AP: Sovereign Citizens spin History, Reject Government

[Cdowwe]

:secret:

Police and ambulances have nothing to do with the federal government.

No but the roads they use do.

And there is a federal govt police system (FBI, US Marshals) that does protect us.

I would bet my life savings that at least 1 local police unit in the US receives $1 dollar from the Federal govt as well.

[Hubbs]

No but the roads they use do.

And there is a federal govt police system (FBI, US Marshals) that does protect us.

I would bet my life savings that at least 1 local police unit in the US receives $1 dollar from the Federal govt as well.

Other than the interstate highway system - which is mostly patrolled by state troopers rather than local police - exactly what percentage of the nation's roads do you think have been built by the federal government?

And you might want to stop and think about what you're saying with the money that local government functions "receive" from the feds. Where exactly does that money come from? At some point, the government has to get the money from localities across the country before it can distribute it back. (Even deficit spending has to eventually be paid back via taxes.) And we have to pay for the entire bureaucratic process that goes into taxing that money, moving it around, and delivering it back into local-level efforts. So what exactly has DC accomplished with its "help" to those functions?

[Cdowwe]

Other than the interstate highway system - which is mostly patrolled by state troopers rather than local police - exactly what percentage of the nation's roads do you think have been built by the federal government?

And you might want to stop and think about what you're saying with the money that local government functions "receive" from the feds. Where exactly does that money come from? At some point, the government has to get the money from localities across the country before it can distribute it back. (Even deficit spending has to eventually be paid back via taxes.) And we have to pay for the entire bureaucratic process that goes into taxing that money, moving it around, and delivering it back into local-level efforts. So what exactly has DC accomplished with its "help" to those functions?

Dont know about you.. but Ive been seeing alot of signs that say this road construction made possible by Obama's bailout. Ive seen them on local roads, interstates, state highways.. everywhere.

I know how taxes work.

If you go back to my original post, all I am saying is I would rather pay taxes to the crooks in DC than live in some hut in Africa.

[Hubbs]

Dont know about you.. but Ive been seeing alot of signs that say this road construction made possible by Obama's bailout. Ive seen them on local roads, interstates, state highways.. everywhere.

The stimulus package is a year old. Roads aren't.

If you go back to my original post, all I am saying is I would rather pay taxes to the crooks in DC than live in some hut in Africa.

Right. And if those were the only two choices, you'd have more of a point.

[Willy Wonka]

I don't know about the rest of the stuff, but I do know the government has the right to "take money" from us through taxation because the people who fought the English gave them the right. The quote, "no taxation without representation" come to mind? We voted our representation to congress, that gives them the right.

It took over 100 years for the income tax to take effect. Since it took so long, would the income tax fit with your "the government has a right" mentality?

And I suppose if people fought to give you the right to throw rocks through peoples windows without penalty, you'd be favor in something so ridiculous as that. Where does it end?

[Willy Wonka]

Everyone has a complaint about the federal govt... I dont know one person who says the federal govt we have in place is perfect. I have many complaints about what the federal govt spends money on, the life long politicians in Washington, and watching people cheat the system as I pay my taxes.

That being said.. I know our system isnt perfect. But when I turn on the news and see some crap hole country in Africa or the Middle East and witness their situation, I will gladly pay my taxes.

Watching someone like Barney Frank talk out of his ass on CSPAN from my couch in my air conditioned house knowing I can drive my car on a paved road and feel safe because police are looking out for me > Living in a hut waiting for some tribal war chief to come murder my female neighbor for accidentally showing some leg

Extreme example I know

And it seems as though, what you fail to see, are the things that have enabled you to enjoy the luxuries that you listed. None of it was "thanks to the US government" but more the free enterprises that created them. The countries who have it worse have governments that are much more oppressive then the United States government. It doesn't make the government of the United States any more legitimate though. As days go by, there are more privileges being taken away from the citizens of the United States and it really isn't a ridiculous thought to believe the country could head into the same directions that other extremely oppressed countries are in. Enjoy your air conditioned home now because you never know, it might be too expensive for you to turn on, thanks to government.

[Cdowwe]

And it seems as though, what you fail to see, are the things that have enabled you to enjoy the luxuries that you listed. None of it was "thanks to the US government" but more the free enterprises that created them.

Without that federal govt, we'd all be speaking German or Japanese right now.

I'm not saying I love our govt, or even like it. Im just saying I wounldnt trade places with any other country even I do hate it.. because the benefits of living in the US outweigh every problem I have with that govt

[Willy Wonka]

Without that federal govt, we'd all be speaking German or Japanese right now.

WOW! Sorry to see you feel this way bud.

[Barney B]

And it seems as though, what you fail to see, are the things that have enabled you to enjoy the luxuries that you listed. None of it was "thanks to the US government" but more the free enterprises that created them.

From here it looks as though we've enjoyed the benefits of a symbiotic relationship. Without government you have anarchy, an environment where businesses are unable to flourish.

As days go by, there are more privileges being taken away from the citizens of the United States and it really isn't a ridiculous thought to believe the country could head into the same directions that other extremely oppressed countries are in.

Sure it is.

At worst, we're headed toward European style socialism, as adopted by countries that rank close to us on the Human Development Index (some rank higher). We'd be redistributing wealth for sure, but very few people would actually suffer (and few would enjoy the kind of upward mobility that has characterized American style capitalsm).

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[Willy Wonka]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

So please, go on and prove "Without government you have anarchy, an environment where businesses are unable to flourish."

I'm very interested in what you have to say for yourself.

[Barney B]

So please, go on and prove "Without government you have anarchy, an environment where businesses are unable to flourish."

I'm very interested in what you have to say for yourself.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy

Main Entry: an·ar·chy

Pronunciation: \ˈa-nər-kē, -ˌnär-\

Function: noun

Etymology: Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler — more at arch-

Date: 1539

1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order : disorder <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature — Israel Shenker>

3 : anarchism

So now we see that absence of government is anarchy, right?

As far as anarchy handicapping business, I offer as evidence the entirety of human history.

Got any counterexamples?

[Barney B]

n/m doublepost

[Willy Wonka]

So I need to buy you a dictionary, now?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy

So now we see that absence of government is anarchy, right? Keeping up?

As far as anarchy handicapping business, I offer as evidence the entirety of human history.

Got any counterexamples?

The entire human history shows that anarchy would result in "an environment where businesses are unable to flourish?" I suppose if you were reading history books written by Mickey Mouse, you might be right. So far, you've done very little to back up your claim. I'll give you one more chance. Good luck.

[Barney B]

The entire human history shows that anarchy would result in "an environment where businesses are unable to flourish?" I suppose if you were reading history books written by Mickey Mouse, you might be right. So far, you've done very little to back up your claim. I'll give you one more chance. Good luck.

Yep. Mickey Mouse wrote my history books.

Care to educate me as to how businesses flourish without such basic necessities as financial systems and infrastructure?

Or are your contributions here limited to vague, unsupportable assertions and personal attacks?

[Willy Wonka]

Yep. Mickey Mouse wrote my history books.

Care to educate me as to how businesses flourish without such basic necessities as financial systems and infrastructure?

Or are your contributions here limited to vague, unsupportable assertions and personal attacks?

I'm sorry. Is this your response to proving ""Without government you have anarchy, an environment where businesses are unable to flourish?"

I mean, you were the one who said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", after all.

It's alright though. I had zero confidence that you'd be able to support your claim, anyway.

Good day, sir!

[Barney B]

Good day, sir!

Ahh, Willie, please come back! Don't leave my here, uneducated - foolishly believing that businesses can't flourish without such basic necessities as financial systems and infrastructure! I mean, you have so much to teach me!

Willy! Come back!

:censored: Where's that kick the can smiley?

[Hubbs]

Without that federal govt, we'd all be speaking German or Japanese right now.

Okay, hold on. The two biggest winners of World War II were us and the Soviet Union, even though our governments were vastly different. France's government was much more similar to ours, and they were thoroughly pwned by the Nazis. You're basically attributing any American accomplishment to the federal government, simply by virtue of the fact that it exists.

[Bang]

Okay, hold on. The two biggest winners of World War II were us and the Soviet Union, even though our governments were vastly different. France's government was much more similar to ours, and they were thoroughly pwned by the Nazis. You're basically attributing any American accomplishment to the federal government, simply by virtue of the fact that it exists.

No, I get what he's saying. if not for the centralized federal government of our country, we'd likely not have been able to pull together to win the war.

The military, of course being controlled by the federal government. If we'd have relied on fighting it as 48 independant states, it may not have gone so well.

