Roosevelt's "Four Freedoms" Fraud

[Cindy]

American history with concentrations in American religion and race theory. My thesis--higher education and its effect on the Oneida Community--a mid-nineteenth century utopian society.

If I go on for a PhD I will probably look into twentieth-century consumerism. Industrialization, advertising, etc. Love that stuff. Or maybe the Cold War era. It's so hard to choose!

Cindy

[steve74baywin]

gosh darn it, prove it! Cite examples and proof! Show a clear trail of evidence leading to a near-irrefutable conclusion.

Mike, I do not think anyone can PROVE beyond doubt with evidence their way, you ask an impossibility, no one on here can prove their way is best.
You and others prove your side first, then I will see if I can prove mine. You can't ask me to do something you yourself have not done.

If I was to attempt to, I would show the interpretation I think has been violated, we would disagree on that, and the next and the next. I think it is interesting you in a later post mention the very same thing about interpretation of the constitution.
Be careful posting multiplies after I replied and said it was late here, and wouldn't be able to reply further, you might be found guilty of what Turk does.
BTW, do not be too proud of what you learned in history, it is well know that the victors of war write the history, what you learn in school is not the total history, can you prove it is?


Here is something I was thinking of posting yesterday.

I, Steve says things are so messed up, we are not in control, we need major corrections in the system. And then,
Others say,We the people are in charge, we vote in the politicians.
Steve: How come what the people want isn't what is happening, drug laws, wars, the detainees?
Others, there are others that know more, that is why they didn't do what we want.
Steve: Then we don't have a government that does what we want, we need to change it.
Others, We the people are in charge, we vote in the politicians.
Steve: How come what the people want isn't what is happening, drug laws, wars, the detainees?
Others, there are others that know more, that is why they didn't do what we want.
Steve: Then we don't have a government that does what we want, we need to change it.
Others, We the people are in charge, we vote in the politicians.
Steve: How come what the people want isn't what is happening, drug laws, wars, the detainees?
Others, there are others that know more, that is why they didn't do what we want.
Steve: Then we don't have a government that does what we want, we need to change it.
Others, We the people are in charge, we vote in the politicians.
Steve: How come what the people want isn't what is happening, drug laws, wars, the detainees?
Others, there are others that know more, that is why they didn't do what we want.
Steve: Then we don't have a government that does what we want, we need to change it.
Others, We the people are in charge, we vote in the politicians.

Do you see why I am not getting convinced?


Why not take the time to say why what FDR and his son in law said is of no value? Some on here will say no biggie, they know the CFR is behind the scenes, and they agree and like that. Either way, why don't you comment on that? You may look up his son in law and say, there are 5 people who say he just hated his father in law and lied, that is a possibility I know could be.


As far as your post about Fl hurricanes, a total waste of time. That ASSUMES only your way could have taking care of things. Wow, look at you now, you seem to think your way is superior, that the ONLY way FL could have survived was via gun point taxes. Talk about arrogance and a closed mine. Thinking people could only be helped by pointing guns, sounds like a sick world. Exactly why it needs to be fixed. Pointing guns at people, that is the way to solve problems. Write a book. Guns pointing at people saves the world, it makes people nice and it makes them charitably, guns for all, point a gun at your neighbors head, and then he will be nice and give you things, all hale guns. Who needs Jesus, who needs ghandi, we have guns.

And now, this comment puzzles me the most. You have said it twice in this thread.
You keep saying fight back, or do something.
Chee, I think that is what I am doing by attempting here in the Free Speech forum to get people to see it my way.
I guess if one things the ONLY way is to be a politician what you say might make sense, but we have Libertarians running every year. We need votes, people vote. We need numbers, we need people to see what is wrong and what would be correct. That is what I am doing, I spend tons of time doing it. Why do you keep telling me to do something, I am, I am.

Why did I post a part of the Decl of Ind to you, because you wondered if I ever read it. You know, that sarcastic comment you made. Looks like you are more like me than you thought. I posted it to show you I have read it, and one of the parts I like most. Sorry you forgot that you wondered if I ever read it.

So now, let me be like I think Mike is.
Mike, are you going to show a clear trail of evidence leading to a near-irrefutable conclusion that your way is right?
Are you going to comment on the FDR's letter to General House?
Are you going to comment on FDR's son-in-law?

[Lanval]

gosh darn it, prove it! Cite examples and proof! Show a clear trail of evidence leading to a near-irrefutable conclusion.

Mike, I do not think anyone can PROVE beyond doubt with evidence their way, you ask an impossibility, no one on here can prove their way is best.
You and others prove your side first, then I will see if I can prove mine. You can't ask me to do something you yourself have not done.

