Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Good bye Democracy. The Supreme Court has sealed it's fate.

Posted 2 years ago on June 30, 2012, 5:41 p.m. EST by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

The recent Supreme court ruling allowing a penalty (tax) to be levied on those who do not choose to participate with the "Individual Mandate" required in the new health care bill has given birth to a new and far reaching arm of Congressional power.

Previous to this decision, Congress only had the power to levy taxes on activities, but now has the power to levy taxes on inactivities. The result is that Congress can now require us to engage in an activity. Even if you oppose the activity, the penalty (tax) is assessed onto your income tax.

In the case of the newly passed health bill, if you do not participate, a tax of $95 will be added to your tax bill in 2014. By 2016 that tax will rise to $595 or more. How much higher the tax will rise is unknown, but knowing Congress, it is much more likely to rise than to fall.

The question of how health care should be paid for is not a consideration here. The question is how much power should Congress wield?

Democracy itself is not just under attack, it has been stolen. Only the shell remains, it's heart and vital organs have been eviscerated. The peoples ability to steer government through their representatives has been hijacked by a small group of wealthy and powerful individuals.

When a small group steers government, unguided by it's many people, Democracy does not exist! And when their power extends so far that they now steer the people, we have become their servants instead of their masters!

91 Comments

91 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by LeoYo (5909) 2 years ago

Being moved into smaller prison cells doesn't mean that one was actually free in the larger cells.

"We like to refer to our elected officials as being our public servants yet Thomas Jefferson had plainly referred to them as being our rulers. Under the form of government agreed upon by the Founding Fathers, the electing body must obey the laws of the elected body. The electing body cannot create laws for itself. The electing body cannot revoke the laws of the elected body and the most that the electing body can do to affect the members of the elected body who choose not to represent the interests of the electing body is to continue electing members to the elected body. We are obliged to abide by their decisions but they are in no way obliged to abide by our public interests. So, who is truly the servant? ("None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.") In short, while people talk of fascism as a growing danger to American freedom, the Founding Father republicanism of restricting the people to a representative democracy had been detrimental to American freedom from the start. What just and selfless cause in the interests of liberty could a group of men have had in establishing themselves (or their class) above the collective will and revocation of the people? As they had plainly known, a non-initiative representative democracy is a restrained democracy, an imposition upon the political freedom of the American people, denying them the status of being a sovereign people."

http://occupywallst.org/forum/none-are-more-hopelessly-enslaved-than-those-who-f/

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

We are told pure Democracy is rule by the tyranny of the majority. So we established a rule by the majority through representatives to temper our mood swings. We now have a rule by the tyranny of the few. Which is worse is up to debate, but that decision to modify, refresh, or begin a new system is surely reaching the boiling point.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

As always, I would recommend a hybrid system, between a pure Democracy; and a representative republic (see Government 2.0 in middle of page):

http://osixs.org/Rev2_menu_commonsense.aspx

It gives "The People" veto power !!

“The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history - whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by the small elite." ~ Thomas Jefferson ~

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Can you summarize your idea? I just read the Supreme Court decision and am in no mood for more extended reading.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

Read it when you're rested ................ if you care to. Makes no difference here. I also am in no mood for typing a lengthy summery, for which would also require you to do extended reading. I provided this info FYI. It's your choice if you want to look into it, or pass. C'ya

http://osixs.org/Rev2_menu_commonsense.aspx

votasaurus created a summery here; but it also has some length.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/common-sense-31-summarydiscussion/

"Unless the mass retains sufficient control over those entrusted with the powers of their government, these will be perverted to their own oppression, and to the perpetuation of wealth and power in the individuals and their families selected for the trust. Whether our Constitution has hit on the exact degree of control necessary, is yet under experiment." --Thomas Jefferson

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5909) 2 years ago

A pure democracy is no more a rule by the tyranny of the majority than a rule by the majority through representatives. Whatever rights there are to be ignored by a pure majority are no less to be ignored by a representative majority. The Whiskey Act of 1791 that had unfairly favored eastern big business and had burdened western business had been passed by a representative majority. The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 that had restricted freedom of speech only for critics of the Federalists had been passed by a representative majority. We had never established a rule by a representative majority (that has never been shown to be any less prone to mood swings, being no less emotional than the People from whom they are elected). The Framers of the Constitution and the State legislatures had established that rule, not the voters. There was never any provision for the voters to vote on it. The voters, as determined by the Framers, could only vote on someone else to vote on their issues, be it faithfully or unfaithfully, with no provision for recall.

