From: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com (roc-digest) To: roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: roc-digest V2 #339 Reply-To: roc-digest Sender: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk roc-digest Tuesday, May 9 2000 Volume 02 : Number 339 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 8 May 00 09:09:20 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: [Fratrum] [legality-of-income-tax] Prop. 1: 16th Amendment] (fwd) On May 08, Margi Crook wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] This post tells how we can buy out the Federal Reserve. Margi From: TLSTAR@webtv.net (LOUIS WHISPELL) Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 06:06:10 -0700 (MST) Subject: Fwd: Re: [legality-of-income-tax] Prop. 1: 16th Amendment http://community.webtv.net/TLSTAR/tlstar http://community.webtv.net/TLSTAR/TLSTAR From: "Max" Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 08:31:59 -0400 Reply-To: legality-of-income-tax@egroups.com Subject: Re: [legality-of-income-tax] Prop. 1: 16th Amendment Frankly, I think we need to go for the head of the beast, the Federal Reserve. Congress did not have the power to transfer any powers under the Constitution to a private corp. ie the power over our money supply. Getting rid of this Ponzi Scheme will get rid of the IRS (Internal Reign of Satan), too. The Federal Reserve Act allows the Congress to purchase the Assets of the Federal Reserve for the amount of the original investment by the International Banksters. I believe the figure was $144,000. One can only imagine the look on the face of a jury who learn the truth and knowledge about these Banksters. Visit Max, the CyberSpace Dog, on www.maxexchange.com - ----- Original Message ----- From: Larry Donald Gass To: Sent: Saturday, May 06, 2000 2:53 PM Subject: Re: [legality-of-income-tax] Prop. 1: 16th Amendment > All your questions are answered at http://truth-about-income-tax.com > What happened in the debates is pretty much water under the bridge at > this point. What the IRS goes on is case law. At the above site you > will find a 45 pg Memorandum on 200 years of income tax case law by > the Supreme Court, in chronological order for easy following of the > progress of income tax over the years. > > > >Hi everyone, > > > >Congress proposed and passed the income tax amendment (16th) in 1909. > > > >Let's set aside for the moment, for purposes of argument, the issue > >of the fraudulent ratification of the 16th amendment. Let's look > >further into the meaning of the amendment. > > > >What was the history of the bill? Who drafted it? What changes were > >made to it during its adoption process and why? What route did the > >proposed amendment take in the House and in the Senate? What > >committee? Is there a record of the floor debates? What analyses were > >performed on the proposed amendment, before and as it was passed, by > >people in the press and in academia? Is there a "bill jacket," in > >which one would find correspondence, pro and con, on the bill? > > > >From these sources we should be able to obtain a clear understanding > >as to the "intent of the framers" in Congress, in 1909, in proposing > >and passing the proposed amendment. > > > >I can also assert with absolute confidence that when a court is > >called upon to interpret the meaning of a constitutional provision it > >traditionally looks first at the plain meaning of the language and > >then to the "intent of the framers" of the provision. In deciding the > >"intent of the framers," courts traditionally look at what was > >happening in the years preceding the adoption of the constitutional > >provision, the legislative debates immediately preceding the adoption > >of the provision, and, finally, what happened in the years > >immediately following the passage of the provision. > > > >In the case of the meaning of the 16th amendment, we know that in the > >years preceding its purported ratification, there was no income tax > >without apportionment. We also know that immediately following the > >purported ratification of the 16th amendment there was an income tax > >without apportionment. What we haven't discussed is who introduced > >the bill in the House and in the Senate, what memorandum accompanied > >the bill, if any, who said what during the debates on the bill, and > >what do the private papers of the lead proponents and opponents say > >regarding the intent of the proposed amendment. Most private papers > >have, by now, been turned over to the Library of Congress. I learned > >recently that some 37 boxes of papers have been turned over to the > >Library of Congress by the descendents of Philander Knox. I have also > >learned that anyone can go to the Library of Congress, fill out a > >form, and have access to those private papers. > > > >Because the key rulings on the income tax were handed down between > >1915 and 1920, and because judges are not immune from "judicial > >activism" or outright corruption, we should also look to see who the > >judges of the U.S. Supreme Court were between 1908 and 1920, how many > >of them may have been appointed to the Court due to the influence of > >Philander Knox, who, as a U.S. Senator, and as U.S. Attorney General > >and as U.S. Secretay of State, was unquestionably serving the > >interests of the "robber barons" of the day that were pushing for the > >adoption of a central bank and the income tax. > > > >Has anyone seen the briefs as submitted by the appellant(s) and > >respondent(s) in the leading cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court > >on the income tax of 1913? What questions were presented and raised, > >and were they all determined by the Court, or did the Court sidestep > >one or more? > > > >We should also compare the income tax of 1913 with the income tax of > >today. How do they differ? Would today's Supreme Court determine that > >today's income tax, which in no way resembles the income tax of 1913, > >is in the nature of "an indirect excise tax?" > > > >There are four or five "action items" built into the paragraphs > >above. Are there any volunteers? We can use your help, especially as > >we prepare for the June 29th showdown. Please step forward if you > >have some time to help. Do we need a "task force?" > > > >Bob Schulz [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** RKBA! - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 15:12:04 -0700 From: boyd@seanet.com Subject: Re: Slavery, an honest look (fwd) It's interesting to read these messages, wich are rife with libertarian sounding phrases and expression and find myself (a Libertarian) disagreeing with so much. Larry Ball wrote: > > Sorry, Joe, all involuntary servitude (slavery) is not prohibited under the 13th > Amendment. Those convicted of crime can be forced to perform involuntary > servitude. Seems like a good idea to me. It would be better having these blokes > working an producing than sitting arround pumping iron, watching T.V. and > improving their sex lives. Sure it is legal, does that make it right? I can think of many crimes that produce what I consider -wrong- outcomes, many laws that I don't consider -ethical-. This may be one of 'em. B > Larry Ball > lball@inetnebr.com > > Joe Sylvester wrote: > > > roc@xpresso.seaslug.org wrote: > > > > > > > >On May 05, david-ben..david wrote: > > > > > >[-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] > > > > > >I have, in the past, contemplated the "cause" of slavery in ancient > > >times, why it was accepted and continued for millenia. The reason is > > >quite obvious considering their lack of socialist societies. If a > > >person had no family, was not landed, had no property, had no > > >employment, he/she became a vagabond and thus a threat to the people, > > >it being necessary to turn to crime to survive. > > > > > >Just my opinion, but, I think slavery was instituted either > > >for prevention or punishment for infraction of laws regarding theft > > >of > > >other people's property. It is easy to believe in slavery and > > >support it, even practice it, in a "truly civilized" society where > > >people look to their families for support rather than calling on > > >their > > >gov't to rape their neighbor of funds for support. The last line sure -sounds- Libertarian, but no libertarians I know object to the money spent on criminal justice. Many, like myself think that far more should go to that cause (at least for a time). > > Not hardly, slaves were either members of "other" groups, a nother tribe or > > people from another village, who were captured. Often the only purpose of > > the fighting they were captured in was to collect slaves. > > > > The African slaves that were brought to this country usually fell into this > > category, with the additional twist that the were caputured not to be the > > slaves of the capturors, although they did that too, but to be sold, first > > to other Africans, or to Arabs, who in turn sold them to the slavers who > > then distrubed them to various places, most importantly to the Americas. Slaves, wich in the history of the US means african slaves, were an economic commodity -especially- in the eyes of those who traded and transported them. I hope that's a point most here agree on (it seems obvious to me). > > > > > > >I look at all of these crack-heads walking the streets of America and > > >can't help but think that these people are totally out of control and > > >unable to help themselves, worthy only of slavery because of the > > >crimes which are committed in order to support their habit. I think this is a contradiction, though I generally avoid areas where such people would hang out so I might not know. If people are stealing to support their addiction it seems to me they are very tightly in control (of that theft and related anti social behaviour). I know that I could not live a life on the street, facing the daily violence of the narco terrorists we call "teen gangs" and go about stealing enough goods (figure, the fence is giving them 20-30% of used value) to support an illegal drug abuse habit without falling afoul of law enforcement. In a perverse way they are probably more focused and more "in control" in their drive to meet the needs of their sickness then I am in my drive to buy that new motorcycle or splurge on some Glenfiddich. Please be sure I am NOT compensating for their evil behaviour, just noting that they seem focussed and in control in the narrow sense of getting their next fix, in a way most people I know could never be (notably including myself ; ). So, what > > >do we do in reality? We incarcerate them, put them through > > >rehabilitation whether they want it or not, which seldom ever works > > >without desire on their part, letting the gov't rape us of our money > > >to accomplish this. No we don't. Very few prisoners get drug rehab, hell we don't even spend enough to prevent them from committing crimes (usually on one another) while they have forfeited their freedom to us (during their jail stay). I'm not sure that we should be doing the former but I think it's unethical to not be doing the latter. > > > > > >We say we do not believe in slavery. I say au contraire, we most > > >certainly do. We, the people, are the slaves, compelled to > > >financially subsidize the irresponsibility of these people, compelled > > >at the point of a gun by this communist perversion of a gov't to > > >cough > > >up the money, threatened with loss of our liberty and property unless > > >we cooperate with this extortion agenda which does little to help > > >those for whom it is intended, all the while fattening the pockets of > > >those involved with policing, jailing, judging, beaurocratically > > >managing and otherwise so-called treating these addicts. Had you talked about -taxes- I would agree. But seperating out the payment of the judicial system like this really muddies the water. If you only object to being forced (don't forget folks, you stop paying and the men with guns will come to -take- everything you think you own) to pay for part of what you are forced to pay for then I think your argument is not very sound IMO. > > > > We would be much better off if those "helped" by government handouts were > > required to perform some service to the rest of us, like picking up trash, > > sweeping the sidewalks, or whatever. This would give them both some true > > dignaty, since they would have at least partially *earned* their keep, and > > would also given them some incentive to get off the program, since if they > > have to peform "honest labor" anyway, they might as well do so in the > > private sector where wages and working conditions might be more favorable. > > I