Louise,
To refresh your memory, here is the language I was objecting to.
"Reverse i.p. lookup is now a fully-automated fact of American life and as you should know better than others, many a promising military career has been scuttled by a parent's batsh|t politics and statements. VMI suggests precisely such designs on the part of your son -- so why not do him a big favor and take up golf?"
I take it that having a convservative idea called "bat****" is perfectly good language for an "education forum" but but "Brown Shirt" isn't.
I think telling a father to watch his "bat****" opinions least they wreck his child's career might be fairly described as a threat. Certainly it was not very couth.
This is especially true when said against a back drop of death threats against legislatures in Wiscoonsin. Against the left wing accusations made after the shooting of Congresswoman Gifford. Against Obama's wanting to create a "Brown Shirt" army equal in size and equipment to our regular Army only intended for domestic use. Against the repeated use of SIEU thugs to disrupt tea bagger meettings. Against the use of the MSM to propagandize in favor of left wing legislation. I think we might well wonder what the left wing is up to.
I especially wonder what the attraction of this "education forum" is for left wing ideologues that in any other forum are advocates for a strong central government, public schools and seek to outlaw home schooling.
Thank you for responding to my letter and allowing me the opportunity to reply to your position.
Ron

No one here is seeking to outlaw homeschooling.

Wisconsin and Obama have nothing to do with what Percy said.

You give a laundry list of complaints against leftists, but you have no justification for calling Percy a Brown Shirt.

Louise,
"but you have no justification for calling Percy a Brown Shirt"
And you have no basis for claiming that I did. Once again you are deciding what you wanted me to say and pretending that is what was said.
That "laundry list of complaints against leftists," you pretend to have read was not that at all. I do thank you for including yourself as "a leftists." It will save time not to have to prove that again -- as obvious as it is.
I presented a short list of brown shirt conduct of a type they is becoming more and more common around us as typical of what we are seeing from leftists these days.
These occurances are entirely in keeping with what we saw a couple of years ago when Newt Gingrich re-enacted the historic Coopers-Union debate with Abraham Lincoln. The debate had Gingrich on one side and the elder Como on the other. They were re-enacting a very serious historic event. Mr. Gingrich gave a very serious presentation of some of our most serious problems of modern day America. Mr. Cuomo used his time to present a long series of one liners representing political street theater. The leftests I heard reporting Cuomo's speech later thought Cuomo
had given a good speech wittily dispatching his opponent. This morning we were presented the spectacle of the supporters of our current President complaining that his killing of ObL had only given their man a one point bounce in the polls. The life of a man, the safety of a nation mean nothing in the arena of street theater on behalf of the Brown Shirts.
Louise you should be ashamed of yourself for acting as advocate for such events. Shame on you for defending Brown Shirt harrassment against your fellow home-schoolers and citizens.
Ron

Louise,
You can't even do an economic analysis of the island that lived off the efforts of 20 fishermen. You are incapable of realizing that 1.1 trillion dollars spent to keep OBL from bombing downtown NYC and taking our country is not only cheap but money well spent. Nor are you capable of recognizing that all of that name calling you introduce into every thread constitutes harassment, witness, "Enjoy your Idiots Convention Center here, which gets more idiotic every minute." That is one small sample and far from the best.
Ron

You called Percy a Brown Shirt, then you denied calling him a Brown Shirt.

Instead you choose to focus on what you believe are my incapabilities.

What a liar you are.

Louise,
Whereas you choose to get off what was actually said. What an inept propagandist you are.
I have always admired the left wing for its ability to do political street theater. In your case that is all you are doing and you are inept enough to get caught.
Had you really misunderstood what I originally said my clarification would have been sufficient. But, no, you have to do political street theater and wring any advantage you can, even knowing nothing was said.
Ron

Here's what you said, and now you deny you said it:

ron harrison

May 2nd, 2011 - 10:21 AM

Friendly advice from a Brown Shirt

Dave,
It appears the Brown Shirts are now confident enough of their eventual dictatorship to have one give you a "friendly suggestion" to censor yourself. Of course the collectivists are still free to say what they please.
Ron

Who was the "one" giving a "friendly suggestion"?

It was Percy, yet you deny the words you just wrote and accuse me of being an inept propagandist. You're inept or you wouldn't deny the very words you just wrote.

As I said, the Idiots Convention Center, a stroll through Alice in Wonderland, a trip through the Fun House at Playland.

The idiocy evinced here by people like you make it impossible to discuss education on this forum.

Louise,
"Who was the "one" giving a "friendly suggestion"?"
I have already explained that. Any reasonably intelligent person understands differently.
I said something you interpreted contrary to what I was thinking when I wrote the original.
I then explained it to you in simple anglo-saxon English.
You have persisted with your erroneous interpretation despite my telling you differently.
Should I grovel at your feet because you will not let go of your misconceptions?
Ron

And you expect people to believe you.