A representative democracy with initiative is not a pure democracy but it is a democracy in which the People are free to check the decisions of their representatives.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

In California we have the initiative process. It has not to my knowledge ever resulted in any great tyranny by the people. It is also balanced by the courts who occasionally overturn what the people have decided.

I would like to see it on a national level, as it gives the people the right to override our representatives without having to wait 2 to 6 years to fire them at the voting booth.

Placing firm regulations on Congressional campaign contributions would be my first choice for a nationwide initiative.

[-] 1 points by LeoYo (5909) 2 years ago

Be it for a pure democracy or a representative democracy, it's judicial review that restrains the tyranny of the majority. Of course, it's also the same review that allows for Citizen's United, being federally taxed from "whatever source derived" and now being taxed for a lack of purchase.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

The checks and balances within our government are carried out by imperfect men. So Democracy itself will always have imperfections.

Pure Democracy has no checks or balances, so if the analogy of the human body is used, any imperfections would multiply unchecked like a malignant cancer.

The same could be said for representative Democracy. Once it's checks and balances have been weakened by the disease of bribery, the body of Democracy would also be plagued by the malignancy of corruption .

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

a democracy is cannot properly vote if the minority are not protected

[-] -2 points by vvv0630 (-63) 2 years ago

You are methodically dumbing down this forum and thereby any respect others might give it, MattLHolck. If you are being paid to do so, you will no doubt continue. If you are not, please post your moronic one-liners elsewhere. Thanks.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I would move for election holidays to get more people participating in voting.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

representative exist because not everyone can be in DC

[-] 3 points by LeoYo (5909) 2 years ago

Why would everyone need to be in DC if they're not needed in DC to engage in national votes for presidents? http://occupywallst.org/forum/amendment-for-a-democratic-congress/

And even with representatives, no one needs to be in a central location for national initiatives.

[-] 3 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

not with today's communication

[-] 2 points by LeoYo (5909) 2 years ago

Switzerland has had a democracy without the need of today's communication since 1891.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

smaller place

but noted

[-] -3 points by vvv0630 (-63) 2 years ago

Stop repeating yourself. It's creepy.

[-] -2 points by vvv0630 (-63) 2 years ago

You are dumbing down this forum and thereby the respect others might give it, MattLHolck. If you are being paid to do so, you will no doubt continue. If you are not, please take your one-liner idiocy elsewhere. Thanks.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

A lawyer specializes in practicing law, a fireman specializes in fire suppression, an engineer specializes in designing bridges. A representative specializes in political decision making.

Can a single person specialize in all fields at the same time? No.

Even cities have representatives, it's not distance that requires them, it's their specialization that makes them beneficial. Their knowledge in political affairs makes them superior to the common man, as long as their decisions are not influenced by other factors such as bribery and selfishness.

[-] 3 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

politics and law should be understandable by everyone

[-] 2 points by LeoYo (5909) 2 years ago

There's an idea that Congress should be charged for every word written in a law to reduce the amount of words and make the laws clear to all.

[-] 3 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

most congress members have independent wealth

such a law would only effect he poor

[-] -3 points by vvv0630 (-63) 2 years ago

Stop repeating yourself. It's creepy.

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Lol. you are too funny.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (23978) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Clarity - in purpose.

Understandable by all.

OSTA a step in the right direction.

KISSH's

[-] -2 points by vvv0630 (-63) 2 years ago

Strength Through Unity.

Unity Through Faith.

Got it, Quisling...

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (23978) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Well RustyButtBrucie - PR shill.

You finally said something useful - Strength Through Unity. Unity Through Faith.

Though somehow I don't feel your heart was in it.

So you have a hard-on for Matt now?

Thanks for dropping by vvvshill.

[-] -2 points by vvv0630 (-63) 2 years ago

I'm pleased you find this slogan "useful", DKAtoday:

Strength Through Unity. Unity Through Faith.

So does your Chancellor.

Your arrogant ignorance (or ignorant arrogance) just betrayed you...

