PhilO

Good WSJ article advocating gold standard

46 posts in this topic

People who do have some kind of practical plans are not likely to publish them on an internationally accessible forum.

True, however I think back to the pamphleteers of our Forefathers...

It might be good to mention that those "pamphlets" were written while we were already at war. Actually, it wasn't until August of 1775, after war had already broken out in Boston, when two of John Adams' personal letters to friends were intercepted by Tories and published in the newspapers that there was ever a publicly admitted plan (AND albeit only by one man) to actually form a new separate and sovereign government. Even then, he was a public outcast (at least in Philadelphia which was second only to New York as a seat of Tory sentiment).

My point is that I'm not sure many people understand just how under-the-table our much glorified revolution was. The problem is that we are dealing with actual life and death here as were our forefathers. Tread carefully.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People who do have some kind of practical plans are not likely to publish them on an internationally accessible forum.

True, however I think back to the pamphleteers of our Forefathers...

It might be good to mention that those "pamphlets" were written while we were already at war. Actually, it wasn't until August of 1775, after war had already broken out in Boston, when two of John Adams' personal letters to friends were intercepted by Tories and published in the newspapers that there was ever a publicly admitted plan (AND albeit only by one man) to actually form a new separate and sovereign government. Even then, he was a public outcast (at least in Philadelphia which was second only to New York as a seat of Tory sentiment).

My point is that I'm not sure many people understand just how under-the-table our much glorified revolution was. The problem is that we are dealing with actual life and death here as were our forefathers. Tread carefully.

I was referring to personal plans for self protection in the future, not plans for a violent revolution, which no sane person wants. It is bad enough what they have already begun doing to people. The threat of a "life and death" situation is coming entirely from the progressives as they seize growing control of government power for their own ends of social control and suppression of the most basic civil and Constitutional rights of the individual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People who do have some kind of practical plans are not likely to publish them on an internationally accessible forum.

True, however I think back to the pamphleteers of our Forefathers...

It might be good to mention that those "pamphlets" were written while we were already at war. Actually, it wasn't until August of 1775, after war had already broken out in Boston, when two of John Adams' personal letters to friends were intercepted by Tories and published in the newspapers that there was ever a publicly admitted plan (AND albeit only by one man) to actually form a new separate and sovereign government. Even then, he was a public outcast (at least in Philadelphia which was second only to New York as a seat of Tory sentiment).

My point is that I'm not sure many people understand just how under-the-table our much glorified revolution was. The problem is that we are dealing with actual life and death here as were our forefathers. Tread carefully.

I was referring to personal plans for self protection in the future, not plans for a violent revolution, which no sane person wants. It is bad enough what they have already begun doing to people. The threat of a "life and death" situation is coming entirely from the progressives as they seize growing control of government power for their own ends of social control and suppression of the most basic civil and Constitutional rights of the individual.

Your comment doesn't make sense to me. I understand that you were referring to personal plans. I was trying to comment on how David seemed to say to you, "Sure, but our Forefathers were so bold as to publish pamphlets which were made public." So, I was trying to counter that by saying that actually the Revolution was not as public an affair as he might think it was. Furthermore, plans of either a political or personal nature should in general be kept secret. This is especially true since I agree with your statement that the world is currently very "Orwellian." Even if it is by accident via outlets such as this forum which is available to everyone with internet access to read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People who do have some kind of practical plans are not likely to publish them on an internationally accessible forum.

True, however I think back to the pamphleteers of our Forefathers...

It might be good to mention that those "pamphlets" were written while we were already at war. Actually, it wasn't until August of 1775, after war had already broken out in Boston, when two of John Adams' personal letters to friends were intercepted by Tories and published in the newspapers that there was ever a publicly admitted plan (AND albeit only by one man) to actually form a new separate and sovereign government. Even then, he was a public outcast (at least in Philadelphia which was second only to New York as a seat of Tory sentiment).

My point is that I'm not sure many people understand just how under-the-table our much glorified revolution was. The problem is that we are dealing with actual life and death here as were our forefathers. Tread carefully.