Your various forms of prevarication and misrepresentation make it impossible to have any sort of discussion here.

Louise,
"And you expect people to believe you. . . Your various forms of prevarication and misrepresentation make it impossible to have any sort of discussion here."
I have never denied the words I wrote. On one occasion I denied it when someone re-wrote what I had written. As they didn't change my meaning I have supposed they took exception to the words I used. But as I kept no copy and they have not provided me a copy of the original I really don't know. In other words someone made an honest if erroneous effort to "edit" what I wrote.
In this instance I tood exception to your personal interpretation of my words and immediately corrected you. What could you possibly find wrong with that? I would think you would welcome a correction.
Ron

No one rewrote or edited what you wrote. It's the Bravenet software. You know, automated.

Here's what Percy wrote:

Louise,
I realize this is just an opportunity to do political street theater for you. For me it is about communicating with integrity on both our parts.
I wrote what I wrote and have never denied it. You interpreted it your way and seized the opportunity for street theater. I immediately corrected the record and put it out there for all the world to see. You have persisted for several days now wooling this subject around to extract every bit of theater you can extract.
Your problem is that I am not buying it and I am not letting you bully me into being your patsy.
Have fun,
Ron

Who gave the "friendly advice"?

Percy did. And now you deny that you called him a Brown Shirt.

What complete BS.

Percy,
In the first place I didn't call you a Brown Shirt. Louise is the one that put that construction on my words. I hastened to correct that interpretation as soon as I saw it.
I did and do despise the language you used. Once you properly understand what I was saying I hope you will despise it also.
If you go back to my letter explaining what I was saying in more detail you will find a long set of examples of Brown Shirt Harrassment that has been taking place since 2007 when the last Presidential Election Campaign began. If you will read the history of Hitler's rise to power you will see the obvious parallels. My goodness, Percy, we are talking about voters being intimidated by a club carrying thug and the Attorney General of the United States refusing to take any cognizance of the event. We are talking about the President of the United States calling for an internal military force equal to the the US Army in size and equipment. We are talking about a President of the United States shaking down a private business for 20 Billion dollars and having all but a few hundred million dollars disappear into a slush fund. We are talking about having the President of the United States publically brag about ordering an unarmed private individual shot without any attempt to bring him to justice.
What does it take to wake you up?
Ron

Percy,

I'm sorry to have to admit that I couldn't parse your nonsensical statement enough to understand what you were saying. What's VMI got to do with it?

If you were suggesting that I keep my trap shut in order to protect my son's military career, I'd recommend you get with some real military folks to hear what they have to say about this fraudulent "Commander in Chief."

What my son has told me is what he heard first-hand from sergeants at Fort Jackson. They hate Obama and his Wookie impersonating wife. Believe me, I've toned down the language considerably from the way the sergeants talk about this con-artist couple.

Dave

Yeah Dave but unlike you, •they• know that internet bulletin boards are forever, and things are kept verbal and private -- a time-honored martial virtue as I recall. VMI and West Point don't play like amateurs, i.e. like you. I'd commend to you Obama's speech at West Point, where there was nary a peep from cadets and putative respect for the office. Anyone there who did what you're doing, or said what you've said here for the record, would go from officer track to enlisted in a heartbeat.

Wait a minute -- going on-record saying Obama isn't their Commander in Chief? -- drummed out of the military.

Loose cannon parents •do• scuttle promising military careers. That's not just idle chatter. A future republican administration will take no more kindly to sedition than a democratic one. If your son is ever recommended for, say, service in the Pentagon, you can be sure that every post you've made to this board will be in his casefile -- if you •don't• know that, you're too naive and dumb to be directing your son's energies to a place of VMI's caliber.

But hey Dave, don't take my word for it and by all means don't hide your light under a bushel! You don't know how good you are. .

OK. Point taken.

You are right, of course, if I was posting to a truly public forum with my whole name as an identifier.

Don't you think, however, that it is highly unlikely that anybody from West Point is going to find a "Dave" on this obscure Gatto forum, and tie it in with my son's application there.

On the couple of forums that I have contributed regularly to using my whole name I am a bit more discreet about what I post. But, I maintain that discussing the usurper's fraudulent attaining of the highest office in the land is a point of fact, calling for objective discussion, and not merely a grudging "sore loser" attitude, or racism, as the Racist in Chief and his cronies like to hurl as an accusation at the drop of a hat.

Besides, my son has been vetted by our local Congressman who already knows about my patriotism. And we, as my son's parents, have already been interviewed by military officers for West Point who like nothing more than to hear that a prospective new officer's parents are true American patriots who are supportive of the military, unlike their alleged Commander in Chief.

Also, so you know, in our postings on my son's company's basic training Facebook page, we were very careful not to say anything that could be used against him. We shuddered at other parents' indiscreet posts (revealing to all the world private things that their Soldier in Training told them). We realize that DIs monitor those Facebook posts.

