Except your forcing me at gunpoint to agree.

__________________
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

-Thomas Jefferson

They had to contend with the political reality of the time. The US was founded by "refugees" of the Thirty Years War (of Religion).

In any event, how do you account for paganism and other religions?

The First and Ninth Amendments to our Constitution, clearly make Religion a private matter by prohibiting any laws on the free practice thereof; and by not requiring any religious test for public office.

You do have a choice. It is just a choice that most people won't make. You can stop paying income tax. All you have to do is give up your citizenship.

__________________

Don't worry most of it ended in non Iraqi pockets

Anyway just as a side note America's politicans seem to have lost the ability to sequezze out money directly from their allies. Nowadays it's all about still getting credit from future rivals, but that's not the same like LBJ turning a blind eye to the most Pro American German chancelor there ever was ( Erhard) and demanding the same high ammount of occupation costs to be paid, even although Erhard was in a bit of trouble himself and could have needed some help for his own popularity and so might had been able to prevent the first Big coalition, with the social democrats getting closer to gain power, after the next election.

__________________
"Homo Homini Lupus"
Thomas Hobbes

No my answer says that government (regardless of who is running it) is, in and of itself, force. Again, see my previous quote from George Washington. Mathematically it would be expressed like this:

Government = Force

By the by, I believe that Bush was not as conservative as many people think he was. He was liberal on many issues.

__________________
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, ... That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men,"
-Declaration of Independence

Two truths that many Americans seem to have forgotten:
1. Men are endowed by God with inalienable rights.
2. Government's purpose is to secure man's God-given rights.

You know, you're convinced that the founders were just making it up when they signed the Declaration of Independence and it's clear that that isn't going to change. You'll probably take this as sort form of concession (even though it's not) but frankly, I feel like you aren't reading a thing that I am writing because you keep repeating the same things over and over again so I don't really feel the need to continue this.

__________________
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, ... That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men,"
-Declaration of Independence

Two truths that many Americans seem to have forgotten:
1. Men are endowed by God with inalienable rights.
2. Government's purpose is to secure man's God-given rights.

You make it seem as though statecraft never made use of propaganda and rhetoric.

Even the republicans are unable to defend and support their republican doctrine without resorting (formerly) to Religion. Propaganda and rhetoric can be considered a public sector means of production when done for State purposes. Reefer Madness is one example.

With over two hundred years of our secular form of political-economy, purely religious laws have only relatively recently been overturned in favor of natural rights and secular statism.

Having a consideration of a tradition of Religion is not necessarily a bad thing when done for goodness instead of badness.

So then you agree with me that singling out "liberals" as trying to "force" people while claiming conservatives are the oppostie is complete bullshit. Which makes me wonder why you disagreed with me when I said so and then tried to cite the actions of conservatives in order to prove that liberals force people.

And I'm sorry but I cannot continue to take anything you say seriously ever again if you really expect me to believe that george bush was a liberal.

__________________
The most important political office is that of the private citizen.
Justice Louis D Brandeis

Dont forget suicide.

__________________
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

-Thomas Jefferson

Come on. Who wouldn't want to live in Singapore. You can give up your citizenship in America, move to Singapore, and live in one of the most economically free nations on the planet. At least, according to the Frasier institute.
Economic Freedom of the World: 2009 Annual Report

__________________

I thought about it, but if you look closer its still worse than the US. Look at the number of people per square mile. And that doesnt mean theyd let you live there, so moving still isnt a choice.

__________________
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

-Thomas Jefferson

I never said the worker owns the food. I specifically pointed out that the worker, in a modern society, is due compensation outside of food. His work produces more food than he'll eat. Now, in a primitive society, the farmer could, perhaps, give the worker some percentage of the food he produces while keep a share for himself so that the worker could then barter with the food. In our society, he gives the worker money so that he can pay for things.

__________________
During the journey we commonly forget its goal. Almost every profession is chosen as a means to an end but continued as an end in itself. Forgetting our objectives is the most frequent act of stupidity.
-Friedrich Nietzsche, The Wanderer and his Shadow

All good socialists have villas in Southern France. That's not the point.
-Eurosocialist

Right, the compensation the worker gets it cash, which can then be traded for goods. This is the only compensation he is due, modern society or not. You seem to be arguing the worker should get cash, and then a home, food, clothing, healthcare, education, because society is something the govt provides for the farmer. Which isnt true. The farmer and laborer are both providing society, and cash is their reward, based on what they contributed. Govt is the middle man which protects the farmer and laborer from invasion and mediates the rules by which they trade. Both the farmer and laborer pay, out of their cash a small fee for this service. That, in summary, is MY philosophy.

__________________
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

-Thomas Jefferson

While I don't disagree that coercive use of force is sometimes required to ensure the domestic tranquility and safety of our republic, better fiscal policy would be "better" simply because it conforms more to our Constitution as a form of ethic and moral. We should be employing welfare-state economics and not warfare-state economics.

A warfare-state economy is more prone to create the conditions where "A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare."; than is a welfare-state economy.

Nowhere in our Constitution is there any enumeration of a general power to provide for the general Warfare or the common Offense.

A truer form of witness bearing would require a welfare-state economic paradigm instead of a warfare-state economic paradigm.

I'm not disputing that; look at the definition of the state for one (the sole user of legitimate force in geographical boundries), but surely it uses force to protect our rights as well. I don't see whats wrong with that; everything the government does requires force.


No, but the libertarian, feck everyone philopshy implies that the government is there to just leave people alone; something that one helps the affulent.

__________________