If I was to attempt to, I would show the interpretation I think has been violated, we would disagree on that, and the next and the next. I think it is interesting you in a later post mention the very same thing about interpretation of the constitution.
Be careful posting multiplies after I replied and said it was late here, and wouldn't be able to reply further, you might be found guilty of what Turk does.
BTW, do not be too proud of what you learned in history, it is well know that the victors of war write the history, what you learn in school is not the total history, can you prove it is?


Here is something I was thinking of posting yesterday.

I, Steve says things are so messed up, we are not in control, we need major corrections in the system. And then,
Others say,We the people are in charge, we vote in the politicians.
Steve: How come what the people want isn't what is happening, drug laws, wars, the detainees?
Others, there are others that know more, that is why they didn't do what we want.
Steve: Then we don't have a government that does what we want, we need to change it.
Others, We the people are in charge, we vote in the politicians.
Steve: How come what the people want isn't what is happening, drug laws, wars, the detainees?
Others, there are others that know more, that is why they didn't do what we want.
Steve: Then we don't have a government that does what we want, we need to change it.
Others, We the people are in charge, we vote in the politicians.
Steve: How come what the people want isn't what is happening, drug laws, wars, the detainees?
Others, there are others that know more, that is why they didn't do what we want.
Steve: Then we don't have a government that does what we want, we need to change it.
Others, We the people are in charge, we vote in the politicians.
Steve: How come what the people want isn't what is happening, drug laws, wars, the detainees?
Others, there are others that know more, that is why they didn't do what we want.
Steve: Then we don't have a government that does what we want, we need to change it.
Others, We the people are in charge, we vote in the politicians.

Do you see why I am not getting convinced?


Why not take the time to say why what FDR and his son in law said is of no value? Some on here will say no biggie, they know the CFR is behind the scenes, and they agree and like that. Either way, why don't you comment on that? You may look up his son in law and say, there are 5 people who say he just hated his father in law and lied, that is a possibility I know could be.


As far as your post about Fl hurricanes, a total waste of time. That ASSUMES only your way could have taking care of things. Wow, look at you now, you seem to think your way is superior, that the ONLY way FL could have survived was via gun point taxes. Talk about arrogance and a closed mine. Thinking people could only be helped by pointing guns, sounds like a sick world. Exactly why it needs to be fixed. Pointing guns at people, that is the way to solve problems. Write a book. Guns pointing at people saves the world, it makes people nice and it makes them charitably, guns for all, point a gun at your neighbors head, and then he will be nice and give you things, all hale guns. Who needs Jesus, who needs ghandi, we have guns.

And now, this comment puzzles me the most. You have said it twice in this thread.
You keep saying fight back, or do something.
Chee, I think that is what I am doing by attempting here in the Free Speech forum to get people to see it my way.
I guess if one things the ONLY way is to be a politician what you say might make sense, but we have Libertarians running every year. We need votes, people vote. We need numbers, we need people to see what is wrong and what would be correct. That is what I am doing, I spend tons of time doing it. Why do you keep telling me to do something, I am, I am.

Why did I post a part of the Decl of Ind to you, because you wondered if I ever read it. You know, that sarcastic comment you made. Looks like you are more like me than you thought. I posted it to show you I have read it, and one of the parts I like most. Sorry you forgot that you wondered if I ever read it.

So now, let me be like I think Mike is.
Mike, are you going to show a clear trail of evidence leading to a near-irrefutable conclusion that your way is right?
Are you going to comment on the FDR's letter to General House?
Are you going to comment on FDR's son-in-law?

I won't have time today, to respond to this, but I will in a couple of days, and in detail.

The single point I want to address here is your claim that the declaration was your basis for your Libertarian beliefs. I asked if you read it because the the declaration very clearly states the the method for ensuring those individual liberties is a representative gov't that can declare war, tax people and everything else a state can do. Therefore, according to your own claim, you are wrong. If the Declaration is your basis for your beliefs on individual liberty, then it MUST ALSO be the basis for a just and legal tax code, method for war and so on. Thus you cannot claim that paying taxes is illegal according to the Declaration of Independence. You will not be allowed (here, by me; other places by other people) to selectively read documents to support a position. Either accept the words of the Declaration in toto or don't bother using it.

Mike

[steve74baywin]

I won't have time today, to respond to this, but I will in a couple of days, and in detail.

The single point I want to address here is your claim that the declaration was your basis for your Libertarian beliefs. I asked if you read it because the the declaration very clearly states the the method for ensuring those individual liberties is a representative gov't that can declare war, tax people and everything else a state can do. Therefore, according to your own claim, you are wrong. If the Declaration is your basis for your beliefs on individual liberty, then it MUST ALSO be the basis for a just and legal tax code, method for war and so on. Thus you cannot claim that paying taxes is illegal according to the Declaration of Independence. You will not be allowed (here, by me; other places by other people) to selectively read documents to support a position. Either accept the words of the Declaration in toto or don't bother using it.