So, thank you for your concern. But, please realize that I know what I am doing.

And, besides, when it becomes criminal or damaging to a career to be a patriot ... well, then it's time to get serious about doing something about that.

Dave

Dave -- I've long had a grudging admiration for what you've achieved despite having the opposite political views. I'd only caution that *everyone*, from McVeigh to Bin Laden to that guy trying to light his shoe, thinks he's a patriot. My admiration for the military is highest during democratic administrations, when most of those serving have huge beefs with Washington -- etc., you see where I'm coming from.

Percy,
"I've long had a grudging admiration for what you've achieved despite having the opposite political views."
Isn't that subconsciously condescending?
What if Dave's success is based on the morality underlying those "opposite political opinions?" Isn't that worth considering at all?
Ron

Percy,
"Condescention is when, for instance, I say that you're incapable of reading a simple English sentence. *That's* condescension."
No, my friend, that is accurate. Mr. Gatto wrote a brief comment about Fred Taylor's work at the steel mill. Louise totally misread the comment and interpreted events at the steel mill disasterously. When I explained that to her she persisted and trid to explain my profession and one of the most important events in the history of that profession to me. She tried to harrass me into accepting a totally erroneous explanation of that profession and that history. When I told her she couldn't read simple English sentences that was frustration at simplicity not condenscension.
Just to explain a little further. That incident at the steel mill has been used repeatedly to show how heartless Fred Taylor was. But it is never explained in good faith to my knowledge. They never tell how the workers wages were raised drastically. They never explain the difference between production and work (production is the amount of output, work is the amount of physical or mental exertion is expended) The importance of explaining that is that Mr. Taylor raised the amount of production while decreasing the amount of work.
There is a legal term "DICTA The part of a judicial opinion which is merely a judge's editorializing and does not directly address the specifics of the case at bar; extraneous material which is merely informative or explanatory"
The term is a legal one but in studying jobs in factories the engineer, like Fred Taylor, looks for what we might call "dicta." That is to say work that has no bearing on production.
Fred Taylor and all industrial engineers look for that dicta. At the steel mill there was loads and loads of dicta to be found - Fred Taylor was the first one to look for it.
If you recall I asked Louise for an analysis of the economic impact on an island economy if their 20 fishermen could be replaced by one fishermen -- releasing 19 men from their jobs. I asked Louise for that analysis on two occasions. Why do you suppose she did that?
Because, just like with Fred Taylor at the steel mill, and every industrial engineer since then, the social engineers of the various stripes have no interest in having an additional 19 workers (ex fishermen) to build houses, grow food or whatever to improve society -- they want to run society not improve it.
So, when Louise, bless her little social engineering heart, keeps denying that 2 + 2 = 4 I got frustrated.
One more piece of industrial engineering and I will finish for now. Do you remember when Obama said he wanted to "spread the wealth around?"
The industrial engineer uses a pie analogy in that position. We say, if you want more pie there are two ways to get it, either enlarge the pie keeping your share of the total pie or try to enlarge your share of the same sized pie. We, like Fred Taylor, favor enlarging the pie.
That leaves the question of how does the worker maintain his fair share. How does that worker at the steel mill keep his fair share of the increased production?
Just think about it in my fashion. We were in what the French call La Belle Epoch and wealth was increasing faster than at any time in history. Yet, that is also the period in which there was a great foment among unions, political parties and who knows who else over what some call social justice. May I submit that was over the worker's bargaining to keep their fair share of the pie?
If you wish to continue this discussion I will be happy to do so. However my first interest is in how this impinges on education.
Ron

I realize it must be so hard for you to accept that Gatto rejects Taylor and Taylorism, just as you laud Taylor as a gift to the Western world. Gatto also rejects scientism.

Here's another article on Man as Mechanism, the transformation of humans from being fully human to being cogs in the great machine:


Man as Mechanism in the Factory

Louise,
When you get the bit in your teeth your are indeed worse than a Missouri mule.
When you speak ex cathedra about Taylor and Mr. Gatto you almost convince me.
For example, "I realize it must be so hard for you to accept that Gatto rejects Taylor and Taylorism, just as you laud Taylor as a gift to the Western world. Gatto also rejects scientism." Then you present us with an article supposedly representing Mr. Gatto's viewpoint and also proving your point. I say, supposedly because it only proves that you can't understand simple English sentences.
Understand, Mr. Taylor made a major contribution to our Western Civilization's standard of living. However during the almost 40 years I was a practicing engineer/manufacturing consultant and manufacturing manager we had superceded almost everything in Taylorism. This is not surprising. Taylor and Taylorism revolutionized manufacturing. Additionally he was the first major figure in the field. There is nothing unexpected that later men that built off of Taylor's work would discover better ways.
Finally, let's discuss your allegations about Mr. Gatto's beliefs. If the Mr. Gatto convinced me that he really agreed with you I would have to conclude he had gotten hold of some of the secondary sources that didn't understand Mr. Taylor anyway. Believe me I have been seeing those for over forty years and nothing he may have chanced across would surprise me at all. If we could have a pleasant conversation it would be my pleasure to set him straight. I hate to see one of my heroes misunderstanding another of my heroes. I basically regard the contribution of those two men, to our civilization, to be about on a par.
Ron

You can't read and understand Gatto. Did it ever occur to you that he might not think higher wages were worth turning factory workers into on-the-job automatons?