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (23978) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

vvvshill again you are reaching. Your smug stupidity is quite entertaining. Your eagerness to discredit me quite pathetic.

Now what are you gonna try to link me to ?

[-] -2 points by vvv0630 (-63) 2 years ago

They should've told you about this in the first day of your pro-regime propaganda training, DKAtoday. But perhaps you were too lazy to click off your huge flat screen monitor, crawl out of your Tempurpedic bed and go attend it.

This is too funny...

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (23978) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Like kicking the disabled? Do you pull the wings off of flies? Torture kittens?

Put The Lotion On It's Skin?

You are one sick and twisted individual.

Sellout shill vvvRustyButt.

[-] -2 points by vvv0630 (-63) 2 years ago

Do you truly not realize what an ass you're making of yourself here, DKAtoday?

Apparently not, and that's fine with me. Carry on, Mr. Creedy!

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (23978) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

So you think of me as being like V ?


V for Vendetta (film) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_for_Vendetta_(film) In another reference to Orwell's novel, the slogan "Strength through Unity. Unity through Faith" is displayed prominently across London, similar in cadence to ... Plot - Cast - Themes - Production and release


It's sad but perhaps honest that you identify yourself with Mr. Creedy.

[-] -2 points by vvv0630 (-63) 2 years ago

No cigar, DKAtoday...

http://occupywallst.org/forum/good-bye-democracy-the-supreme-court-has-sealed-it/#comment-775029

Too late to flip the script. NOBODY truly in our movement would have fallen for the "Strength through Unity. Unity through Faith." trap I set for you. You did, and that's NUF SAID: You are either a regime plant or a clueless forum troll. My money's on clueless troll.

[-] -1 points by vvv0630 (-63) 2 years ago

You are methodically dumbing down this forum and thereby any respect others might give it, MattLHolck. If you are being paid to do so, you will no doubt continue. If you are not, please take your one-liner idiocy elsewhere. Thanks.

[-] 2 points by LeoYo (5909) 2 years ago

Lawyers go to law school, a fireman is trained in firefighting, an engineer is educated in engineering. A representative is elected from among the people without any required training to set their decisions apart from the people. The fact that such representatives can be grouped into opposing parties demonstrates that their decisions are no better than unreasoned perspectives for at least half of them at any given time and the fact that they vote either yea or nay on an issue means that either decision is acceptable and can therefore be no less acceptable if made by a greater majority.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (23978) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Good government - requires the inclusion of the population in the process to make sure that the people are not disregarded in policies.

People get involved. People over profits People over policies. People over profits People get involved. People over policies People over profits . People get involved. People over policies People over profits. People get involved. People over policies. People over profits

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Yes, the people must be involved. Can Democracy ever be good when it's people fail to take part in it's operation? It's imperfection will be multiplied in proportion to it's members apathy.

[-] 3 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

I heard someone make this correlation once...

Service Economy= service= servants= serfs.

We are at the beginnin of level three.

[-] 3 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Very true. Stage 4 is slaves.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

we all pay interest to the banks or rent

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

there doesnt need to be interest, we the people have the power to form banks interest free, and we can print our own money to do it just as we are printing money to pay debt. Only the wealth will stay in the hands of the worker, fulfilling scripture even, "a man shall build and another man shall not inhabit, and a man shall grow a vineyard and another man shall not eat of it". There is wisdom for you from a pure source.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

tax paid health care to all removes the "for profit" component; saving 30%+

SparkyJP (1132) from Westminster, MD 16 minutes ago

Well said Matt !!

If you give health care to all; paid for through taxes; and remove the "for profit" component; you would save 30%+ right out of the gate. Some of the things you do need to spend money on to supply health care to someone is doctors, nurses, hospitals, drugs, medical equipment, clinics, etc. The one thing you don't need is insurance companies. They offer no service except to jack-up the costs and provide a return for their investors at patients expense. Through sheer volume, we could self insure ourselves at a much cheaper price and more efficiently.

Think about it. The only way an insurance company can make money is to collectively overcharge their customers the percentage of profit margin, over and above their expenses. The expenses include the paying of claims, but also include, executive pay and bonuses, employee pay, benefits, taxes (maybe not), Marketing and Administrative Expenses ( you even have to pay for their TV ads), utility costs, maintenance costs, and much, much, more; that are passed directly to the patient on top of already high actual health care costs.

A 2004 economic study published in The New England Journal of Medicine determined that a national single-payer healthcare system would reduce costs by more than $400 billion a year "despite the expansion of comprehensive care to all Americans." I'm sure that figure has increased since then.

I think the cartoon at the bottom of this page says it all -

http://www.healthcare-now.org/whats-single-payer/

What has become the law of the land, is a new tax for the middle class. They now have us by the short hairs. If you think us being #1 in health care costs and #37 in service is bad now ...................................... you ain't seen nothin' yet !!

http://occupywallst.org/forum/righties-put-obamas-aca-in-your-filthy-mouths-and-/#comment-773055

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

My concern is not about how health care is financed, but the increase in Congressional power that this ruling permits.

Congress can now enact almost any legislation they wish to compel people to engage in economic or other activities, enforced with the threat of a monetary penalty masquerading as a tax.

[-] 0 points by Shule (2250) 2 years ago

This is not something new. Many states, like the state I live in (Virginia), has an uninsured motorist fee which must be paid to the state should one not have motor vehicle insurance. It is there for good reason. People should not have to pay for the irresponsible fool who drives without any insurance when he gets into an accident. Health insurance is much the same way. People should not have to pay for those who are too irresponsible to insure their own health. Eventually everyone uses health care services or die early. The power of the government to penalize and otherwise regulate this sort of thing has always existed.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Good point. How far should we go in legislating responsible behavior? Should over weight people be charged a tax for every pound over their ideal weight? Or should we be taxed for eating too much sugar (my addiction)? Or taxed for engaging in risky activities like free rock climbing or racing motorcycles?

If it were allowed, government would be happy to legislate every facet of our lives.The struggle is determining what the proper balance is between safety and freedom.

The recent court decision now grants the federal government power that can force us to engage in economic or other activities against our will. Anytime the government gains power, the people lose power in equal proportion. Once our power is lowered to the level of impotence, the only children we conceive will be slaves.

[-] -1 points by Shule (2250) 2 years ago

One already does get taxed, in the form of paying extra insurance, or insurance premiums for many activities statistically determined to be risky as in the case of motorcycles (that I know for sure.) Probably excessive sugar eating ought to be taxed like cigarette smoking is taxed. Only that the the corporate sugar cartels have lobbies in Washington to keep that from happening.

I hate to tell you this, but the government and the powers which rule over us have always had that power. Nothing changed between now and a few days before yesterday with the supreme court's decision. Like it or not, truth is you as an individual do not have total freedom, or the right, to do whatever you want with yourself. You already are essentially a slave to society if not by law then by obligation. Your freedom is an illusion. Enjoy it.

[-] 6 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Another in a long list of precedents was set the other day. The difference is that this one allows Congress to compel a person to take part in an activity. Before they were limited to regulating our activities. Now they can regulate our inactivities as well. Congress can regulate any aspect of our life by enacting a tax to compel us to act in any matter they see fit.

[-] 1 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 2 years ago

Yup, they make us buy houses and have children.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

Eventually everyone uses health care services or die early

health care need is not a risk but a certainty and should not be handled by insurance

[-] 1 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 2 years ago

Not "for profit".

[-] 0 points by Shule (2250) 2 years ago

I agree with you on that. Insurance is a bad term. Better to say we are paying into a "bank." Hopefully, one day we can come to that, but for right now in our capitalist system we're calling it "insurance."

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I rather pay into public hospitals and skip the bank

[-] 0 points by Shule (2250) 2 years ago

Same thing.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

that occurred to me aswell

[-] 2 points by luparb (290) 2 years ago

3 trillion dollar wars, excessive military budgets, corporate subsidies, tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, bailouts for wealthy bankers....

and yet, it's the healthcare which makes you angry.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

All of those thing you mention I am also angry about and actively protest against.

My concern is not about how health care is financed, but the increase in Congressional power that this ruling permits.

Congress can now enact almost any legislation they wish to compel people to engage in economic or other activities, enforced with the threat of a monetary penalty masquerading as a tax.