I was referring to personal plans for self protection in the future, not plans for a violent revolution, which no sane person wants. It is bad enough what they have already begun doing to people. The threat of a "life and death" situation is coming entirely from the progressives as they seize growing control of government power for their own ends of social control and suppression of the most basic civil and Constitutional rights of the individual.

Your comment doesn't make sense to me. I understand that you were referring to personal plans. I was trying to comment on how David seemed to say to you, "Sure, but our Forefathers were so bold as to publish pamphlets which were made public." So, I was trying to counter that by saying that actually the Revolution was not as public an affair as he might think it was. Furthermore, plans of either a political or personal nature should in general be kept secret. This is especially true since I agree with your statement that the world is currently very "Orwellian." Even if it is by accident via outlets such as this forum which is available to everyone with internet access to read.

Your final statement could be taken to condone "treading carefully" in an "under the table revolution" as "we are dealing with actual life and death here as were our forefathers". If you don't want to be accused of advocating violence and doing things "under the table" against the government you should be careful how you word these things. It doesn't take much to set off a bureaucrat looking for trouble even when you are simply using your right of free speech to state a principled opposition, let alone giving him an excuse to accuse you of criminal activity. Remember how the Clintons tried to blame Rush Limbaugh for causing the Oaklahoma City bombing on the grounds of his strong principled opposition to government policy? Too many government agents and bureaucrats and do not operate under objective law and are not restrained to proving their paranoid suspicions about those who, by right, despise them. If some violence or threat of violence breaks out (or before that) they will be looking for scapegoats and will look first at their political enemies. You shouldn't be frightened into not speaking out, at least yet, but keep it clear that all the threats and coercion are coming from the progressives and the government itself -- we are the peaceful, civilized people; they are the thugs. Don't give them any excuses for what they want to do anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your final statement could be taken to condone "treading carefully" in an "under the table revolution" as "we are dealing with actual life and death here as were our forefathers". If you don't want to be accused of advocating violence and doing things "under the table" against the government you should be careful how you word these things. It doesn't take much to set off a bureaucrat looking for trouble even when you are simply using your right of free speech to state a principled opposition, let alone giving him an excuse to accuse you of criminal activity. Remember how the Clintons tried to blame Rush Limbaugh for causing the Oaklahoma City bombing on the grounds of his strong principled opposition to government policy? Too many government agents and bureaucrats and do not operate under objective law and are not restrained to proving their paranoid suspicions about those who, by right, despise them. If some violence or threat of violence breaks out (or before that) they will be looking for scapegoats and will look first at their political enemies. You shouldn't be frightened into not speaking out, at least yet, but keep it clear that all the threats and coercion are coming from the progressives and the government itself -- we are the peaceful, civilized people; they are the thugs. Don't give them any excuses for what they want to do anyway.

Erich, I do understand this comment. Especially after I just read your story of battling with government over your property in Maine. So, just to make it clear to those who might "stumble" upon this website: I am in no way advocating a violent uprising, rebellion, revolution or any acts of terrorism or similar against the United States or its people. I am, as far as I know, a completely lawful individual who believes that the proper way to change our government is though my peaceful petition against laws that, though unjust, I will obey until they are repealed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Erich, I do understand this comment. Especially after I just read your story of battling with government over your property in Maine. So, just to make it clear to those who might "stumble" upon this website: I am in no way advocating a violent uprising, rebellion, revolution or any acts of terrorism or similar against the United States or its people. I am, as far as I know, a completely lawful individual who believes that the proper way to change our government is though my peaceful petition against laws that, though unjust, I will obey until they are repealed.

let me be clear too: With respect to laws such as "the GIVE Act" referenced in another thread here:Obama's brownshirt "volunteer" corps passes House, flood your congressmen with PROTESTS! I want to say for the record, so that any governmental thug who happens to read it is clear: "I will not comply, neither I or my children."

-David T. McKee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
let me be clear too: With respect to laws such as "the GIVE Act" referenced in another thread here:Obama's brownshirt "volunteer" corps passes House, flood your congressmen with PROTESTS! I want to say for the record, so that any governmental thug who happens to read it is clear: "I will not comply, neither I or my children."

-David T. McKee

Your consent is not required.