Louise,
Don't you thnk it is time to quit hiding behind Mr. Gatto. You don't like industrialization. You want us all to live on small plots of land, in rags, without proper food or medical care. To live dreary lives without advantages of education or culture.
Mr. Taylor despite all representations to the contrary found out how to reduce the work load on the worker while raising their wages. Samuel Gompers campaigned for the 8 hour day but Fred Taylor led the movement that made the 8 hour day possible.
Now the worker has time to enjoy culture, to be with his family and lead a human existance. You don't like that. With you on this forum as his mouthpiece who knows what Mr. Gatto likes.
Additionally you prattle on and on about turning workers into automatons. Frankly, that one stops me dead in my tracks. You have apparently lived in an Ivory Tower your entire life. Like Marx your work experience seems to consist of no more that talking about going to work one time. I could be wrong. I certainly hope so.
Ron

Percy,
I agree wholeheartedly. Obama is on record that he would not kill ObL but would capture him and bring him to trial.
At the time of his election, while BHO was still promising to disband Gitmo, someone predicted that on his first day in office two gentlemen from the CIA would brief him to explain exacly who was locked up at Gitmo. Then we would never hear another word about disbanding Gitmo.
I have been very impressed with how BHO saw the wisdom of the existing policy on Gitmo and abandoned his solemn campaign promises.
I have also been impressed with his continuing the tenure of the Bush/Cheney search team that finally caught OBL. He, BHO, has unusual intelligence.
Ron

The Torture Papers - Physicians for Human Rights

Intelligence, my foot. He's CFR, doing the bidding of the ruling elites. He decides to actually DO what he promised to do and they just sit him down and show him the Zapruder film.

When it comes to the US gov't, I'm not seeing a THINg to be "patriotic" about. They are waging war against us, economically and through militarizing the police.

Yes, JS,
But you are presenting yourself under false pretenses. You enter this discussion knowing everyone will assume your mind is open enough to consider opposing opinions. Repreatedly you have show you consider our form of government to be little more than a criminal organization with no redeeming value at all. You have repeatedly repeated tired old arguments against our form of government despite having repeatedly shown factually and logically why you were wrong. Truth and facts run off you like water off of a duck's back.
Therefore you have nothing relevant to say. Zero, nada, nothing and your every word is merely an attempt to deceive us. You are attempting to make us listen to you and be persuaded by you when you are impervious to anything we might say.
Ron
Ron

I think it's important to recognize that our "government" and our "form of government" are two different things.

Yes, I'm a patriot. I am patriotic and loyal to this United States formed as a perfect union by founders who were inspired by our Creator to make something that this world has never seen -- a truly democratic republic based on a rule of law and a Constitution that recognizes that our rights come from Almighty God, and are un-alienable.

Yes, I am a rebel. I am rebellious against the godless rulers of these United States whose greed, dishonesty and self-importance have created this monster that goes against everything that the Founders stood for.

Is there any hope that our country can return to anything even close to what the Founders envisioned?

Yes and no.

No. Not as long as godless America-haters are in control.

Yes. If the American people could give up their atheistic, secular humanistic godless ways and demand the same of their leaders -- in short, if there could be a revival.

Anything less than that will continue to incur God's judgment, and he will continue to pour out his wrath against our nation.

Many Christians say that our nation's turning to the atheists, the leftists and the homosexual agenda will incur God's judgment. But, they are wrong. Those things ARE God's judgment against a nation that has turned against Him.

Nobody likes to hear it anymore, but the condition of a people is invariably entwined with the condition of their souls. Like it or not, it's true.

Dave

Dave,
Thank you very much. You could have been speaking for me even though our interpretation of the word of God is somewhat different.
We also need an intellectual re-armnament as well as the religious one. I recommend YouTube.com and the video by Dr. Stephen Davies "Decline and Triumph of Classical Liberalism" for a beginning.
One of the major advantages the leftists have is that we have almost all been heavily by public school doctrine. Even if we were homeschooled by parents that were homeschooled we are still trapped in a society that has swallowed the public school doctrine whole. As a result the leftists often play Muhammed Ali's old "Rope a dope" on us without our realizing it. Dr. Davies helps us recognise the Rope a Dope in the very beginning.
Ron

The US (form of) government was created in secret and forced on people by a minority. It was initially accepted because it was nonintrusive and used divide and conquer strategy (who cared about some whiskey making frontiersmen, better them than me!?) It was radically altered forever by Lincoln who eliminated the only possible restraint against Federal tyranny by invading and conquering states who attempted to withdraw consent when the "union" became a vehicle under which they were unfairly taxed. These are the facts. The Noble Experiment failed.

