Even if such a contract ever existed your state breached it long ago.

JS,
"Even if such a contract ever existed your state breached it long ago."
That is the whole point, JS. Up until 1870 the contract was holding and everyone thought Classical Liberalism was in control for all time in the future. Then in 1891 the oligarchy was confident enough to to plot its overthrow through the public schools. The question is what happened in the 21 years between those dates.
Davies gives a partial answer but I sense an lack of completeness.
Ron

Sorry but Washington violated that non existent "contract" when he attacked the frontiersmen who objected to being forced to pay for the Rev. war with taxes on their whiskey. Of course he did this (in PA in areas that had a large state presence, not Ky and other frontier areas) at Hamiltons urging to demonstrate central state power. So much for consent of the governed and "justice". Lincoln just put an end to the pretense and denied state sovereignty altogether claiming the Feds own the states and that they have no rights but what he allowed.

JS,
So your case is that the Federal Government violated the rights of the whiskey makers by shooting back when the whiskey makers took up arms against the Federal Government? That is easily proven to be a bunch of malarky. JS, you haven't a leg to stand on.
JS, our constitution was written to leave ultimate power in the hands of the people. As Carlyle put it, we are an anarchy with a constable. As your Southern Aristocracy did in the run up to the Civil War you elected to be judge, jury and executioner. It was all you, you, you and no one else other than you had a word to say about what was right under the law or the constitution. The contract you signed with us didn't mean a word as soon as your whim changed.
Please understand we are offering you fairness but if you demand more we will enforce the contract.
Ron

>>>>If you didn't think they were perfect, why would you describe what I have written as "scapegoating" and despising families?<<<<

It does not logically follow that because I object to your scapegoating traditional families that I claim that they are perfect. Claiming that traditional parenting causes all the violence and wars IS scapegoating a demographic you fear, just as surely as Hitler claimed all Jews were to blame for Germanys economic problems.

>>>> According to you, families (traditional ones) are not open to criticism. None whatsoever.<<<<

Care to quote or direct me to where I have posted that?

>>>>I have explained in the past that laws against hitting children, which are more than a "swat on the behind," would not criminalize parents. Parents could be fined and told not to do it again.<<<

Very BIG of YOU, so UNDERSTANDING, so BENEVOLENT in your high and mighty judgement as you usurp the rights of parents. What gives YOU or ANYONE else the right, the authority to interfere in how parents rear their kids? What makes YOUR ideas better than theirs? Where is your moral authority?

>>>> I often wonder when I see little Domestic Hotline numbers here and there what would happen if a child called the number and reported being spanked - perhaps, say, by a religionist parent who reads and believes James Dobson.<<<<

Oh, ALWAYS, ALWAYS "say, by a religionist parent" with you, isn't it? Your bias against religious people is so shameless,blatant and sickening. How much domestic abuse is carried out against children by non-religious live in boyfriends and step parents and NON-traditional parents like that Duke homo employee who was pimping out the little boy he adopted? ?? But Noooooooo, it is the Dobson followers, traditional parents who send that people pushing tingle up your leg.

>>>>> The purpose of this kind of preaching is obedience training and control, the same things you go into fits over if done in public schools.<<<<<

???? Obedience of parents and control by PARENTS and THAT conflicts with your state worship.

>>>>You have no idea of the amount of experience I've had or not had with children, and it is presumptuous of you to make such a statement.<<<

Oh? So you have children and have applied to the state for their approval of your parenting techniques? You see the need of parental monitoring because of your own experience abusing your own kids? Enlighten us. I am sorry that you were unable to parent effectively and feel the need for state monitoring but that is YOUR choice for YOU.

>>>>>Saying homos is the equivalent of saying faggot, your very own way of disrespecting your fellow humans who are different from you.<<<<<

And stifling my free speech by asserting the right to decide that whatever terms I use "offend" and must be silenced in favor of less real and more warm and fuzzy labels like "gay" is not disrespectful? I am not trying to tell them how to live or what to say...except in the instance of keeping them from teaching perversion to children.

>>>>>Anarcho-capitalism is not going to happen in any case, so I'm not worried about it.<<<

Good for you.

