- He was BAR none the best Lawyer of them all - Jefferson could not stay with him?
- Permalink Reply by on
- Hey Nathan, I think I understand why you may feel that way about John. He has grown on me. In fact when I combine the writings of he and Samual I get a amazing sense of the causes of the revolution.
- Permalink Reply by on
- had a good visual and I'm going to reprint it here as a baseline starting point. My thinking is that if we want to overturn an Amendment we have to start with the Constitution itself, and argue either a contravention, or an unintended consequence (mine and your argument against the 14th)Now again, the 16th Amendment:The Sixteenth Amendment seems to be a direct assault on a vital provision in the US Constitution - Art. 1, Sect.9, Clause 4.Rian's words...With the expanding debt, people will say our Constitution and capitalism was a failure, but it's not true! WE CHANGED OUR CONSTITUTION AND THAT WAS THE DEATH SENTENCE.I won't deny you your Heine time so think about it for a while. I think there could be a way to argue this from a Constitutional point of view.BTW if you've never been to this guy's site, you're missing out. He's totally down the rabbit hole on this issue, but he has made some progress and does have some pretty good material. Check it out.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Sober assessments are not pessimism in my book; they are a necessary element in achieving success. Forgive me but you sir are no pessimist.“Reagan did not have the necessary support from the states to affect the change he desired”I was fascinated to find that he attempted to use an executive order to restore some degree of federalism. That provides testimony to your comment on the lack of support.With that as a backdrop I’d like tell you all how this is playing out in the real world today. I have a friend who was elected to his counties executive committee (we won 100 TP Republican precinct captains in his county). In my State we just passed SB5 which limits unions to bargaining with local official’s vs others. The local officials are freaking out and don’t want the pressure of actually having to make tough decisions. So once again federalism will be a tough but indispensible fight.No one should react pessimistically to this. Rather in my mind this information helps define what we are fighting. Nathan IMO you are absolutely doing the best that can be done in bringing the fight to the State level. With the information I just received the fight is at the local level as well in my case at least.
- Permalink Reply by on
- HOW ABOUT A LITTLE LOGIC?"The Dictator Fallacy" by Jim Babkafal·la·cy -
* a misleading or unsound argument.
* Logic. any of various types of erroneous reasoning that render arguments logically unsound.Do you . . .* believe in our Constitution with its different branches and its separation of powers?
* support the idea that The State should be managed by elected representatives?
* oppose monarchies, dictatorships, and other authoritarian forms of The State?I bet you'd answer "Yes" to all of these questions.Despite answering yes, nearly everyone pretends, at some point, that they can design laws and programs that manage human behavior, leading to an ideal social result.* Maybe even you believe you know the best way to solve a particular societal problem with a better organizational solution.
* Perhaps you admire and support a particular candidate who claims he has just the right incentive, program, or regulation that will do the trick.Well, if you ever catch yourself (or another person), making such a pronouncement, then you can KNOW that either you (or they) are wrong. You see . . .When you have "a government of the people, by the people, and for the people," YOUR "grand design" won't work. Why?Unfortunately, other people will also be involved. This is, after all, a representative government with separation of powers. Your scheme will be touched and affected by lobbyists, legislators, bureaucrats, and judges. Then it will be imposed on a group of people, many of whom will NOT cheerfully cooperate because they do NOT appreciate your brilliance.By failing to appreciate these events, you have fallen victim to the Dictator Fallacy.The Dictator Fallacy is the belief that any law or program will be implemented in just the way you intended -- as if you were the king.Your more perfect vision could only be actualized if you were the czar. Yet to want that power would be to denounce the Constitutional principles and representative democracy that you claim to adore.There are at least six major ways your plan will go awry.First, the legislative branch will have its say. They'll wheel and deal. They'll modify your perfect design. Senator Foghorn will secure a new federal building in return for his vote, while hordes of lobbyists will secure exemptions, loopholes, or extra benefits for their clients.Second, the executive branch will then interpret the law. They will mangle your plan to fit their political goals. In accordance with The Slippery Slope Law of The State, bureaucrats...Third, the Courts will get in on the act too, forbidding some aspects of your design, while permitting other things you never intended. By this point, you might not even recognize your plan.Fourth, the People will then react to the law. Some will comply; others will resist. Nearly everyone will look for loopholes. Attorneys, accountants, and consultants of all stripes will have a new industry, vested in navigating around your law to the greatest degree possible.Fifth, the real "unintended consequences" of your plan will begin to manifest themselves. You may even discover what most policymakers experience; your proposal will boomerang, worsening the very problem you presumed to fix. Consider these examples . . .* laws to curb narcotic use will entangle children in the violent, black-market drug trade
* fancy plans to restrict gun ownership will coincide with an increase in burglaries in your own neighborhoodAnd here, we must go down an important rabbit trail. When our program fails, it is easy to be blind to the obvious. The very normal human reaction is to assume that things would've worked better if only our intelligent design had been followed -- that our uniquely brilliant scheme could've made The State more efficient and effective. We . . .* bemoan the fact that legislators, bureaucrats, and judges mutilated our plans.
* complain that the people weren't made to see how this was for their own good.Now, hopefully, it's evident. We'll NEVER witness your wonderful, pet plans, materialize. The only way that your more perfect vision could possibly have been implemented, was if YOU were the king.Sixth, comes the most brutal blow of all.Since you aren't a dictator you simply have to accept that officeholders change. Partisan majorities switch hands. The power you wanted to give to good people will always end up in the hands of bad people.But for too many would-be dictators, "unintended consequences" simply means that they neverintended for their opposition to acquire power again.This is the trap that snares naive, do-gooders who . . .* fantasize about what they would do if they were the boss, while forgetting that they supposedly despise dictators.
* fail to take into account that the people who really run things aren't as brilliant or purely motivated as they are.Do you ever support expanding The State because you imagine that a larger State would do things the way you would do them if you were in charge? If so, then you have made yourself (and others) a victim of the Dictator Fallacy.The Dictator Fallacy means that no matter how well-intentioned you are, no matter how good you think your idea is, your new regulation or initiative to solve a problem won't . . .* be passed by you,
* administered by you, or
* adjudicated by you.Nor will . . .* everyone cooperate with your scheme.
* the new powers you create always be controlled by people you like.You must choose . . .* A limited constitutional republic, or . . .
* The horrifying Frankenstein creations that result from The Dictator Fallacy.HT: The concept of the "Dictator Syndrome" was created by Downsize DC co-founder, Harry Browne, in chapter five of his 1995 book, "Why Government Doesn't Work." That chapter was titled, "If You Were King (The Dictator Syndrome)." http://harrybrowne.org-----This message is an educational service of the Downsize DC Foundation. Please share it with others. Please tell your friends that they can receive similar material in the future by subscribing to our free email newsletter, The Downsizer-Dispatch.Copyright (c) 2011 by Jim Babka. Permission to distribute this article for educational purposes is granted, if done with attribution to the author and the Downsize DC Foundation. Permission to use for commercial purposes is denied.D o w n s i z e r - D i s p a t c hOfficial email newsletter of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation.SUPPORT the "Educate the Powerful System".Feel Free to Forward or Reprint, as long as attribution and action links are retained/included. But we recommend you delete everything in this footer, i.e., below the words "Downsizer-Dispatch".Your subscription comes to this email address: lockpiatt@gmail.com.If you have difficulties or inquiries, simply hit reply to this message. We're eager to help, including with requests to unsubscribe.If you do not want to receive any more newsletters (to unsubscribe), click here.Sponsored by DownsizeDC.org, Inc. -- a non-profit educational organization promoting the ideas of individual liberty, personal responsibility, free markets, and small government. Operations office: 1931 15th St. Cuyahoga Falls, OH 44223, 202.521.1200. Normally published 3-6 times per week. The Downsize DC Team would like to thank you for subscribing to the Downsizer-Dispatch, which you did by going tohttp://www.downsizedc.org/newsletter or by using our "Educate the Powerful System" to send a message.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Who will proclaim in a campaign speech: "I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is 'needed' before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents' 'interests,' I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can."Barry Goldwater - Conscience of a Conservative 1960The "there outta be a law" crowd buying into the Dictator Fallacy are as dangerous to liberty and freedom as any Communist IMO.
- Permalink Reply by on
- The "there outta be a law" crowd buying into the Dictator Fallacy are as dangerous to liberty and freedom as any Communist IMO.Which by my count is 50% of the population.
- Permalink Reply by on
- I count 50% PLUS ONE - they get money and all in the 49.9% pay the 50% + one. Where is the danger in this realty?
- Permalink Reply by on
- Its not their money. Period. Either side. Thats what they dont get. The government only has what we give voluntarily and what they confiscate.Make taxes voluntary and what kind of revenue the People are really willing to pay - LOL
- Permalink Reply by on
- You have brought the truth [untold and undisclosed] that taxes are voluntary - this is the fallacy of TAXING THE RICH. The rich can live off cash and never conduct any business that is taxable and therefore pay zero taxes. They all have huge investments in municipal bonds and they are non taxable the do not even have to report the amounts.the rich can out wait the Government that is why the political class Progressives play the class warfare card but then give them a ton of deductions so the effective rate is under 25%. When the rate was 90% they gave the investor class a off set for prepaid interest [5 years maximum] so they just bought apartments, office buildings, farm land what ever assets they could find and then after 5 years they sold it a took a capital gain at a 50% discount. It is just to keep the middle class and the small business people working and pay the lions share of the taxes in the bad times.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Nathan that is what is wrong with history without specific timing for opinions and actions change drastically very quickly. America was not at war two minutes before PEARL HARBOR. Keep in mind that these leaders were trying to sell the Constitution to a very diverse group of people about half still liked the king?The creation of history is a never ending event that we elect to freeze a moment and then to call that fact. NIMHO
- Permalink Reply by on
- Lock, IMO even when one takes into account the events surrounding an individual in history one must always grant a little leeway. The pressures, influences and sense of urgency-of-the-moment on said individuals can only be approximated; never fully comprehensible.
No comments:
Post a Comment