But that is the reason for the mess we are in. The very formation of that state was a turning AWAY from God, the acceptance of a state god and the use of "the sword" to force righteousness (taxation for Noble Causes (theft), so many wars to "spread liberty" (liberty for Halliburton, Dole, oil companies, etc.), murder of indigenous peoples to benefit "progress" (corporations, bankers, railroads). The atheistic collectivists have wrestled control of the sword of state and are using it against the nondiscerning Christians who tried to create cities on hills in their arrogance.
Yes. Falling away from God and putting faith in states of men instead has consequences.

Why Neocons Idolize Lincoln and Despise Decentralized Government
Posted by Thomas DiLorenzo on May 4, 2011 08:33 AM
The answer is simple: Decentralized governments abroad are more difficult for an imperialist power like the U.S. government to control. It’s much easier to control a single despot with bribes and threats. Comparing the despot to the “sainted” Abe Lincoln also helps stave off opposition by the American sheeple. Sometimes the puppet/dictator makes the comparison himself, as the former dictator of Pakistan (Musharef) did a few years ago when he declared martial law there. “Lincoln did it,” he said, so everyone should just shut up! One frequently hears the Newt Gingriches and other neocons tell their American audiences the exact same thing.

It’s also more difficult for despots and tyrants to control the American public when government is more decentralized. This is why both major political parties constantly perpetuate and expand upon the Lincoln myth, telling bigger and bigger lies about Dishonest Abe every year.

This classic, Claremont Institute/Hillsdale College scamosophy was on display this morning on FOX News when a former Bush administration “official” named Bradley Blakemen said we cannot leave Afghanistan now because government there is too decentralized and “lacks centralized control.” It lacks easy control BY THE U.S. REGIME, in other words. This is why the military/industrial/congressional complex funds big government, pro-imperialism outfits such as the Claremont Institute with all of its Lincoln and Churchill worship, its “statesman of the year” awards to the likes of Rumsfeld and Cheney, etc. (Blakeman was formerly the head of “Freedom’s Watch,” a lobbying organization established to “sell” the Iraq war to the public).

Secession is an expression of voluntary association and has long been a part of the classical liberal tradition. It was the route to freedom to millions enslaved by the former Soviet empire and was how America was created in the first place — by seceding from the British empire. The founders understood that the mere threat of secession (and nullification) was an essential means of controlling the tyrannical proclivities of the central state, if they were ever to be controlled. None of this matters to the Claremontistas and other varieties of neocons, for they are not interested in freedom — for Americans or for anyone else — but in the never-ending expansion of the American empire, and the fame and riches it creates for them personally.

(Blakeman also said we can’t leave Afghanistan now, because al Qaeda might then return to that country. This is another way of saying that we can NEVER leave Afghanistan, for al Qaeda could always hypothetically return. In fact, it’s time to “double down” our imperialistic interventions, he said).

Bookmark/Share | Suggest a Link

JS,
The Classical Liberals seem to be entirely approved of by Dr. DiLorenzo. Has he ever written specifically about the Classical Liberal agenda?
Ron

And Stinkin Lincoln wasn't one of them.

JS,
"nd Stinkin Lincoln wasn't one of them"
Lincoln was very much a classical liberal in all ways but he was not a president to allow a bunch of haughtly pseudo aristocrats break their contract, push the United States around at rifle point, inslave American citizens and do wholesale theft of federal property. If they hadn't done all of that he was very concilatory.
Ron

What was this "contract", who signed it, who was bound by it, for how long, for what consideration and why?

What gave Lincolns central state the authority to do invade the Southern states, loot and occupy them for this alleged breach of "contract", to kill people who did not sign any contract placing themselves in servitude to Abe? To steal R.E. Lees home (actually his WIFES family home, she was a Custis)?

You want to make up your own definition for classical liberalism and apply it to people like Abe, and a huge statist like yourself and pretend you are "classically liberal", much like the Cato Institute and Reason Magazine call themselves "libertarian". I judge the fruit, not the sheeps clothing people hide under. Lord Acton was classically liberal, read his opinions on Stinkin Lincoln.