Mike

I probably should have not have said the Declaration of Independence.
It is a combination of it, The Bill of Rights and the Constitution.
They had to do an amendment to the Constitution for the income tax.
One reason why I think the doc should be fixed,,unable to be changed.
Maybe I should state this.
I do feel we need to revert back and change thinks.
It would be great to undue most of what was done in the last 100 years when it comes to the Constitution, Bills and laws.
Then even better than that would be back to the original, with of course blacks as free, and bullet proof so it can't be changed like it was to what "I" feel is not correct...I say to what I feel because I know there isn't A correct provable way.
I look forward to future discussion with you. Have a good day.

[Lanval]

I won't have time today, to respond to this, but I will in a couple of days, and in detail.

The single point I want to address here is your claim that the declaration was your basis for your Libertarian beliefs. I asked if you read it because the the declaration very clearly states the the method for ensuring those individual liberties is a representative gov't that can declare war, tax people and everything else a state can do. Therefore, according to your own claim, you are wrong. If the Declaration is your basis for your beliefs on individual liberty, then it MUST ALSO be the basis for a just and legal tax code, method for war and so on. Thus you cannot claim that paying taxes is illegal according to the Declaration of Independence. You will not be allowed (here, by me; other places by other people) to selectively read documents to support a position. Either accept the words of the Declaration in toto or don't bother using it.

Mike

1. I probably should have not have said the Declaration of Independence.
It is a combination of it, The Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

2. They had to do an amendment to the Constitution for the income tax.

3. One reason why I think the doc should be fixed,,unable to be changed.

4. It would be great to undue most of what was done in the last 100 years when it comes to the Constitution, Bills and laws.

5. Then even better than that would be back to the original, with of course blacks as free,

6. and bullet proof so it can't be changed like it was to what "I" feel is not correct...I say to what I feel because I know there isn't A correct provable way.
I look forward to future discussion with you. Have a good day.

I've separated your points above so I can speak to each one:

1. Even so, you're still selectively reading the documents in question, keeping what you like while throwing out what you don't like. This completely ignores the framers' original intent that the entire constitution in it's current form was necessary to maintain effective governance.

2. Who cares if they had to do an amendment for income tax? They had to do an amendment for free speech too! And the right to keep and bear arms (one that I'm particularly attached to). The framers put the amendment process in there to address problems they couldn't foresee. Just because you don't like the answers doesn't mean they are either illegal or forced on you.

3. So you want a government based on a document that can't change. Would you be OK with a government based on the ideals of 18th century monarchy? How about 8th century monarchy? Or the Old Roman Republic? Those are all previous governmental forms, and I'm guessing you wouldn't want to live in them. I certainly don't. But how is your document going to adapt to changes in ideals, perceptions, values and so on?

Or, I guess maybe I should ask this: would you prefer an occasional revolution (say every couple of hundred years) as a way of renewing the ideals of government? (Note: That's a serious question. Jefferson argued that, "the tree of liberty needs from time to time to be watered with the blood of patriots." I've often wondered if he thought it would be better to blow up the gov't every so often, so we can start over. I'm not sure that he'd be wrong there, so I'm asking seriously if that's built into your ideals.)

4. Here's a list of the amendments from the last 100 years; which ones are you against? Women's suffrage (i.e. they can vote)? Defining the process of presidential succession? Limiting the president to 10 years in office? Requiring Senators to be directly elected? I don't see much in there that hurts the people...

16th Allows the federal government to collect income tax July 12, 1909 February 3, 1913
17th Requires senators to be directly elected May 13, 1912 April 8, 1913
18th Establishes Prohibition of alcohol (Repealed by Twenty-first Amendment) December 18, 1917 January 16, 1919
19th Establishes women's suffrage June 4, 1919 August 18, 1920
20th Fixes the dates of term commencements for Congress (January 3) and the President (January 20); known as the "lame duck amendment" March 2, 1932 January 23, 1933
21st Repeals the Eighteenth Amendment February 20, 1933 December 5, 1933 Fu
22nd Limits the president to two terms, or a maximum of 10 years (i.e., if a Vice President serves not more than one half of a President's term, they can be elected to a further two terms) March 24, 1947 February 27, 1951
23rd Provides for representation of Washington, D.C. in the Electoral College June 16, 1960 March 29, 1961
24th Prohibits the revocation of voting rights due to the non-payment of poll taxes September 14, 1962 January 23, 1964
25th Codifies the Tyler Precedent; defines the process of presidential succession July 6, 1965 February 10, 1967
26th Establishes 18 as the national voting age March 23, 1971 July 1, 1971
27th Prevents laws affecting Congressional salary from taking effect until the beginning of the next session of Congress