And furthermore, do you actually think you are in the position anymore to tell them what you can and can't do with your life?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
let me be clear too: With respect to laws such as "the GIVE Act" referenced in another thread here:Obama's brownshirt "volunteer" corps passes House, flood your congressmen with PROTESTS! I want to say for the record, so that any governmental thug who happens to read it is clear: "I will not comply, neither I or my children."

-David T. McKee

Your consent is not required.

And furthermore, do you actually think you are in the position anymore to tell them what you can and can't do with your life?

Ultimately, I do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
let me be clear too: With respect to laws such as "the GIVE Act" referenced in another thread here:Obama's brownshirt "volunteer" corps passes House, flood your congressmen with PROTESTS! I want to say for the record, so that any governmental thug who happens to read it is clear: "I will not comply, neither I or my children."

-David T. McKee

Your consent is not required.

And furthermore, do you actually think you are in the position anymore to tell them what you can and can't do with your life?

You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it.

Deep down inside the shadowy corners of their minds, whether they want to admit it or not, this is the naked essence of their ambition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
let me be clear too: With respect to laws such as "the GIVE Act" referenced in another thread here:Obama's brownshirt "volunteer" corps passes House, flood your congressmen with PROTESTS! I want to say for the record, so that any governmental thug who happens to read it is clear: "I will not comply, neither I or my children."

-David T. McKee

Your consent is not required.

And furthermore, do you actually think you are in the position anymore to tell them what you can and can't do with your life?

Ultimately, I do.

I think the paradigm has already been made clear (though not explicit) that they no longer consider our lives to be our own. We are their property to govern, regulate, command and punish. All that remains is to what degree they decide to practice it, or how much they think they can get away with for the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"But the law compels you to volunteer a defense!"

There was laughter at the back of the courtroom.

"That is the flaw in your theory, gentlemen," said Rearden gravely, "and I will not help you out of it. If you choose to deal with men by means of compulsion, do so. But you will discover that you need the voluntary co-operation of your victims, in many more ways than you can see at present. And your victims should discover that it is their own volition—which you cannot force—that makes you possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you PhilO.

My point is, that I, not they, will determine what actions I will or will not take, I will weigh their threats and their ability to act on them, and what action I will take. If I comply with their insidious demands it is because I value something even greater and am willing to pay even the price of the shame of a slave - but if I value my freedom above all else, then even the worse they can do to me will be worth it.

That is the whole point - the ball is always in the court of the person who is willing to think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you PhilO.

My point is, that I, not they, will determine what actions I will or will not take, I will weigh their threats and their ability to act on them, and what action I will take. If I comply with their insidious demands it is because I value something even greater and am willing to pay even the price of the shame of a slave - but if I value my freedom above all else, then even the worse they can do to me will be worth it.

That is the whole point - the ball is always in the court of the person who is willing to think.

Which is no consolation for the man whose body is in shackles, literally or figuratively. Without the ability to act on our thoughts and bring them into being through living life as we choose the freedom to think becomes meaningless; there is no division between physical freedom and intellectual freedom.

Telling Galileo that at least he had the freedom to think and choose between a beheading or renouncing his views would probably be little consolation. Being granted the freedom to choose between two forcefully imposed options is not freedom; it is coercion through threat of physical violence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, just to make it clear to those who might "stumble" upon this website: I am in no way advocating a violent uprising, rebellion, revolution or any acts of terrorism or similar against the United States or its people. I am, as far as I know, a completely lawful individual who believes that the proper way to change our government is though my peaceful petition against laws that, though unjust, I will obey until they are repealed.

The situation has gotten so bad that talking about a subject at all is enough to set some of them off. Your statement addressed to those who "stumble" in here, made in the context of justifiable and open contempt for them, is exactly in that category. Paranoid, suspicious bureaucrats think that even when you have explicitly said the opposite of what they accuse you of based on your "attitude", you must be only saying it to mislead them. With that mindset, they use their powers under non-objective law to fish for "evidence" that they "just know" "must" be there, and they will twist and distort anything to create it in the neurotic internals of their own minds. They have so much power that it doesn't take much for them to "justify" wrecking the lives of innocent people through witch hunts and impositions of punitive actions under a corrupt legal system requiring no proof of any wrong-doing against those whose "attitude" they don't like.