JS,
You are grasping at straws and trying to defend the indefensible.
The Constitution was a contract formed by the people of the United States. Any competent lawyer can tell you that is what it was, that the people of the US had every right to form one and that it did not have to all be done over again everytime there was a birth.
You try to insist there is some sort of silly requirement that every one of the 310 million of us have an individual contract with everyone of the other 310 million. That in addition that everytime there is a birth there has to be another 310 million plus set of contracts written. Such is entirely unworkable and no legal authority would claim that it was necessary.
The bottom line is simple. We have the contract, we intend to enforce the contract and you had best get used to that idea. You are not going to get away with breaking your contract to your advantage every time the whim moves you. Can you understand that?
Finally there are areas of the world where the anarchy you claim to love so dearly rules. You are free to leave and go live in one of those areas.
Ron

>>>>You are grasping at straws and trying to defend the indefensible.<<<<

How so? I made explicit points and defending individual state sovereignty from an oppressive tyrant is not an "indefensible" action at all. Lord Acton didn't think so, nor did the Pope at the time.

>>>>The Constitution was a contract formed by the people of the United States.<<<<

No it wasn't. SOME of the people who were in Philadelphia on OTHER business related to the Articles that were the current law. They locked out the press and the public, swore each other to secrecy and fabricated a new government, basically a coup. The vast majority of "people" had nothing to do with it. They were too busy living their lives to connive to enslave others. Not only that, it was not a contract in any legally binding sense.

>>>>> Any competent lawyer can tell you that is what it was,<<<<<

Any competent lawyer can explain what the elements of a legally binding contract IS and the Constitution, much as you worship it and want to justify it, simply did not have those elements.

>>>> that the people of the US had every right to form one <<<<

Yes, but they didn't. SOME agreed to a scheme and forced the rest into it. Some agreed to it then when it was used to tyrannize them (breached) they withdrew their participation and were invaded and occupied. These are the facts.

>>>>and that it did not have to all be done over again everytime there was a birth.<<<<

Maybe YOU agree to abide by contracts made by your ancestors but most people do not. There are also court rulings that prevent the "dead hand" from the grave ruling the living. Birth does not obligate one to any contract. One must be mentally competent to enter into contracts.

>>>>>You try to insist there is some sort of silly requirement that every one of the 310 million of us have an individual contract with everyone of the other 310 million.<<<<<

Of course. If that is not the case then you do not have any legally binding contract. A small group of elites cannot decree that the rest of the people and their descendants into perpetuity are bound by "contract" to their "governing" schemes.

>>>> That in addition that everytime there is a birth there has to be another 310 million plus set of contracts written.<<<

If you are going to use the "contract" argument, yes. People cannot be collectively "contracted" into state property by the state.

>>>>> Such is entirely unworkable and no legal authority would claim that it was necessary.<<<<<

No STATE legal authority. They have no end of irrational justifications for tyranny, just like the old monarchies used to claim divine authority. Any student of logic and Contract Law can explain the elements of contract.

>>>>>>The bottom line is simple. We have the contract, we intend to enforce the contract and you had best get used to that idea.<<<<<<

See above on your "contract". What your state has are GUNS and ruthless thugs willing to kill anyone who disagrees that they are state property.

>>>>> You are not going to get away with breaking your contract to your advantage every time the whim moves you. Can you understand that?<<<<<<

Can you understand that YOUR opinions on what YOU think YOU can do to me mean nothing to me? YOU are a pathetic little weasel cheering on slavemasters because YOU hasve benefitted from their tyranny, many of your generation are like that. You got in on the ground floor of the pyramid scheme. YOU are part of the problem and will be dust soon enough. Your irrational and ignorant notions of contract law are simply nonsense. Applied by any private entity to you you would never tolerate them. But because you imbue the state with god-powers you claim all are slaves to whatever they claim is "contract".

>>>>>Finally there are areas of the world where the anarchy you claim to love so dearly rules. You are free to leave and go live in one of those areas.<<<

No, thanks. You are free to stay here in the US and continue to try to stifle to rising voices of logic and liberty. See, I believe in liberty, not tyranny like you. I do hope you live to see some states secede. Of course, I'm sure you personally will rise up and take up arms against the arrogant ungrateful wretches.
It will be so sweet!

Notice how I painstakingly go over your lame-butt arguments point by point? Do you realize how respectful and time consuming that is? Now you will respond with a 3 or 4 paragraph rant, ignoring my responses, and change the subject to something else only to bring up this baseless "contract" argument in a few months apparently thinking it has somehow grown some kind of legitimacy.