5. You can't argue for ahistorical facts. You can't say "go back to the original [which is what? You don't specify that, and it's pretty important, but I'll assume you mean the Constitution with the first 10 amendments] except for freeing the blacks". Don't you get that they weren't free? That the whole point of their freedom through constitutional amendment makes your argument look silly? In the colonial period, there was considerable discussion of this problem, but the framers didn't deal with it. Thank God they left us a way to do so, or look where we'd be. Stuck with slavery. And no vote for anybody but wealthy landholders.

6. Sure there's bulletproof evidence. Show me where the ideals that you espouse are working. Show me a place where I can look (it can be any form of organization of people) and show me that people can live according to the rules you'd like to see. Anywhere.

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

Don't get me wrong, by the way. I'm a hell of a lot more Libertarian than you think I am. The problem is that the Libertarian version of gov't looks like a fantasy. Others, including a friend of mine who has an Honors degree in History from the University of Oregon describes Libertarian ideals as "a wish to return to an 1820's Jeffersonian democracy." I think he's right. Sometimes I wish that too; then, instead of paying outrageous rents to monopolistic landlords, I could just wander out into the wilderness and carve a mammoth farm out of the landscape (nevermind that those "Jeffersonian farmers" relied on the US to deal with the people who owned the land to begin with; ideology only goes so far; when you've got natives to kill, well, every man's a federalist isn't he?). But that isn't very realistic, and I still would like to see you answer both Neal's problem and mine:

1. How am I to stop my neighbor from doing things on his land that are unhealthy or undesirable?
2. Are you really willing to do away with federal taxation for things like disaster relief?

Best,

Mike

[Lanval]

BTW, Cindy, I'm trusting you to correct me where I've oversimplified or gone off track! Keep us on the historical straight and narrow, I say!

Mike

[Cindy]

BTW, Cindy, I'm trusting you to correct me where I've oversimplified or gone off track! Keep us on the historical straight and narrow, I say!

Mike

I'll do my best and same here. Need to find time later to go through these posts! Interesting discussion!

Cindy

[steve74baywin]

I've separated your points above so I can speak to each one:

1. Even so, you're still selectively reading the documents in question, keeping what you like while throwing out what you don't like. This completely ignores the framers' original intent that the entire constitution in it's current form was necessary to maintain effective governance.

2. Who cares if they had to do an amendment for income tax? They had to do an amendment for free speech too! And the right to keep and bear arms (one that I'm particularly attached to). The framers put the amendment process in there to address problems they couldn't foresee. Just because you don't like the answers doesn't mean they are either illegal or forced on you.

3. So you want a government based on a document that can't change. Would you be OK with a government based on the ideals of 18th century monarchy? How about 8th century monarchy? Or the Old Roman Republic? Those are all previous governmental forms, and I'm guessing you wouldn't want to live in them. I certainly don't. But how is your document going to adapt to changes in ideals, perceptions, values and so on?

Or, I guess maybe I should ask this: would you prefer an occasional revolution (say every couple of hundred years) as a way of renewing the ideals of government? (Note: That's a serious question. Jefferson argued that, "the tree of liberty needs from time to time to be watered with the blood of patriots." I've often wondered if he thought it would be better to blow up the gov't every so often, so we can start over. I'm not sure that he'd be wrong there, so I'm asking seriously if that's built into your ideals.)

4. Here's a list of the amendments from the last 100 years; which ones are you against? Women's suffrage (i.e. they can vote)? Defining the process of presidential succession? Limiting the president to 10 years in office? Requiring Senators to be directly elected? I don't see much in there that hurts the people...

16th Allows the federal government to collect income tax July 12, 1909 February 3, 1913
17th Requires senators to be directly elected May 13, 1912 April 8, 1913
18th Establishes Prohibition of alcohol (Repealed by Twenty-first Amendment) December 18, 1917 January 16, 1919
19th Establishes women's suffrage June 4, 1919 August 18, 1920
20th Fixes the dates of term commencements for Congress (January 3) and the President (January 20); known as the "lame duck amendment" March 2, 1932 January 23, 1933
21st Repeals the Eighteenth Amendment February 20, 1933 December 5, 1933 Fu
22nd Limits the president to two terms, or a maximum of 10 years (i.e., if a Vice President serves not more than one half of a President's term, they can be elected to a further two terms) March 24, 1947 February 27, 1951
23rd Provides for representation of Washington, D.C. in the Electoral College June 16, 1960 March 29, 1961
24th Prohibits the revocation of voting rights due to the non-payment of poll taxes September 14, 1962 January 23, 1964
25th Codifies the Tyler Precedent; defines the process of presidential succession July 6, 1965 February 10, 1967
26th Establishes 18 as the national voting age March 23, 1971 July 1, 1971
27th Prevents laws affecting Congressional salary from taking effect until the beginning of the next session of Congress