[-] 2 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 2 years ago

You make a good point. Looking past the ACA; this ruling sets a precedent that is far more reaching than many people comprehend, and allows congress to assume powers for which the people never put into their hands.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

i understood the tax to be 1 % where do you get that there is a set amount? as for the 'servant master' thing.. you just now see that at work? you missed it back when they forced car insurance? allowed banks to force mortgage insurance? you see these differently some how?

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Effective January 1, 2014.

The ACA imposes an annual penalty of $95, or up to 1% of income, whichever is greater, on individuals who do not secure insurance; this will rise to $695, or up to 2.5% of income, whichever is greater, by 2016.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act

Mandatory auto insurance is by state, not federal government. I believe most mortgage insurance is by state also.

State laws don't cross state lines. Federal laws have no borders.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

its still government forcing individuals to purchase something or pay penalties. same thing if you ask me. and would have been much easier to fight if it were a battle worth fighting but no one seemed to care back then about being forced into something by government.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

there was a battle for getting a government insurance option

but that was dropped

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

well then most likely (cause people never learn) this fight will be dropped too. the only reason it may not be is because it will end up costing insurance companies profits. and republicans dont like it when rich people lose money!

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by EagleEye (31) 2 years ago

Civil War! It is time to renew this democracy.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

I'm not to that point, yet. I prefer a "civil" discourse first consisting of economic sanctions engaged against the corrupt portions of our government and corporate elite.

To legally avoid paying the penalty for not obtaining the mandated health insurance, just have a balance due on your income tax. Claim more dependents so not as much is deducted from your paycheck. Only pay what you owe, but not the penalty. Completely legal with no enforcement by the IRS.

[-] 2 points by EagleEye (31) 2 years ago

but that point will come. The forefathers expected the renewal of freedom in democracy by the use of force & blood. The problem is no one is willing to die for what they believe.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

The problem is few are willing to live for what they believe.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

democracy doesn't happen in war

[-] 1 points by EagleEye (31) 2 years ago

Then are forefathers were wrong by your understanding.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

shot me if I disagree

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

amen to that, I got my guns and ammo! Give me liberty or give me death! I will not be a slave, just as I will not be a master.

[-] 1 points by EagleEye (31) 2 years ago

How will you not be master, if you do as you command? Do you mean master of others?

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

yes i will not be other peoples master. there is plenty of land to live side by side peacefully, and i ought not to drive around and report "zoning violations" against my neighbors, as it is constitutionally against them.

[-] 0 points by MoshehThezion (98) 2 years ago

providing vouchers.. to give free healthcare to the poor, by taxing the wealthy... is not the end of democracy... that is a lie... spread by Republicans.

[-] 3 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

The question of how healthcare is provided s totally irrelevant to my point. Robert's ruling could have been about mandating that all persons have a washing machine. The argument against his ruling concerns what it enables Congress to do.

Giving Congress the power to steer the people instead of the people steering Congress effectively seals the death of Democracy. A bitter and painful truth.

[-] 0 points by MoshehThezion (98) 2 years ago

No... because the fact is... they force people to pay into social security.. and medicare... and you do not even get any immediate benefit from that. That.. happened in 1933... so.. for your argument to be true.. you would have to agree that we lost constitutional freedom in 1933... not today. I actually agree with that... we have lost freedom. That was.. the New Deal of 1933... IT WAS... LITERALLY... GIVE UP FREEDOM... AND GRANT THE GOVERNMENT NEW UNLIMITED POWERS... in exchange for benefits... benefits as socialist road building... job creation... social security... and shelter for old and mental peoples.....
benefits.... was the deal... government run.. government granted...
That was the deal... the New deal of 1933.

but... over 80 years later... now... they want to take away the benefits, while having NO INTENTION OF RESTORING FREEDOM.

A DUH....

DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOM IS.. OR WAS?

EH??? SEE--- http://mosheh.org/Freedom-and-THE-LAW.html

Which reads in part....

Freedom vs Civil Liberties : In 1933, they literally took away constitutional freedom and rights and protections, and gave the people something else, called Civil Liberties, which is granted at the pleasure of the Federal Government, and slowly over the past 80 years, they have created more and more RULE based laws, 'statute laws' which the people are forced to obey, 66 million laws and counting, ALL OF WHICH IS UN-CONSTITUTIONAL, when applied to actual people.