JS,
" See, I believe in liberty, not tyranny like you"
No, you believe in mooching while living comfortably and safely in an infrastructure built by someone else and as close to being at their expense as you can manage while pretending to be morally superior.
You believe in denigrating all the people that work to build and maintain that infrastructure while clinging so tightly to the infrastructure that no one could even kick your fingers loose from the front gate.
You know that if others build a peaceful community you get the benefit of the lower crime rate, the benefit of people that are more honest. Over and over you sponge off people in ways that an honest person wouldn't even recognize. The privilege of emergency rooms in hospitals, lower insurance rates, the list goes on and on. If a person cannot see this they have only to search out one of the many anarchical areas on the globe and look at the fringe benefits of living in our society.
JS, the dirty little secret is that you haven't got the guts to live in one of the existing anarchys. You want to live here, enjoy the fringe benefits and transfer as much of the cost to us as you can -- all the while adopting a tone of moral superiority over us, our community and our ways. You are a dissembling mooch.
Ron

>>>>" See, I believe in liberty, not tyranny like you"
No, you believe in mooching while living comfortably and safely in an infrastructure built by someone else and as close to being at their expense as you can manage while pretending to be morally superior.<<<<

Aaaah, trotting out the "mooch" smear?? Infrastructure built by someone else? A piece of that "infrastructure" divides my property in half, I have paid taxes and worked since I was 15 years old and never received a government check. You have and do. It's pretty obvious who the mooch is.

>>>>You believe in denigrating all the people that work to build and maintain that infrastructure while clinging so tightly to the infrastructure that no one could even kick your fingers loose from the front gate.<<<<<

???Because I decline to move when and where you say I should I am "clinging to infrastructure" that all the people worked to build???? The "love it or leave it argument", "assimilate to my borg or get out" demand was lame 60 years ago and no more valid now. So if my taxes all these years haven't paying for this perhaps you'll tell me where I can pick up my money that has been extorted all these years, supposedly to pay for YOUR "infrastructure"?

>>>>>>You know that if others build a peaceful community you get the benefit of the lower crime rate, the benefit of people that are more honest.<<<

Huh?? You are welcome to build peaceful communities if you want and as far as I am concerned you can specifically prohibit me from moving into it. That is your right, as far as I'm concerned. I am really not interested in joining a Neocon nest.

>>>>> Over and over you sponge off people in ways that an honest person wouldn't even recognize. The privilege of emergency rooms in hospitals, lower insurance rates, the list goes on and on.<<<<

Your contention that, even though I have paid taxes nearly all my life, that because I believe they are theft and extortion that I am mooching makes no sense. If I had lived off welfare or social security or even bummed I could see a slight logic but one doesn't pay ones whole life and become a mooch because he objects to being so looted. The objecting to being looted does not make the looting righteous and the lootee a mooch.

>>>>If a person cannot see this they have only to search out one of the many anarchical areas on the globe and look at the fringe benefits of living in our society.<<<<

Your society??? Then why are your goons looting me at gunpoint to pay for it? Your fringe benefits are overrated. And increasingly I wish I could expatriate because I think this country is going to crash big time.

>>>>>JS, the dirty little secret is that you haven't got the guts to live in one of the existing anarchys.<<<<

That's no secret. I'd prefer not to leave family, friends and property much as YOU demand I do. I would prefer an anarchy of MY choosing, not yours.

>>>>> You want to live here, enjoy the fringe benefits and transfer as much of the cost to us as you can -- all the while adopting a tone of moral superiority over us, our community and our ways. You are a dissembling mooch.<<<<<

Us??? Again, are you planning on sending the monbey to me YOU have looted from me to pay for YOUR "fringe benefits"??? I'm not seeing all these "fringe benefits". But then, I'm not the one at the state trough, snort, snort.

JS,
The following statement is a perfect illustration of the dirty way you argue.
"I have paid taxes and worked since I was 15 years old and never received a government check. You have and do. It's pretty obvious who the mooch is."
In the first place we have been through this before but JS has brought the argument back just as if it is her first time.
In another place JS says her property is divided by the government. I don't know but she has led me to visualize a highway or some such running through her property. When they took her property, assuming it was during her ownership, we can assume they paid her. We can also bet she cashed the check. She did not make a "love" offering of her property to the government. So, we can deduce that when value has been exchanged JS thinks it is perfectly okay to cash a government check. To accept that check becomes a sin only when JS can use it to condemn someone.
But suppose the government didn't pay her because there was already and easement on the property. In that case JS bought the property with the easement plainly stated. She is attempting to be a tyrant and demand the return of something she never paid for.
But she still hasn't explained how she can be so in love with anarchy and not moved into one. She complains about us endlessly but much prefers our company to the anarchy she claims to love so dearly.
Of course we know the answer to that question. JS wants to sponge off of our society. Our society is far superior to any existing anarchy. As she says, "That's no secret. I'd prefer not to leave family, friends and property much as YOU demand I do. I would prefer an anarchy of MY choosing, not yours."
Yes, exactly. She prefers family and friends that don't welch on as much as is possible. She prefers a society that has emergency rooms, lower crime rates, highways, bridges, the list goes on and on.
And why shouldn't she enjoy those things to the extent that her taxes paid for them? Our society is far superior to an anarchy. Our society is even a contractural arrangement like JS claims to prefer so there is no moral problem for her. And, most important she finds little ways to welch on at least some of her fair share of the costs.
I'll bet she even slips out on election day and votes.
Ron

So I take it all the taxes I have paid all these years will not be being returned to me. I'm such a surprised "mooch".

