history you would know America has made it to the 250 year mark intact and even if it falls apart within the next few years (its doing that right now) it will still be the most amazing performance seen in recorded history of an attempt to keep these chimpmanzees from killing each other for a couple hours.
I live in the US... Was a cub scout and boy scout and fell for the program until someone explained to me how the crooked game works... I do the same for the others... You have completely dodged my question... If you are asserting that "government" is legitimate then answer the simple question: If you disagree with this basic morality then please explain to the other readers how, if you were stranded on an island with nine friends, how you and five others could morally and legitimately "found" a "government" that could logically and morally "tax" (steal) from and make rules for the other four without violating their natural law right to disagree and be left alone by the mob?
Etienne, if you live in the United States then whether or not you are bright enough to figure it out, your feet have already taken a vote of their own on where they'd like to live. I can assure you, I know many people who are also big on critique and they have long vacated for other doomed third world hellholes in Italy, England and elsewhere. I would not call any of these people bright but unlike you they are at least consistent. There is a biological name for critters who partake of an ecosystem as they simultaneously eat at it's substance, they are parasites. If you're serious about making America a better place to live then I encourage you to GTFO and spend the rest of your life writing diatribes from some crumbling ruins in Italy in a cheap little flat where nobody will bother you. Until then you're just more tragic eurotrash who can't seem to get his boots and his lips synchronized. You didn't serve in the military because you are not masculine enough to appreciate the privilege of living here and you lack the guts to sacrifice for anything. Guys like you will never be capable of building anything, you are one of those sickly runts of the litter you see in nature documentaries running around the edge of the herd honking at chads mounting females. It's not you don't want. It's that you are frustrated by what you can't get. I truly demonstrated over the course of my life I did not want the same things as others, even when they were handed to me on a silver platter. I turned down commissions to West Point twice by men who had tears in their eyes trying to convince me I should take a leadership role. Unlike you, I genuinely did not want these things. That means when I do critique of anything, it means I can be taken very seriously. If I truly rejected honors and a better position in life then when I tell you what is wrong with something I am likely to be very accurate. I assure you from my knowledge of history that there was never a better nation created than the United States anywhere in terms of the value placed on the individual and their autonomy. Such a nation must have been inspired by God because men are bastards who are incapable of ever recognizing the worth of the individual. We were a meritocracy and even a Republic for a little while and Ben Franklin knew it would only be as long as we could keep it. If you've never been shot at I reckon you and I cannot have a serious conversation on this subject. Your childish analogy above about the island made me feel like blushing for your sake to think of how simpleminded you must be to repeat it. Traditionally on desert islands half the men eat the other half and then one man eats the rest, it's happened many times when people were shipwrecked. Your adolescent notions of people sitting around negotiating who gets what is hilariously sheltered.
I have answered the questions you have posed to me, but you have now dodged my question yet another time proving that there is no way to create a moral and legitimate "government" OR that you are not intelligent enough to understand how and/or articulate it. There is simply no other option otherwise, you would have explained it instead of continually dodging what should be a simple question. Here is a free download of my book which will explain the unethically, manipulative techniques used on you in the school, scouts and military to turn you into an immoral order follower who doesn't understand how he is getting tax farmed and chumped: https://www.dropbox.com/s/knrmogkua8j9i6j/Government-The_Biggest_Scam_in_History__Sharable-emailable.PDF.pdf?dl=0
Ye Gods! Male testosterone at full gallop! I suppose you think the current system which stems from 'government' is hunky dory, doing, fine, looking after the well being of the population, not just the ones with the most money and nothing needs to change?...or is this just a bit of..." I know history better than you do" Blah, Blah, Blah??
Every one is entitled to their own opinion and you don't have to insult people if you don't like what they say, you can just simply take your leave dear man, it's still a free-ish world at the moment.
Anarchist always avoid the land debate because it exposes their failure. American anarchism came to America after the constitution because the constitution laid the groundwork for their Utopia which is only possible if everyone was an angel or saint. Voluntary anarchists do not understand the King. As a matter of fact, Hans Hermann-Hoppe argues for monarchy over constitutional government and the dupes believe him.
Freemason Washington. Anti-Mason Adams came next. Why did Adams stay silent?
I don't know?
I believe this is due to Federalist cohesion. Like say everyone supports the institution created by the conquest of the Federal idea. Patrick Henry surrendered his sword to Washington and he was opposed to Federalism. The honorable position of the Anti-Federalists is defeated by a vote of the enfranchised. However this is due to power still seated in the several states as Federal power remained limited. As Federal power waxed and the power in the States began to wane some men like Calhoun insisted on the meaning of the Constitution was for a weak Federal power so that "nullification" of Federal law by the State was legitimate. The Civil War evidently put an end to the notion.