5. You can't argue for ahistorical facts. You can't say "go back to the original [which is what? You don't specify that, and it's pretty important, but I'll assume you mean the Constitution with the first 10 amendments] except for freeing the blacks". Don't you get that they weren't free? That the whole point of their freedom through constitutional amendment makes your argument look silly? In the colonial period, there was considerable discussion of this problem, but the framers didn't deal with it. Thank God they left us a way to do so, or look where we'd be. Stuck with slavery. And no vote for anybody but wealthy landholders.

6. Sure there's bulletproof evidence. Show me where the ideals that you espouse are working. Show me a place where I can look (it can be any form of organization of people) and show me that people can live according to the rules you'd like to see. Anywhere.

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

Don't get me wrong, by the way. I'm a hell of a lot more Libertarian than you think I am. The problem is that the Libertarian version of gov't looks like a fantasy. Others, including a friend of mine who has an Honors degree in History from the University of Oregon describes Libertarian ideals as "a wish to return to an 1820's Jeffersonian democracy." I think he's right. Sometimes I wish that too; then, instead of paying outrageous rents to monopolistic landlords, I could just wander out into the wilderness and carve a mammoth farm out of the landscape (nevermind that those "Jeffersonian farmers" relied on the US to deal with the people who owned the land to begin with; ideology only goes so far; when you've got natives to kill, well, every man's a federalist isn't he?). But that isn't very realistic, and I still would like to see you answer both Neal's problem and mine:

1. How am I to stop my neighbor from doing things on his land that are unhealthy or undesirable?
2. Are you really willing to do away with federal taxation for things like disaster relief?

Best,

Mike

Responses to yours.
1) I disagree, I think you are guilty of what you say I am doing.
2) Who cares they did these amendments? I do, and many others. If it was written as some had wanted and not others, there never would have been a need to change it. There were people back them waiting to take over, like they did.
3) No, I don't want crappy docs that can't change, but one written to keep people free.
One that would have prevented it from getting back to like a king where there are too many taxes, wars, etc.


The basic reason you don't see my way as working is a major lack of understanding of it.
If individual liberties are protected, you wouldn't have needed those amendments.
For starters, I have said that certain things should be changed from the original, like protecting all humans, including blacks and women. Once one is written treating all humans equal, then end of story.

It is that simple. Yep, without going to each change you list, none of them needed. The need to worry about Senators and pres term wouldn't matter. They wouldn't need to write laws constantly. They were only given the power by the people alive back then to protect there rights and safety. All those changes are needed only if you think of the government as a tool to stack the cards in certain peoples favor. All those changes are do to the form of gov some people want.

But, maybe I will address each one.

First though, make note of the dates, shortly after Cecil's Rhodes idea of round tables got into effect.

16th Allows the federal government to collect income tax July 12, 1909 February 3, 1913

I have no clue why this one was needed, 100 plus years without it. Isn't there something earlier on in the constitution about congress not having the power to levy no new taxes, like one on income??????? Oh, and did you read how not all the states bought into this. If anything, the states perhaps could have done it, but federal, no way.

17th Requires senators to be directly elected May 13, 1912 April 8, 1913

Same year the bankers really got a hold of our gov...See FDR's quote.
This one not needed, not much senators could have done to effect us negatively if limited gov was in effect.

18th Establishes Prohibition of alcohol (Repealed by Twenty-first Amendment) December 18, 1917 January 16, 1919

Wouldn't have happened if gov limited.

19th Establishes women's suffrage June 4, 1919 August 18, 1920

If all humans individual rights and liberty observed, no need for this one.

20th Fixes the dates of term commencements for Congress (January 3) and the President (January 20); known as the "lame duck amendment" March 2, 1932 January 23, 1933

No need for this one either.

No need to comment on the rest.

This is just an example of our hijacked government. It took about 100 years for the people to not understand what is was like to be under the rule of a King and why they broke away from a king. An example of how a government grows.

Was not this country started with an emphasis on property rights? Property being the persons own body and what he owned? That was never supposed to be violated. The phrase "King of your own Castle" I believe was started back then. Before, the kings owned the land, you entered his land, he was king of it. Your own house and body you are now supposed to be King of. Any laws pertaining to what I do in my home is a violation. Any tax on me is a violation. I say it is time to throw them out. Does it say in there that we should do that in certain cases?
There just are certain things no man of gov can decide upon another persons life.
If you want to cling to some old documents written by others to say, hey, they can do that over your life, then fine. But I would think that the only one that can give them permission to makes rules on my life is me. And I do not give them permission.
In fact, I think most people in this country didn't give them permission for the income tax, hence why they use guns to enforce it.
If there was a vote today, or last year, or 30 years ago, the people would not have said yes, we want our income to be taxed. They do not do what WE THE PEOPLE elect them to do. If so, there never would have been an income tax, an Iraq war, war on drugs.
Sorry, if you want to think some other entity has that power, fine. I do not. And I especially will not recognize the entity that lies and steals from me at gun point.
Maybe that is the difference, some see themselves as peasants, some do not.

Edited to add, I know your not going to satisfied with my answers. This boils down to a few differences. The above was probably a waste of my time.
Give me a few minutes. I think we need clarification of a few basics.

[steve74baywin]

Lanval, here is a few words and definitions that lead to my convictions.

A right as defined by Black's Law Dictionary as "a power, privilege, faculty, or demand, inherent in one person and incident upon another...the powers of free action."
Please note that rights are inherent in a person. That means it is physically impossible for rights to be extracted from a person by any means.

Some define a right as something you can do without asking permission.
A privilege use to be granted by the King who was the Sovereign, he owned the property, he had the rights.
All rights are derived from property
Every right implies a responsibility
The only limitation on your rights is the equal right of others.
Our rights proceed any documents done by this country.
Sovereign: A person, body, or state in which independent and supreme authority is vested, a chief ruler with supreme power, a king or other ruler in a monarchy.
When we initially declared our independence, we told the king we were sovereign citizens, endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. They were claiming the same right as the king, including the right to own their own land. That is where the phrase "A man's home is his castle" comes from.
We were Sovereign Citizens of the state we lived in and all the united states. After freeing the slaves, they came up with civil liberties, and slowly drifted from referring to us as Sovereign Citizens.

Also, rights in the past we derived from the battlefield, he who won the war, claims the rights. It was the people who won the war.
I do not have the power to make rules in someone else's home.
If we create a government, we can not give that government power we do not have. If we do not have such power, we can not give that power to a government. You can't delegate and give something you do not have. So a group still can't be ruler of a person's life.

I doubt this will make much difference, but that is where I am coming from.

Edited to add,
I would really like to hear some comments from you on FDR and his Son in Laws quotes.
Is that one of those things that people "choose to not see"?

[Lanval]

Well, it doesn't make much difference in that you ultimately:

1. Can't argue how the exercise of those rights work in the case of a conflict in perceived rights
2. Can't ensure that your system is in any safe from the same abuses you catalog in other systems
3. Can't account for the ethics of your "every man for yourself"
4. Can't explain why, if our rights preceded the Declaration, we needed the Declaration
5. Can't account for how "all rights are derived from property" ~ in what sense? And what about people who don't own property?
6. Can't explain how, if we can't cede our rights to the gov't, voluntary service works

There are so many things you're working with, but no amount of throwing terms around is going to lend coherence to your grab-bag individualist philosophy. There's no "here" here. Your beliefs are as "made up" as any other... where's the proof that rights come from property? That's an opinion, and actually, not a very sensible one...

I'll come back to FDR and his ideas tomorrow. You deserve an answer to that question. Do I deserve one? We'll see...

Michael

[steve74baywin]

American history with concentrations in American religion and race theory. My thesis--higher education and its effect on the Oneida Community--a mid-nineteenth century utopian society.

If I go on for a PhD I will probably look into twentieth-century consumerism. Industrialization, advertising, etc. Love that stuff. Or maybe the Cold War era. It's so hard to choose!

Cindy

Sounds like good stuff. I never heard of the Oneida Community, a quick search brought up some interesting things.

[Amskeptic]

So a group still can't be ruler of a person's life.
I doubt this will make much difference, but that is where I am coming from.

Edited to add,
I would really like to hear some comments from you on FDR and his Son in Laws quotes.
Is that one of those things that people "choose to not see"?

Your response is sprinkled with "would not be necessary" if people "understood their rights".

What you choose not to see, is that there are far fewer absolutes in this world than you may hope for. A group sure as shit can be the ruler of a person's life, are you kidding? Threats of violence and exploitation are raging under the surface at all times. Laws and government are but thin veneers. Heck, put out the lights in New York City for a few hours and watch looters blast your store to an empty shell. It is an Imperfect Union, and I wish you would accept and acknowledge the actual organic nature of us humans beings trying to figure out a better way. There is a deep tension, a dyad if you will, between the individual and the collective, and we have been battling the definitions and the roles of each since forever. Just remember that even with the protection of your government which you despise, you can still be killed by a moron who takes your rights forever because he wanted your jacket. Your government which you despise will provide you with a court-appointed lawyer if you cannot afford representation. I choose to see that as a pretty cool offe,r all things in life fully considered. We all live with the understanding that violence is the authority under our fine ideals, because THAT is the reality, and I choose to see it in all of its glare AND I choose to see us strive still for a more Perfect Union.
Colin

[Lanval]

Was not this country started with an emphasis on property rights? Property being the persons own body and what he owned? That was never supposed to be violated.

Steve,

First, not a waste of time, if for no other reason I'm giving you a reason to evaluate and defend your beliefs. To seriously challenge you is to (at least) to allow you to come to a better understanding of what you believe and why. And I get to go along for the ride. Though I disagree with your interpretation of things, and viewpoint (at least in terms of your understanding of American history, law and the nature of gov't), it's worth my while to understand why and how you think about these things.

My main issue is that your arguments hinge upon ideas and interpretations that seem to me to be incorrect. I've selected out the single comment (from a much more detailed post, I know) so that I can get you to focus on why I reject many of the things you say.

You asked, "Was not this country started with an emphasis on property rights?"

The answer to this is no. This country was founded on the principles of individual freedom, protected by a representative government which should serves the needs of the people in a democratic and republican fashion.

What is the proof? In the Declaration the Founders argue:

"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..." (italics are mine)

This phrase "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" was used originally by John Locke in Two Treatises on Government in which he argues that:

"Man being born, as has been proved, with a title to perfect freedom, and an uncontrouled enjoyment of all the rights and privileges of the law of nature, equally with any other man, or number of men in the world, hath by nature a power, not only to preserve his property, that is, his life, liberty and estate, against the injuries and attempts of other men..."

Notice that the framers dropped out the word "estate" (which Locke understood to mean one's own physical property, as well as oneself ~ note that I see where you're getting your definition of property, self and rights... it's from Locke) and replaced it with "happiness".

At issue is the notion that while the Framers understood the (and nearly worshiped) Locke's ideas, they also seem to have understood that his purely theoretical approach is best left in theory. They specifically excluded property from among the individual rights of man in the Declaration of Independence.

*************************************
That's kind of a long way to go to answer your question, but do you see the problem? If you're not attentive to the context and the specific context of the documents you're referring to, it's easy to go astray...

But enough of this back and forth; you wanted an answer to the Roosevelt piece and not this piecemeal chipping away at definitions of gov't. So my next post will be on how I see that, and not off-topic as I suspect this really is.

Thanks for taking the time to read and respond ~ I really appreciate your willingness to expand upon your comments. I think your definitions, for example, are helpful in seeing how/why you approach some of these issues. We may disagree about the role of government, but I very much respect your willingness to detail your ideas here.

Thank you,

Mike

[ruckman101]

Indeed, the victors do write the history. Have to agree with you there Steve. That's why I am so enamored with Howard Zinn's "People's History". It rocks.

In fact I resisted for a long time, the time honored college level "History of Western Civilization" class, and this was long before I was aware of the work Howard Zinn was doing. I was fortunate though, because the instructor of this Community College class didn't focus on reiteration of dates and acts and facts of past history, but instead explored the social human circumstances surrounding those dates acts and facts and their relevance to the shifting tides of change that is the human experience and the impact that still resonates centuries later, thus making those events worthy of study and understanding. Concepts, not dates.

I found it liberating. The truth is out there.

Reality is much more organic and plastic than any one ideology can pin down. The human condition is such that novelty and chaos theories are perhaps the closest crude models that dare to offer an insight into the potentials.

I don't like the dance Ron Paul does around abortion, I don't like the dance his son does around civil rights. Those are red flags for me.

I firmly believe this nation's citizens are decent, fair, caring and in reality not nearly as divided as popular politics would leave us to believe. And therein lies the power. The true power. Tea party, anarchist, lefty, righty, socialist, communist, republic, democratic, means nothing without a buy-in of the people. And when the boots get too heavy on the neck, Arab spring.

I also firmly believe all people on this planet are just as decent, fair, caring and in reality not nearly divided as popular politics would leave us to believe.

We are all children brothers sisters fathers mothers grandfathers grandmothers elders past through history seven degrees from the spiritual leader of your flavor.

The sad truth is that the elites still see the people as just another exploitable resource. And the people are doomed that think the answer is violence. The elite have the firepower, not the people. Go ahead, fire your shotgun at that drone. Yet it is a myth. People do have the power. We just need to exert it.