Enjoy your monthly stolen loot, while it lasts.

JS,
You not only didn't deny accepting money for services or property provided the government, voluntary or involuntary, you introduced a new thought.
"So I take it all the taxes I have paid all these years will not be being returned to me." But you really expect it don't you? That is what your sentence reveals. It doesn't really matter to you whether we are talking about all taxes paid or just overpayments you made against taxes, you really expect your money back don't you -- it would only be fair in your opinions.
There is a flaw in that argument that your wanna be tyrannt never noticed.
Frankly I think whether it is services rendered, property conveyed or taxes overpaid you should be paid and you should accept payment. You have repeatedly beat me over the head because you believe I have accepted money for services rendered. I read the article in Ayn Rand just as you did. You believe that my money, and yours too, has been stolen. Further, any payment we accept is not ours it is money stolen from a victim. Lets apply that reasoning to you. I'll bet you accepted payment for any tax over payment (the most likely case) or payment for services rendered or property conveyed. Somewhere down the line you have taken that money, and you have used services that you did not fully pay for.
In other words you have taken money under circumstances which you label as dishonest when others did it.
For that reason and your strange reluctance to even search out well known geographic areas where anarchy is practiced all combine to make me believe you are not a believer in anarchy in even the slightest degree.
Ron

Your hilarious "gotcha" attitude because I am no longer wasting my time replying point by point to your ridiculous excuses for looting and tyranny which we have been round and round so many times is typical. It all really boils down to you LIKE other people being looted for your (and always with the "we" and "our" in an attempt to add authority of others to your position) benefit. The state catechism WORKED for you. You are a boomer who sees nothing wrong with the state model because you benefit from others being tyrannized.
Your contention that even though I have paid taxes and worked 9 months of the year for the state that because I object to it I am a "mooch", and YOU the recipient of my slavery is an upright moral "citizen" isn't logical.
You are welcome to this model as long as you can get suckers to buy into it. The fact remains you have no moral right to force others into it, Abe Lincolns proclamations and butchery notwithstanding.
Now you will lapse into gloating that YOU (in the plural sense...apparently all your noble "citizenry" you bloviate about)....will trounce any "arrogant" freedom seekers into submission to your collective enslavement and that their objections to that enslavement is in itself JUSTIFICATION for enslaving them. You will post this with full knowledge of the history of the American colonies doing exactly what you condemn the "arrogant" Southern states for doing. You will further opine that my lifelong enslavement and looting is irrelevant, that YOU own the country and I must leave, move to where YOU claim I should (my confiscated property now deemed apparently just "gone", not somehow having been used for YOUR (in the plural collective sense, of course) "infrastructure" and NOW deemed confiscated loot as is Arlington for my "arrogance" in denying the Ultimate godlike Authority of your glorious State. You will then again insist that I *REALLY* should read the Federalist Papers and THEN I would "understand" and embrace my servitude to the bureaucratic corporate state utopia for the Transcendant Ultimate Citizenhood that it is.

Did I miss anything?

JS,
Mostly you are a good solid citizen excepting sometimes when you let your mouth run away from you. I imagine you do pay your taxes and on time to boot although it is true you take every opportunity to claim victimhood (you aren't), you neglect your citizenship duties and throw that load onto other people then you gripe when Morlocks get in office.
I could go on with a long list of your mooching and with the hardships your failures lead to but why should I -- I know you would rather complain endlessly and indulge yourself in your petty little mooches than to help make the system infinitely better. As to Lincoln? I doubt you will ever be capable of understanding someone so far above you in intelligence and morality.
Have a good life,
Ron

Ah, yes, I forgot the "citizenship duties" which I, bad "citizen" that I am, neglect, your religious rituals of state worship: voting, activism, "participation" in the borg to "elect" "GOOD" slavemasters....why, to do otherwise is to "mooch". There simply IS no other paradigm for civilization. Mooch or be assimilated and ruled by your betters, that is the universe and the best men can ever hope for, the greatest possible Good, the Best of All Possible Worlds.

History is judging Lincolns "morality". You are correct, I could NEVER begin to comprehend a mind that stooped to such butchery and illogic, no matter how great his oratory.

JS,
"History is judging Lincolns "morality". You are correct, I could NEVER begin to comprehend a mind that stooped to such butchery and illogic, no matter how great his oratory."
Actually you have it backwards. You take the self appointed Southern aristocrats and describe as their nobility when they are enslaving and otherwise depraving their fellow man. You describe them as victims when they high handedly attack their own country. You describe yourself as a victim when you are being asked to help choose your government.
In the end all you describe is only the inner workings of your mind. In defending the conduct of the depraved Southern Aristocracy you describe how you would like to treat your fellow man. In describing the lack of obligation on the part of the South you describe your intent to break, at your convenience, every contract you undertake. You describe nothing objective.
Ron