In fact, many of the reasons we were able to win was that at the federal level, Roosevelt ignored congress voting down his lend=lease program, and bulling ahead with it anyway to continue the aid to Britain.

He's not making any philoisophical argument beyond the central power behind us all. Headquarters, if you will.

At least that is what I'm getting out of it.

~Bang

[Barney B]

No, I get what he's saying. if not for the centralized federal government of our country, we'd likely not have been able to pull together to win the war.

The military, of course being controlled by the federal government...

True. The presence of the federal government in the war effort was enormous:

http://www.bls.gov/opub/cwc/cm20030124ar04p1.htm

Following the bombing of Pearl Harbor in December 1941 and the ensuing entry of the United States into World War II, the Federal Government mobilized its resources and the country’s industrial might. On January 6, 1942, President Roosevelt announced ambitious wartime production goals. In response, all the country’s economic sectors came under new or increased Government controls.

The Federal Government created a number of agencies, such as the War Production Board (1942), the Office of War Mobilization (1943), and the Office of Price Administration (1942), to increase total production, reallocate production to military uses, and control wages and prices. Increases in military output were obtained, in part, by diverting resources from the production of consumer goods. Manufacture of consumer items—such as automobiles, refrigerators, and housing materials—was forbidden.

And it's hard to argue with the results, as our output dwarfed that of Germany and Russia combined. Many have said that it was our manufacturing, not our troops, that turned the tide in WW2.

.

[Hubbs]

No, I get what he's saying. if not for the centralized federal government of our country, we'd likely not have been able to pull together to win the war.

The military, of course being controlled by the federal government. If we'd have relied on fighting it as 48 independant states, it may not have gone so well.

In fact, many of the reasons we were able to win was that at the federal level, Roosevelt ignored congress voting down his lend=lease program, and bulling ahead with it anyway to continue the aid to Britain.

He's not making any philoisophical argument beyond the central power behind us all. Headquarters, if you will.

At least that is what I'm getting out of it.

~Bang

He's lumping the military in with things like police and roads. If the argument had been, "There are instances in which power is best put in the hands of the federal government," I'd absolutely agree. Instead, he seems to have simply gotten lucky when it comes to naming various activities and happening to land on one that the government is best suited to handle.

And it's hard to argue with the results, as our output dwarfed that of Germany and Russia combined. Many have said that it was our manufacturing, not our troops, that turned the tide in WW2.

America's economic prowess and massive industrial capacity existed before Hitler even came to power, let alone the beginning of WWII.

[zoony]

It will be the societies that allow their government to act on their behalf that will lead the 21st Century.

I love our inherent American distrust of authority. It's what has always made our nation great. However I think at this point in world history, it is going to be a real hindrance for us.

Our workforce will be less skilled, our infrastructure will be inferior, and our corporations will be at a disadvantage. All in the name of "freedom from authority", which, up until now, has served us very well.

[Barney B]

America's economic prowess and massive industrial capacity existed before Hitler even came to power, let alone the beginning of WWII.

Agreed, although between 1940 and '44, GDP went from $101.4 billion to $174.84 billion.

But my point is that it was the federal government which mobilized and directed that capacity with a singleness of purpose which proved very effective, indeed.

You need a huge number of military vehicles in a hurry? Convert a Ford factory by rule of law.

.

[Hubbs]

It will be the societies that allow their government to act on their behalf that will lead the 21st Century.

I love our inherent American distrust of authority. It's what has always made our nation great. However I think at this point in world history, it is going to be a real hindrance for us.

Our workforce will be less skilled, our infrastructure will be inferior, and our corporations will be at a disadvantage. All in the name of "freedom from authority", which, up until now, has served us very well.

Hmmm. Why do you believe that what you wrote is more true about this specific period in time than others? I get the feeling that you would have said the exact same thing in 1962, or 1923, or 1811. :pfft:

[zoony]

even the most fervent of laissez faire proponents, like Adam Smith, still said you needed the government to pay for armies.

.....

[zoony]

Hmmm. Why do you believe that what you wrote is more true about this specific period in time than others? I get the feeling that you would have said the exact same thing in 1962, or 1923, or 1811. :pfft:

You really think that the global sharing of information, people, and ideas is comparable to any of those times in history?

The world is not only much smaller, I think there is a good argument to be made that it is just about as small as it will ever be going forward. Barring the invention of Star Trek beam me up machines (whatever the hell they're called), information is shared essentially at the speed of light and touching every part of the globe.

.......