THEY took away the protection of the common law legal system, as provided for in the Constitution, and forced all the people into 14th amendment Federal citizenship, and Social Security corporate status, without our clearly informed understanding, so that they may enforce endless laws on us, most especially taxation, under penalty of prison, which is something they simply could not easily do in a constitutional common law court. (So, those who favor taxes, found ways to change the system and rob the people.) We got ripped off.

So before you say... we are losing our democracy... WAKE UP... you lost it a long time ago...

[-] 3 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Our constitutional freedoms have suffered a slow erosion over the years. If all of them were taken in 1933, and the government assumed unlimited powers then, there would be none left to take today.

Governments power to legislate has a fatal flaw. In the short term it performs a useful function, protecting the rights of it's citizens from theft of those rights by deceit and force. When government has matured, it becomes the force and deceit that takes those same rights it once protected.

[-] 2 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

wow, very well said, i never thought of it that way, but thomas jefferson did, he said that we need a revolution every generation. and we are long over due. the solution to limited government should include having the people vote on issues that affect their freedom, like wearing seatbelts, or even paying for the right to own a gun or drive a car.

A good man once said, it is better to teach the people righteous principles and let them govern themselves. I say we start by doing away with department of motor vehicles registration and every other tax, and then use it as a deterrent for those people who dont want to be a productive member of society, put just those people back on the system of , okay you shown that you cant choose the right yourself, so you now have to register your car, and pay to own a gun, oh and we are going to start taxing you again, to pay people to make sure you are a good citizen.

[-] 3 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Occupy is the spark that should have started a revolution, at least a peaceful one. But the people are like damp wood, unable to ignite, because they are rained on by the constant barrage of advertising saying that obtaining wealth and prosperity is our most important priority.

Money in politics and Government are distant concerns, but they are the real source of wealth and prosperity if we can only remove the hindrances they cause.

[-] 1 points by MoshehThezion (98) 2 years ago

exactly... AND THIS ALREADY HAPPENED... GESH... JUST READ THIS... http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/Articles/SenateReport93-549.htm

senate report 93-549.... tells the truth... it happened a long time ago.

I agree on constitutional limits... but we lost it long before Obama. and the Supreme court.... congress... and all those who oppose Obamacare... are basically ignorant... or full of shit. We already lost freedom.... and it is supposed to be in exchange for benefits...... THAT WAS THE NEW DEAL... that was the deal.

We are getting robbed... have been... slowly.. over time.

They took away freedom... and slowly... they take away the benefits. which is why there are a million mental patients on the streets... instead of in institutions.... where they can get help.

If you want freedom... if that is your claim... then demand the Common Law legal system restoration.... if not... Then you have no hope of gaining constitutional freedom.

period.... that is fact.

read it... wake up...

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Change the system back to common law? The first and most difficult step is to get the people to stop paying attention to what the Kardashians are doing. It will not matter what remedy is pursued if the people remain on four legs and refuse to stand up on two.

[-] 1 points by MoshehThezion (98) 2 years ago

True... but I speak of history... of facts... not TV.... Restoring the Common Law.. and real freedom... has nothing to do with the Kardashians..... and for you to make this point... shows you do not want to discuss it seriously.. and are probably... working to mislead people. if you... YOU... cared about freedom... you would not make excuses... you would study the facts... and end up fighting for the Common Law. Which is it??????????????

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

No humor intended here. I speak of the fact that most Americans are more concerned with the lives of celebrities on television than they are with their own economic and political lives. They spend hours watching TV to find out every detail about the life of their favorite celebrity, but don't spend a minute to find out about legislation their congressman is writing to further curtail their own freedoms.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

that's magnified by TV hype

US does not care as much about TV as TV claims

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago
[-] 1 points by MoshehThezion (98) 2 years ago

Ok... then the solution... is to get those celebrities... to discuss the Common Law.... and its restoration.... as they hold influence...
Either way... we... you and me... must discuss it... openly... to reach the ears of those celebrities.... as they can lead many..... either way... we must focus on the discussion... to make that change... not just complain.

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago
[-] 1 points by MoshehThezion (98) 2 years ago

Nice.. did you write that???? Who did? And what is being done with it????

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

All I know is it was written by an attorney named Ed and posted on a last days yahoo group

[-] 1 points by MoshehThezion (98) 2 years ago

link??? Id like to find the guy.

[Removed]