This is what happens under non-objective law and government without acknowledged, meaningful Consitutional limits. It is part of why so many people ensnared in the modern regulatory state are so terrified to speak out even under the protections of freedom of speech we were supposed to be guaranteed. This is the result of "rule by men, not rule by law". (It is also why honest people who speak out are targeted for abuse in such a system while real slippery characters with no respect for law at all often get by: They know how to dishonestly smooze the authorities over anything through "pragmatic" chameleon behavior that comes naturally to them but which would turn the stomachs of the rest of us to try to live that way. It is how the Soviet system or any other dictatorship creates a nation of liars. It happens because they are not keystone cops; they wield real, destructive power.)

This happens all the time, but I recall one very revealilng example showing that the bureaucrats know very well what they are doing. I once heard a land use regulation enforcer in Maine speaking, in a public presentation, about how they decide to impose penallties for "infractions" of regulations under their discretionary powers. He laughed when he said that he knows that state maximum financial penalties of thousands of dollars are high (even by their 'standards'), and that the way he decides is by imposing them on those who have the wrong "attitude". They do this routinely because there are no objective standards and because even ordinary people who fall into that line of 'work' have nothing else to go on. The lower grades of personal power seekers are of course much worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Telling Galileo that at least he had the freedom to think and choose between a beheading or renouncing his views would probably be little consolation. Being granted the freedom to choose between two forcefully imposed options is not freedom; it is coercion through threat of physical violence.

The require your 'voluntary consent' to remain parasistes. They do not require it to destroy you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The situation has gotten so bad that talking about a subject at all is enough to set some of them off. Your statement addressed to those who "stumble" in here, made in the context of justifiable and open contempt for them, is exactly in that category. Paranoid, suspicious bureaucrats think that even when you have explicitly said the opposite of what they accuse you of based on your "attitude", you must be only saying it to mislead them. With that mindset, they use their powers under non-objective law to fish for "evidence" that they "just know" "must" be there, and they will twist and distort anything to create it in the neurotic internals of their own minds. They have so much power that it doesn't take much for them to "justify" wrecking the lives of innocent people through witch hunts and impositions of punitive actions under a corrupt legal system requiring no proof of any wrong-doing against those whose "attitude" they don't like.

Off-topic, but you've just perfectly described my ex and her handling of our divorce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The situation has gotten so bad that talking about a subject at all is enough to set some of them off. Your statement addressed to those who "stumble" in here, made in the context of justifiable and open contempt for them, is exactly in that category. Paranoid, suspicious bureaucrats think that even when you have explicitly said the opposite of what they accuse you of based on your "attitude", you must be only saying it to mislead them. With that mindset, they use their powers under non-objective law to fish for "evidence" that they "just know" "must" be there, and they will twist and distort anything to create it in the neurotic internals of their own minds. They have so much power that it doesn't take much for them to "justify" wrecking the lives of innocent people through witch hunts and impositions of punitive actions under a corrupt legal system requiring no proof of any wrong-doing against those whose "attitude" they don't like.

This is what happens under non-objective law and government without acknowledged, meaningful Consitutional limits. It is part of why so many people ensnared in the modern regulatory state are so terrified to speak out even under the protections of freedom of speech we were supposed to be guaranteed. This is the result of "rule by men, not rule by law". (It is also why honest people who speak out are targeted for abuse in such a system while real slippery characters with no respect for law at all often get by: They know how to dishonestly smooze the authorities over anything through "pragmatic" chameleon behavior that comes naturally to them but which would turn the stomachs of the rest of us to try to live that way. It is how the Soviet system or any other dictatorship creates a nation of liars. It happens because they are not keystone cops; they wield real, destructive power.)

This happens all the time, but I recall one very revealilng example showing that the bureaucrats know very well what they are doing. I once heard a land use regulation enforcer in Maine speaking, in a public presentation, about how they decide to impose penallties for "infractions" of regulations under their discretionary powers. He laughed when he said that he knows that state maximum financial penalties of thousands of dollars are high (even by their 'standards'), and that the way he decides is by imposing them on those who have the wrong "attitude". They do this routinely because there are no objective standards and because even ordinary people who fall into that line of 'work' have nothing else to go on. The lower grades of personal power seekers are of course much worse.