Gimmee another shot of bourbon,
neal

[steve74baywin]

Well, it doesn't make much difference in that you ultimately:

1. Can't argue how the exercise of those rights work in the case of a conflict in perceived rights
2. Can't ensure that your system is in any safe from the same abuses you catalog in other systems
3. Can't account for the ethics of your "every man for yourself"
4. Can't explain why, if our rights preceded the Declaration, we needed the Declaration
5. Can't account for how "all rights are derived from property" ~ in what sense? And what about people who don't own property?
6. Can't explain how, if we can't cede our rights to the gov't, voluntary service works

There are so many things you're working with, but no amount of throwing terms around is going to lend coherence to your grab-bag individualist philosophy. There's no "here" here. Your beliefs are as "made up" as any other... where's the proof that rights come from property? That's an opinion, and actually, not a very sensible one...

I'll come back to FDR and his ideas tomorrow. You deserve an answer to that question. Do I deserve one? We'll see...

Michael

1) Never said there would be no courts.

2) There are no guarantees to anything, people would have to stay vigilant. However, if the concept that you are the Sovereign King over your body and what you possess, then the first "slippery slope law" would hopefully never happen. If they wanted to make a law cause beer makers didn't pay women as much as men for a certain job, everyone would know that is over stepping the line. Hopefully because so many people would be against that beer company(all women and most men), I know I would be, another beer company would open up in town, and those who didn't agree with the other company, could by beer from the new one. This is probably the true origin of that phrase freedom isn't free, it's not meant to mean "shut up about the Iraq war", it's meant to say that someone, something, might always be out to get your freedom, or out to control you. So you must always be watchful. So yes, one would still have to make sure things didn't go back to what they current are, a big controlling entity that practically is impossible to stop, short of a huge number of people knowing this.
Follow this, man A is next to man B, man A want to give, trade or sell moonshine to man B.
Man A owns himself and the moonshine, B owns himself. Gov was set up to protect them from someone stopping them from being Sovereign over there property. They should be able to pass what they own to each other. If some group wants to stop them from passing the moonshine, gov is supposed to protect them. Funny thing is, the gov seems now to be the ones they need protecting from.

3) First of all, the "everyman for himself" phrase seems to be yours, not mine. You keep using it, not me. Another great misunderstanding of our belief's, this is also one of those we think intentionally got spread. These principles we hold take good logic and thought, with it most of us fully understand the reality of community and working together, we also are as charitable as the rest of you, and the rest of you would still be in this country, you wouldn't disappear.(we won't tell you to leave) And there wouldn't be any laws preventing you from giving to what you wanted to. Could you imagine no income tax, you could take all that money and choose which things you wanted to pay for. Maybe you would choose education, medical, self defense but not the funding of bombing other countries. If the people who choose and elect have chosen and elected this gov that is for those social programs, then is not that a sign that people are willing to give? Or would they only give when the gun is pointed at them, or do they want the guns pointed at others and not themselves? One could say the system today doesn't help those selfish ones, look, many believe we in the US are grabbing the oil from all over the world, instead of using our own. Our current system fosters this.

4) BTW, proceeding your statements with Can't, assuming I can't answer. I think you are wrong with your "cant's". Why did we need the Dec? That was a Declaration to the King, it was letting the King of England know he was no longer Sovereign King over us. We were Sovereign Citizens. Another words, just like stated a bit ago, sure some will always try to trick and get others under there control, but each human feels and knows that it isn't right. People for ages were born under pharaohs and Kings rule, but it appears that most felt that was wrong, even while being born into it, it didn't feel right, and that they should be in charge of themselves. This is what appears to be inherent, undeniably, why they say it comes from god, because humans forever felt it was not right to be subjugated by other men. The King who had control of them wrongly in the past, they felt he needed to be told, and that they would make it official and on paper. Rights they felt proceeded, the rights always were, they just are, it is part of our make up, from the creator.

5) Right derived from property. Okay, for starters, the first property to discuss would be ones own body. It is his, he processes it, he therefor owns it, it is his property, he is sovereign king over it. Land is just one of many properties. He has a bike, he possess it, he made it himself or the maker gave it to him. It is his. He is sovereign over it, he has the RIGHT to melt it down if he so desires. It is his property, rights are derived from property.
Mike, I believe back in the day, the terms were very much understood, beyond a doubt by most. 200 years later, the usage and meaning of words get changed. In fact it can happen in much less time. People knew about Sovereign, kings, property.

6), I think this got covered in 3.

Rights are derived from property, Rights sadly enough seem to have to be declared or claimed after winning them back from evil.