>>>> But the absurd notions you promote here via lewrockwell.com are just that - absurd.<<<

And, as usual, you see no need to defend the names you call LRC and the writiers there. You must fear them very much. How sad to be unable to defend your creepy and immoral ideas and have to resort to this schtick.

And anarcho capitalists do not seek to impose anything, only to live as THEY wish escaping the aggressions of other upon them. That you call this NEGATIVE a positive social engineering is deceptive to say the least....unless you truly don't UNDERSTAAANNND it.

Your assertion that some people must be aggressed against because it is the "human right" of others to do so simply negates the human rights of those who you are unsympathetic to, who YOU think should be FORCED to accept those who assert it is their RIGHT to be accepted and associated with.

speech. You do sound now as if you've completely lost touch with reality.

Why else woould you be so eager to think that people you don't even know are abusing their kids?

As far as "Flogging for God", how about dad pimping his kid for pervs?

http://moneyrunner.blogspot.com/
2009/06/dukes-racist-homosexual-
pedophile.html

JS,
" How much domestic abuse is carried out against children by non-religious live in boyfriends and step parents and NON-traditional parents like that Duke homo employee who was pimping out the little boy he adopted? ?? But Noooooooo, it is the Dobson followers, traditional parents who send that people pushing tingle up your leg."
Your paragraph contains an implied question about the relative safety of a little girl living with her birth father and either a step father or "mama's boyfriend" Fortunately the research has been done and the results are in. According to a report I heard on the radio little girls get increased protection by their birth fathers. They are 35 times more likely to be molested or mistreated by a step father or mama's boyfriend. As the subject of male homosexuals also came up they were found to be safer around male heterosexuals that homosexuals. Just think of the times that chain killings of homo-sexuals have been reported in the news. The perpetrator almost always turns out to be another homosexual.
I dare say the same relationship prevails between sisters and brothers also.
Ron

First of all, it's not scapegoating.

Apparently you must believe that violence springs full blown from government officials heads, since you seem to view government as the source of all violence.

According to you, everything except your religion and traditional families are open to criticism. Anything that you've invested your devotion to upholding is not open to criticism.

You are simply blind and refuse to recognize anything that might interfere with your entrenched belief system. You are a waste of time and have turned the whole forum into a waste of time, except perhaps for Ron, who seems to enjoy trading insults with you on your narrowly focused topics of "discussion," if it can be called that.

Golly, I'm so discouraged that you want to make my commentary difficult for me. Such a terrible blow. You don't even make sense. It's probably about time for you and Ron to take up the Civil War again.

>>>>>First of all, it's not scapegoating.<<<

Oh, no! It is simply self evident truth because your bevy of social engineers has said so! Got it.

>>>>>Apparently you must believe that violence springs full blown from government officials heads, since you seem to view government as the source of all violence.<<<<<

Original sin, dear. Flawed human nature. The natural tendency of people to follow their own interests. No amount of state indoctrination will eradicate that, make perfect nonviolent people. Your belief that it will is frightening.

>>>>>According to you, everything except your religion and traditional families are open to criticism.<<<<<

CRITICISM??? Balming them for all the violence and wars of the world??? Again, I am aghast at your arrogance.

>>>>> Anything that you've invested your devotion to upholding is not open to criticism.<<<<<

"Criticize" away. And I will refute this evil crap every time you post it. And you will whine that I am "rude" and "uncivil" for objecting to your scapegoating.

>>>>>You are simply blind and refuse to recognize anything that might interfere with your entrenched belief system.<<<<<

Pot-kettle-black.

>>>>>> You are a waste of time and have turned the whole forum into a waste of time, except perhaps for Ron, who seems to enjoy trading insults with you on your narrowly focused topics of "discussion," if it can be called that.<<<<

Obviously my time is not wasted because you are annoyed that I have shown your scapegoating and change agentry up for what it is.

>>>>>Golly, I'm so discouraged that you want to make my commentary difficult for me. Such a terrible blow. You don't even make sense.<<<<<

Well, then no harm done. So what are you complaining about?

>>>> It's probably about time for you and Ron to take up the Civil War again.<<<<<

Glad you enjoy it so much.

"Original Sin" has no explanatory power. You refuse to consider conditions in which what you refer to as Original Sin can flourish and other, more salutary conditions where it is minimized.

Further, since Lloyd deMause is an advocate of a stateless society, he hardly qualifies as a social engineer by any definition except your own.

I'm sure you prefer Hoppe's social engineering, banishing homosexuals from society, to any wisdom Mitch Hall, Riane Eisler or Lloyd deMause might advocate.

>>>>>"Original Sin" has no explanatory power. You refuse to consider conditions in which what you refer to as Original Sin can flourish and other, more salutary conditions where it is minimized.<<<<

It most certainly explains why no man can be trusted to rule over his fellow man, no matter how much YOU and other people pushers think you can "perfect" human beings with the "correct" (nontraditional) parenting "style". Just as dumbing down the masses with "schooling" has deformed them intellectually, YOU seek to turn them into docile "nonviolent" sheep....using state aggression (violence) which I'm SURE will eventually "wither away".

>>>>>>Further, since Lloyd deMause is an advocate of a stateless society, he hardly qualifies as a social engineer by any definition except your own.<<<

???Odd, since he was a pioneer of your pet theory of blaming parenting for flawed human nature. Of course mainstreaming these theories is not any attempt to re-engineer "society" to yours and his specs. My question is what makes this guy any more of an authority than anyone else.

>>>>>>I'm sure you prefer Hoppe's social engineering, banishing homosexuals from society, to any wisdom Mitch Hall, Riane Eisler or Lloyd deMause might advocate.<<<<<

??? Why shouldn't Hoppe be allowed to associate with whoever he wants and not associate with those he prefers not to? Why must people be forced to associate with those they do not agree with or like? What makes FORCED association preferable? Could that possibly lead to...violence? I'm not seeing any wisdom emanating from your rogues gallery of change agents.

I don't know if Soros is funding him. Why don't you write and ask him?

Interesting you claim that Ron is so bloodthirsty that he has a serious mental illness, yet you also believe that he is blessed with discrete areas of lucidity - despite being truly insane.

I posted none of that. I simply made an observation and asked a question. As I believe Ron did. I f Ron isn't posting nutty stuff about me why should I have an issue with him? And why on earth do you care?

JS,
"When I claim that you were alive at the time of Licolns invasion of the South feel free to point out that I am detached from reality. Until then, put up or shut up."
JS, my claim is that you are going all out to be an enabler to a modern day version of the most low-life group of Morlocks of which I ever heard. I claim that as an enabler you are morally fully responsible for all of those crimes against humanity.
Ron

Percy,
The man was accused of manipulating the English Pound to the detriment of the English economy in order to sell the Pound short to his (Soros) profit.
As far as I am aware that remains only an accusation with no conclusive proof to support it.
"Where there is smoke" isn't sufficient to condemn the man in my opinion -- but it is suffiecient to investigate the public records. I really wish a good investigative reporter looked into Mr. Soros machinations.
Ron

Is this all an attack of "Wall Street" or is the Fed blamed at all? I went to a Ferguson site and saw vids posted by George Soros, Milton Friedman and other central bbank promoters. If Ferguson is giving the Fed a free pass and has only complaints about "Wall Street" then this is a waste. The link froze my computer. Control of the economy by controlling currency and regualtion is the problem. There are no saintly government "watchdogs" and "protectors", only grantors of privilege.
Of course, central banking is a beloved collectivist "plank".

Ferguson

I hardly see how a Soros appearance in the film invalidates the Wall Street debacles exposed in the film.

Louise,
Remember that the debacle was basically a collectivist liberal debacle.
-You passed the enabling legislation under Carter.
-You pushed for the banking industry to be in compliance under Clinton.
-Your regulators allowed the banking industry develop the bundled mortgage procedure.
-your politicians accepted huge campaign donations to look the other way.
-your politicians bailed out their big campaign donors that lost money.
-how does Soros appearance taint the perceived objectivity of the film? Isn't that your real question? Mr. Soros bankrolled a great part of the past Democrat election effort. He also bankrolled the demmocrat attacks on every opposition canidate or organization. This man has dirt all over him in most folks eyes.
Ron