Yes, I think I know what you mean. My work in accounting means that I "get" to deal with tax agencies. My dealings with the IRS are exactly as you describe. If you humbly go in there and beg for forgiveness then they slap you on the hand and kick you out the door. If you approach them with the "wrong attitude," however, you get a completely different experience. They take it as a cue that you want them to ruin your life. And the absolute worst way to deal with them is to just ignore them. That pisses them off more than anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, I think I know what you mean. My work in accounting means that I "get" to deal with tax agencies. My dealings with the IRS are exactly as you describe. If you humbly go in there and beg for forgiveness then they slap you on the hand and kick you out the door. If you approach them with the "wrong attitude," however, you get a completely different experience. They take it as a cue that you want them to ruin your life. And the absolute worst way to deal with them is to just ignore them. That pisses them off more than anything.

In our case they started off extremely belligerent so we immediately hired a lawyer without even trying to talk to them directly. We have never had to do that before. Their first response was to try to ignore the lawyer and continue to harass us personally. A progressive left, anti-property rights activist in the neigborhood with a documented history of running to state agencies to harass her neighbors appears to have set them off with an earful of false accusations. MRS told our attorney that they had a "tipster" in the neighborhood, in order to try to intimidate him into backing down, but they refused to say who or what had been said to them. After asking around we narrowed it down to the local activist. The MRS enforcer who started this -- one Amy Haney, a miserable little $35,000/yr bureaucrat -- has a record of doing this to others, but the agency backs her up. The ombudsman started to help but suddenly shut down when he was told by the head of the agency to stay out of it. Our state senator tried to look into our and other's complaints and the head of the agency blew him off, invoking the "privacy act" to protect his agency. They tolerate no accountability. A year ago we got a certified letter from them timed to arrive on New Year's eve demanding that we pay over $40,000 in ten days or they would seize our property and claiming that we had no right to any kind of appeal. Our attorney and state senator stopped that because it was blatantly illegal even under Maine "law", but the bullying and harassment continued. So we have a "legal system" in which the government can make any accusations it wants to, demands that we prove our innocence to their satisfaction but has already decided in advance, won't identify or let us confront the accuser or tell us what she said that they are basing their assault on, makes it clear that they are politically motivated to destroy us because they don't like what we said about state tax policy on our website, and uses threats, intimidation, and bullying to block and disrupt any attempt to appeal in a court system that also requires the victim to prove his innocence. I can't even begin to describe what a personal nightmare this and what it has done to our lives every day for two years and still getting worse. It is so extreme and so outrageous that you keep thinking that someone has to have the sanity to stop it, but it keeps right on going.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So we have a "legal system" in which the government can make any accusations it wants to, demands that we prove our innocence to their satisfaction but has already decided in advance, won't identify or let us confront the accuser or tell us what she said that they are basing their assault on, makes it clear that they are politically motivated to destroy us because they don't like what we said about state tax policy on our website, and uses threats, intimidation, and bullying to block and disrupt any attempt to appeal in a court system that also requires the victim to prove his innocence. I can't even begin to describe what a personal nightmare this and what it has done to our lives every day for two years and still getting worse. It is so extreme and so outrageous that you keep thinking that someone has to have the sanity to stop it, but it keeps right on going.

Is it not possible to have a jury trial on this? Most citizens would be shocked by what you describe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it not possible to have a jury trial on this?

Apparently not. All the rules of procedure and everything else are rigged in favor of the government, from the requirement for the victim to prove his innocence and on from there. Court proceedings aren't what people think they are. For one thing, the lawsuit in Superior Court for a tax case is de novo -- nothing they did before that is considered relevant -- except when the government agency tries to disallow consideration of issues it claims it already decided itself 'administratively' and wants immunity for. It doesn't take long for you to get the sense that the actual case is not even being considered, only a maze of rules in which you try to work in along the way what should be relevant. That is one reason why you need a lawyer who knows how the system works.

Most citizens would be shocked by what you describe.

Most of it is so extreme that it is hard for most people to even grasp and believe can be real.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites