Roosevelt's "Four Freedoms" Fraud

[Lanval]

You don't like seeing it as stealing at gunpoint. That is okay I guess. I get accused of fantasy and myth, but actually think it is the other way around. I choose to look at truth and reality. You can choose to see it differently, but IT is what IT is. Guns and threat of jail to take money from me against my will. Reality, reality, reality.

Steve,
Please explain to me/us why your version of 'reality' is the correct interpretation? You treat Colin's arguments (and my own) as if we are simple children who don't understand the complexities of life.

You are making fantasy and myth at the level of arguing anything is done against your will ~ either fight back, or go create a place where you can realize your vision.

Finally, you haven't answered the real problem ~ the Libertarian system is run by people. Since people are corrupt, it is self-evident that the Libertarian system will fail. How? I don't know; maybe different than democracy, communism, marxism, socialism, or any other form. But fail it will since:

1. Your system requires people and ethics
2. Your system can't enforce right behavior or ethics an better than any other system.

******************

As for "tinfoil hat" comment; people who discover/believe in conspiracies aren't necessarily crazy/wrong. There ARE conspiracies from time to time. But the claim that everything is pretty much a conspiracy, the gov't doesn't work ~ is clearly oversimplified, and of necessity wrong. Not everything is a conspiracy. Most things aren't, in fact.

Additionally, accept that your interpretation is no more valid than anyone else's and that your "reality" is no more real than any other possible interpretation. Being dismissive of others' beliefs, and acting from a stated position of superiority is insulting at best. I think we're all capable of rational discussion, but when you argue your way is The Way, gosh darn it, prove it! Cite examples and proof! Show a clear trail of evidence leading to a near-irrefutable conclusion.

Best,

Mike (aka Lanval)

[steve74baywin]

You don't like seeing it as stealing at gunpoint. That is okay I guess. I get accused of fantasy and myth, but actually think it is the other way around. I choose to look at truth and reality. You can choose to see it differently, but IT is what IT is. Guns and threat of jail to take money from me against my will. Reality, reality, reality.

Steve,
Please explain to me/us why your version of 'reality' is the correct interpretation? You treat Colin's arguments (and my own) as if we are simple children who don't understand the complexities of life.

You are making fantasy and myth at the level of arguing anything is done against your will ~ either fight back, or go create a place where you can realize your vision.

Finally, you haven't answered the real problem ~ the Libertarian system is run by people. Since people are corrupt, it is self-evident that the Libertarian system will fail. How? I don't know; maybe different than democracy, communism, marxism, socialism, or any other form. But fail it will since:

1. Your system requires people and ethics
2. Your system can't enforce right behavior or ethics an better than any other system.

******************

As for "tinfoil hat" comment; people who discover/believe in conspiracies aren't necessarily crazy/wrong. There ARE conspiracies from time to time. But the claim that everything is pretty much a conspiracy, the gov't doesn't work ~ is clearly oversimplified, and of necessity wrong. Not everything is a conspiracy. Most things aren't, in fact.

Additionally, accept that your interpretation is no more valid than anyone else's and that your "reality" is no more real than any other possible interpretation. Being dismissive of others' beliefs, and acting from a stated position of superiority is insulting at best. I think we're all capable of rational discussion, but when you argue your way is The Way, gosh darn it, prove it! Cite examples and proof! Show a clear trail of evidence leading to a near-irrefutable conclusion.

Best,

Mike (aka Lanval)

My comment was to Colins

I choose not to see stealing at gunpoint. I like

Choosing to not see what is.

How is a Libertarian Gov going to fair better than the rest seeing man still exist? Because it is a LIMITED form of government when man can not make laws infringing upon individual Liberty. It will limit MEN from using the government. All systems require ethics. Crimes are still crimes, although these petty laws into personal life's won't exist, stealing, murder and such will still be a punishable crime. Contracts may still be signed and enforced by courts. People will have to take on more personnel responsibility for their decisions. This is why we as Libertarians say personal responsibility is of importance as a Libertarian, hence why also it is false when one says we are not responsible.

As to

Being dismissive of others' beliefs, and acting from a stated position of superiority is insulting at best. I think we're all capable of rational discussion, but when you argue your way is The Way, gosh darn it, prove it! Cite examples and proof! Show a clear trail of evidence leading to a near-irrefutable conclusion.

What you state is no different than what others, including yourself do. You most certainly are dismissive of my belief's. In fact more people on here are of mine than yours, or at least more people that discuss things with me are against them, dismissive of them to the max.
I think many also state their position is superior or saying "my way", seriously. Almost everytime my position is countered it is an affirmation that they still think they are correct and I am wrong. They show their feeling of superiority when they mention tinfoil hats. And now, once again, I must show proof, clear trail of evidence, I must do far more than anyone else, if I don't accept their "way" superior position on things.
Mirror Mike, look in a mirror.


A letter written by FDR to Colonel House, November 21st, l933

"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson."

Or this by FDR's son-in-law?
Curtis Dall, FDR's son-in-law as quoted in his book, My Exploited Father-in-Law

"For a long time I felt that FDR had developed many thoughts and ideas that were his own to benefit this country, the United States. But, he didn't. Most of his thoughts, his political ammunition, as it were, were carefully manufactured for him in advanced by the Council on Foreign Relations-One World Money group. Brilliantly, with great gusto, like a fine piece of artillery, he exploded that prepared "ammunition" in the middle of an unsuspecting target, the American people, and thus paid off and returned his internationalist political support.

"The UN is but a long-range, international banking apparatus clearly set up for financial and economic profit by a small group of powerful One-World revolutionaries, hungry for profit and power.

"The depression was the calculated 'shearing' of the public by the World Money powers, triggered by the planned sudden shortage of supply of call money in the New York money market....The One World Government leaders and their ever close bankers have now acquired full control of the money and credit machinery of the U.S. via the creation of the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank."

"Franklin Deleno Roosevelt, 1933-1945 D, died
33rd Degree Masons, Skull and Bones, Council on Foreign Relations

[Amskeptic]

You treat Colin's arguments (and my own) as if we are simple children who don't understand the complexities of life.

you haven't answered the real problem ~ the Libertarian system is run by people. Since people are corrupt, it is self-evident that the Libertarian system will fail. How? I don't know;
Additionally, accept that your interpretation is no more valid than anyone else's and that your "reality" is no more real than any other possible interpretation.

My comment was to Colin

I choose not to see stealing at gunpoint. I like

Choosing to not see what is.

We can't have a discussion when participants blanket the exchange with such absolutism. I use the phrase "choose not see" to describe my perspective because that which we all see is informed by our individual beliefs. That was a nuanced and open-ended phrase.
You reply as though I choose not to see because I am in a rose-colored bubble of denial.
I liked Cindy's reply. Informed and not insulting and worthy of a closer read than your absolutism, Steve.
Colin

[steve74baywin]

We can't have a discussion when participants blanket the exchange with such absolutism. I use the phrase "choose not see" to describe my perspective because that which we all see is informed by our individual beliefs. That was a nuanced and open-ended phrase.
You reply as though I choose not to see because I am in a rose-colored bubble of denial.
I liked Cindy's reply. Informed and not insulting and worthy of a closer read than your absolutism, Steve.
Colin

Colin, that is a major point of my beef against the current way things are done and the large government we have,,,the guns and threat of jail part. I think it is not taken into account like it should be, hence people can get all good feelings about things they want the gov to do, when the truth is they are getting a mob to use guns to achieve this. This is a big part of my point. When you counter it by saying, I choose to not see the guns, that doesn't help any, that just confirms what I see as a big part of the problem. I don't know if this helps you understand why I couldn't just let that go, it is too major to the problem in my eyes.

I have read Cindy's reply at least three times. I too think it was very good, I replied to it.
That's about all I can say. My reply, says what I thought.


I wanted to add more to my reply to Lanval, the one I did last night could be hard to follow. What I am saying is, when someone counters back to continue to attempt to help me see things there way, to me isn't that because they think there ways is correct and mine is not? Is that what most of us are doing most of the time, with the exceptions when we are trying to learn something new, but all the attempts to discuss here with me, most of them are because people feel there way is correct, mine is not, there are attempting to get me to see why there way is better than mine. I don't see where what I am doing is different than that. I just don't complain about.
My gf Jill used to say alot, your interrupting me, I finally had to point out that sometimes it was she who interrupted me, or she was getting mad that I didn't let her re-interrupt me.

[Amskeptic]

that is a major point of my beef against the current way things are done and the large government we have,,,the guns and threat of jail part.

We The People have agreed to allow ourselves to be members of a larger community, the Nation, within which we have agreed to Obey Laws with spelled-out consequences arrived at by a jury of our peers with protections against double jeopardy, etc. Guns and the threat of jail are absolutely necessary to establish boundaries that wayward citizens must not exceed . . . anarchy comes when the State is unable to back up the Laws that we all agreed to. We still have the power to change laws via voting and petitions. Guns and the threat of jail go back to when our Nation was days old.
Colin

[ruckman101]

As far as I can tell, from reading the Libertarian party platform, most of the Libertarian ideas have already been tried and have failed. In fact, our economic issues are in large part because of banks and money corporations enjoying a free-market hey-day without any government oversight, the Libertarian approach certainly didn't help Iceland any, either. A nice dream. And I still don't like the idea of my neighbor exercising his liberties afforded him as a property owner to profit by storing radioactive waste on his back forty.


neal

[steve74baywin]

that is a major point of my beef against the current way things are done and the large government we have,,,the guns and threat of jail part.

We The People have agreed to allow ourselves to be members of a larger community, the Nation, within which we have agreed to Obey Laws with spelled-out consequences arrived at by a jury of our peers with protections against double jeopardy, etc. Guns and the threat of jail are absolutely necessary to establish boundaries that wayward citizens must not exceed . . . anarchy comes when the State is unable to back up the Laws that we all agreed to. We still have the power to change laws via voting and petitions. Guns and the threat of jail go back to when our Nation was days old.
Colin

"We The People", what is that a cult or corporation? I have not agreed with that. I agree with a document called the declaration of independence. The current government violates that. I do not know of the system you speak, especially the thing about changing laws and voting system, it seems to me they keep showing polls that shows 80% of people for something, yet the government doesn't do it. I am not sure of the system you speak of Colin.

[steve74baywin]

As far as I can tell, from reading the Libertarian party platform, most of the Libertarian ideas have already been tried and have failed. In fact, our economic issues are in large part because of banks and money corporations enjoying a free-market hey-day without any government oversight, the Libertarian approach certainly didn't help Iceland any, either. A nice dream. And I still don't like the idea of my neighbor exercising his liberties afforded him as a property owner to profit by storing radioactive waste on his back forty.


neal

Neal, the first step we took that no longer conformed to the platform, would then mean we no longer followed it. It you want to say that we came close to that form of Government but quickly changed from it, I will give you that. What you say above seems to be an outright, or an intentional stab at misinformation.
It sounds to me like we needed to make certain we stuck to that form of government. It is not fair to say in didn't work, when the things that aided in it not working where changes to it. That's like taking a factory original VW air cooled engine in a beetle, putting some crazy mods on it, then when it breaks down, you blame the original VW air cooled design.
That just ain't right. In fact in that case, one would say, you should have left the original design alone.

[ruckman101]

What form of government has ever been implemented as purely as the philosophical ideals that define it?


neal

[steve74baywin]

What form of government has ever been implemented as purely as the philosophical ideals that define it?


neal

Probably none.

[Lanval]

Steve, I have to wonder if you've actually read the declaration, or are you just saying what you believe?

Here's the concluding paragraph:

"We, therefore, the Representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly Publish and Declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, Free and Independent States; that they are absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political Connection between them and the State of Great-Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of the divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
Signed by Order and in Behalf of the Congress,
JOHN HANCOCK, President." (italics are mine)

What is the US doing that violates those precepts ~ be specific, and explain why your interpretation is correct.

Respectfully,

Mike

[steve74baywin]

Steve, I have to wonder if you've actually read the declaration, or are you just saying what you believe?

Here's the concluding paragraph:

"We, therefore, the Representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly Publish and Declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, Free and Independent States; that they are absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political Connection between them and the State of Great-Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of the divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
Signed by Order and in Behalf of the Congress,
JOHN HANCOCK, President." (italics are mine)

What is the US doing that violates those precepts ~ be specific, and explain why your interpretation is correct.

Respectfully,

Mike

From what you quoted, "Free and Independent States"
Not Federal dictating to states. Many Federal laws including the income tax, drug laws, Patriot Act.


Did you ever read this part?

This is the part I was thinking of

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 among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

It late on the East Coast, that as in depth as I can do now.
Hope your having a good weekend

[Lanval]

Steve, I have to wonder if you've actually read the declaration, or are you just saying what you believe?

Here's the concluding paragraph:

"We, therefore, the Representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly Publish and Declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, Free and Independent States; that they are absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political Connection between them and the State of Great-Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of the divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
Signed by Order and in Behalf of the Congress,
JOHN HANCOCK, President." (italics are mine)

What is the US doing that violates those precepts ~ be specific, and explain why your interpretation is correct.

Respectfully,

Mike

From what you quoted, "Free and Independent States"
Not Federal dictating to states. Many Federal laws including the income tax, drug laws, Patriot Act.


Did you ever read this part?

This is the part I was thinking of

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 among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

It late on the East Coast, that as in depth as I can do now.
Hope your having a good weekend

Steve, quoting the introduction of the Declaration back to me does nothing, since;

1. If I'm quoting the original text, it's self-evident that I've read the section you're quoting
2. The introduction DOES NOT refute conclusion
3. Point to a few words and claiming that proves your point DOES NOT constitute an "explanation"

*******************

Some things for you to consider also:

1. The declaration is NOT a governing document ~ it's a statement of ideology
2. The same guys who wrote the words you're quoting also wrote the Articles of Confederation; it was a loose grouping of independent states with little to no capacity to function at the federal level

AND

3. THE SAME GUYS THREW IT AWAY AND REWROTE A STRONG FEDERAL GOVERNMENT after 10 years because THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION DIDN'T WORK.