America's Civil War was clearly waged by slave owners backed by the British monarchy, paid for by London bankers, to nationalize slavery for world empire.
Confederate Constitution Article IV
https://sovren.media/c/american-civil-war/265248/80fbe46706c7466924625a40cc5f1ccb
Back up a moment. Slavery was legal and importation of new slaves was not. As far back as Calhoun some states supported nullification of Federal law on State's rights ground. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_crisis
The war was by Lincoln. Congress adjourned Sine Die. "Without a day." At that moment no more Union. Lincoln backed by Eastern industrialists waged war by Executive Order-not by Constitutional law. On the other hand the South was backed by England but not very much, and not as France backed American Independence.
The war was NOT by Abraham Lincoln. Those lies are pervasive yet untrue. Lincoln was anti-war for empire and against the enslavement of people all his life. That was the debate of their day. Slavery as the divine right of kings (slave owners) by the grace of God because of the Curse of Canaan from the Bible. King Charles II had given Carolina territory to his descendants along with perpetual slaves to the political class according to John Locke. Liberty for them was tyranny over the lower classes. Charleston, South Carolina has since been the hotbed for slavery and war... and it still is.
See: Carolina Constitution of 1663.
Lincoln spent 2 years in the halls of congress (one term) from 1846-1848 and they hated him for being against "Manifest Destiny" and sent him back to Illinois after his anti-war speech against President Polk's war for slave empire in Mexico. They got it in Texas. Lincoln retired from politics until the Kansas Nebraska slavery question became the hotbed of the expansion of slavery issue. He then started speaking out against the nationalization of slavery (as a private citizen) and was such a great speaker that he became politically powerful even though he officially did not hold any official power. The charlatans, paid for by 'elastic money' promotes Lincoln as the wager of war is Hegelian dialectic. It was, after all, Skull & Bones President William Howard Taft who memorialized Lincoln as "A child born to poverty on the edge of the wilderness; a ruler whose word became law over a continent, wide as the Atlantic; a martyr whose name is a talisman in remotest corners of the earth.”
Which is total BS because Lincoln warned "the people" in his first inaugural address, that if the Supreme Court ruling against Dred Scott was to be honored and respected, then "the people" would lose their self government. Lincoln was right.
AbrahamLincoln.life
The war was over tariffs. Not slavery. Lincoln was as racist as any other white.
Slavery was not a reason for white blood and white treasure being expended to subdue the South. States felt they had the right to leave the failed Union. Even in the South the Confederacy too needed propaganda. You can see https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/12/01/professor-dilorenzo-explains-real-cause-war-northern-aggression/
What I can gather from this conversation is that Men, who've been in charge of all this for generations have made a right cockup of the planet and they should go home and think about their misbehaviour.
Prior to Albert Pike's usurpation of Freemasonry, Freemasons were a force for "good".Why Albert Pike's Statue Must Fall The Scottish Rite's Ku Klux Klan Project by Anton Chaitkin
https://archive.schillerinstitute.com/fidelio_archive/1993/fidv02n01-1993Sp/fidv02n01-1993Sp_004-why_albert_pikes_statue_must_fal.pdf
I will look into this but I note the French Revolution was Masonic.
True it does not matter how much virus or no virus vaccinated comes in contact with. We are all ends to our DNA. 90% of the population. Only one person can win the game.
All school grade history lie in fact if you include everything you want. The taught material and system would find a way to also lie to our children. Whoever wins write the history of tomorrow. History and truth have always been at odds with reality.
Know Your Constitution - Carl Miller Part 1 of 3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1s-zHrNPfkQ
Timeline: https://www.museumsouthernhistory.com/The%20Road%20to%20Secession.html
Roger Sherman, the man who was involved in the Articles of Association, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the United States Constitution tells us the real reason the Articles of Confederation had to be discarded in favor of the U.S. Constitution. Static weights and measures, laws of the land, along with milita defense were the primary reasons.
The Purse & The Sword by Dr. Edwin Vieira Jr.
The anarchists from Rhode Island wanted to cheat "the people" in the other States by passing off their worthless paper money for trade, with the support of their courts, "wink wink" and live the good life at the expense of honest folks like the Sherman Brothers from other States.
"A Caveat Against Injustice" by Roger Sherman
http://bornagainclassics.com/Books/ACaveatAgainstInjustice-Shermann/