*******************

If you don't agree with the system, try and change it. from inside, from outside, whatever floats your boat. Your attempts to hang your ideology on the Founding Fathers (who would have repudiated it anyway) are misdirection at best, fundamentally ignorant at worst.

Even if you argued that the current government doesn't represent your vision, you're wrong. That's exactly why the Founding Fathers included the amendment process. They forsaw the development of different ideals historically (after all, they were only 100 years removed from the difficulties of the Stuart family and their attempts to import French absolutism to England), and consequently understood that the men of tomorrow would need a way to adapt the governmental form and function as time passed, ideas changed and America grew.

Why do you find that so hard to understand? Just because you don't agree with the gov't means nothing; there's clearly a system in place even within the gov't to effect change. The 60's proved that it could be done from outside to. The gov't is both legal and just in the sense of a democratic republic. If you don't like it, invest in change. But don't make arbitrary claims that are ahistorical and unexplained. That's hard for people of any stripe to follow.

Best,

Mike

[Cindy]

Nice post, Mike. I know a fellow historian when I see one.

Cindy

[Lanval]

Nice post, Mike. I know a fellow historian when I see one.

Cindy

Well, I was sucked into teaching AP US history about 6 years ago, but I've always liked history, so I went willingly. Besides, my area of expertise (ABD) is medieval lit, which means I'm at least half-historian anyway.

As I re-read my post though, too strident and not enough reference to things that would support my points! Ack, I'm the guy I am constantly hassling!

**************************

What areas did you focus on during your Master's work?

**************************

Steve,

I'll add this. I think there's a real problem with invoking constitutionality in general, and that's because so much of what's done is done through interpretation of the constitution. Jefferson was hard-core enough to demand the Bill of Rights as quid pro quo for accepting the newly strengthened federal gov't as presented in the Constitution. I think his credentials in terms of 'states rights' are as good as anyone's ever.

But even Jefferson, when president, discovered that absolute obedience to a constitutional ideal was easier said than done. When Marshall's Supreme Court supported Jefferson in Marbury vs. Madison it was iffy on both sides. Marshall was a Federalist through and through; he would have preferred the Midnight Judges be seated, since they were an attempt by Adams to pack courts with Federalist-sympthetic judges.

Marshall knew though, that if he ruled in favor of the Midnight Judges, Jefferson might well stonewall and refuse to seat them, essentially undercutting the authority of the Supreme Court. Likewise, Jefferson had found that Federal authority was important to the role of the President. The decision served both sides well; though Adams' judges should probably have been seated, Jefferson got to place his own people instead, and by acknowledging the court's review and ultimately beneficial decision (to Jefferson, at least) Jefferson enabled the SCOTUS to assert Judicial Review as a privilege of the court (as it is nowhere stated in the Constitution that they had the right/authority to do so).

I'll conclude this by asking, Steve, if you're presenting a "states rights" argument that limits the role of the federal gov't in all but a few areas of local (understood: state) gov't? If so, I'm wondering if you're really in favor of giving up:

Disaster relief
Roads
Flood control
Education
and so on.

I'll give you an example: Here in California, there's a good deal of handwringing regarding education. There's not enough money, etc. But in fact there is. California is a net loser in federal dollars. We pay more in taxes than we get in services; but I don't really resent it, because that money goes to places that can't support themselves (West Virginia perhaps, or a variety of horrendously poor counties in the south) and pays for things like school lunches, clean drinking water or even electrical service. In return, those people serve our country in various ways. Left to themselves some states would flourish because of geographical fortune; others would wither due to local problems.

Case in point: Florida. Remember Hurricane Andrew? Remember all the other hurricanes that wreak havoc every year or two? If it weren't for that "gunpoint tax" you talk about on people like me, Florida would still look like it did the day after Andrew. The vast majority of money used to rebuild in places like that is federal, and not from the local economy.

I used to resent that sort of thing... after all, who lives in a place that nature tries to wipe off the map every couple of years? But teaching US History has given me a new-found respect for the depth of the Founder's understanding of human nature, and how to best bind men together. During the easy times, every man for himself works fine. It's when things are going badly that the quote so often attributed to Franklin ring truest:

"Gentlemen, we must all hang together or assuredly we shall hang separately."

Now I think it's not only my duty to extend help to those in need, but it's my right.

E Pluribus Unum indeed.

Best,

Mike