would set the rules and standards to inusre that private sector work > > would be more attractive. :) Are we talking about social welfare programs or about incarceration here or drawing some parallel?? You've made a zig and I can't seem to catch up with where the conversation has gone. Government handouts remove the disincentive to economic bad behaviour. That, is a BAD thing. "Improving" such systems by adding forced labor to them is also bad and could get the percentage of people currently dependent on those systems into thinking it's good for the government to tell them what to do in their daily lives, ight down to where to work for whom and when. Is - -that- a step toward restoring our constitution? I think not. We need to devolve the power currently engorging our federal beuracracies not make it more "efficient" or "better". Wether or not you agree that smaller government is better, the wholesale warping of economic incentives that social welfare programs create is -bad-. SWelfare is -not- however criminal justice. It is an obvious and clear duty of a federal government to provide a system of criminal justice. That system is the white blood cells of our society and our societal self defense. The failure of ours paints a bright and parallel line to the decline of some of our society IMNSDHO. snip all IMO Boyd - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 08 May 2000 20:01:01 -0500 From: Larry Ball Subject: Re: Slavery, an honest look (fwd) Well, Boyd, I am NOT a libertarian. I am a Republican in the Constitutional sense and a populist in the individual sense. Aside from that I gather from your post that you would rather these dregs of society sit arround pumping iron, watching color TV and enjoying their deviant sex life? Larry Ball lball@inetnebr.com boyd@seanet.com wrote: > It's interesting to read these messages, wich are rife with libertarian > sounding phrases and expression and find myself (a Libertarian) > disagreeing with so much. > > Larry Ball wrote: > > > > Sorry, Joe, all involuntary servitude (slavery) is not prohibited under the 13th > > Amendment. Those convicted of crime can be forced to perform involuntary > > servitude. Seems like a good idea to me. It would be better having these blokes > > working an producing than sitting arround pumping iron, watching T.V. and > > improving their sex lives. > Sure it is legal, does that make it right? I can think of many crimes > that produce what I consider -wrong- outcomes, many laws that I don't > consider -ethical-. This may be one of 'em. B > > > Larry Ball > > lball@inetnebr.com > > > > Joe Sylvester wrote: > > > > > roc@xpresso.seaslug.org wrote: > > > > > > > > > > >On May 05, david-ben..david wrote: > > > > > > > >[-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] > > > > > > > >I have, in the past, contemplated the "cause" of slavery in ancient > > > >times, why it was accepted and continued for millenia. The reason is > > > >quite obvious considering their lack of socialist societies. If a > > > >person had no family, was not landed, had no property, had no > > > >employment, he/she became a vagabond and thus a threat to the people, > > > >it being necessary to turn to crime to survive. > > > > > > > >Just my opinion, but, I think slavery was instituted either > > > >for prevention or punishment for infraction of laws regarding theft > > > >of > > > >other people's property. It is easy to believe in slavery and > > > >support it, even practice it, in a "truly civilized" society where > > > >people look to their families for support rather than calling on > > > >their > > > >gov't to rape their neighbor of funds for support. > > The last line sure -sounds- Libertarian, but no libertarians I know > object to the money spent on criminal justice. Many, like myself think > that far more should go to that cause (at least for a time). > > > > Not hardly, slaves were either members of "other" groups, a nother tribe or > > > people from another village, who were captured. Often the only purpose of > > > the fighting they were captured in was to collect slaves. > > > > > > The African slaves that were brought to this country usually fell into this > > > category, with the additional twist that the were caputured not to be the > > > slaves of the capturors, although they did that too, but to be sold, first > > > to other Africans, or to Arabs, who in turn sold them to the slavers who > > > then distrubed them to various places, most importantly to the Americas. > > Slaves, wich in the history of the US means african slaves, were an > economic commodity -especially- in the eyes of those who traded and > transported them. I hope that's a point most here agree on (it seems > obvious to me). > > > > > > > > > > >I look at all of these crack-heads walking the streets of America and > > > >can't help but think that these people are totally out of control and > > > >unable to help themselves, worthy only of slavery because of the > > > >crimes which are committed in order to support their habit. > > I think this is a contradiction, though I generally avoid areas where > such people would hang out so I might not know. If people are stealing > to support their addiction it seems to me they are very tightly in > control (of that theft and related anti social behaviour). I know that I > could not live a life on the street, facing the daily violence of the > narco terrorists we call "teen gangs" and go about stealing enough goods > (figure, the fence is giving them 20-30% of used value) to support an > illegal drug abuse habit without falling afoul of law enforcement. In a > perverse way they are probably more focused and more "in control" in > their drive to meet the needs of their sickness then I am in my drive to > buy that new motorcycle or splurge on some Glenfiddich. Please be sure I > am NOT compensating for their evil behaviour, just noting that they seem > focussed and in control in the narrow sense of getting their next fix, > in a way most people I know could never be (notably including myself ; > ). > > So, what > > > >do we do in reality? We incarcerate them, put them through > > > >rehabilitation whether they want it or not, which seldom ever works > > > >without desire on their part, letting the gov't rape us of our money > > > >to accomplish this. > > No we don't. Very few prisoners get drug rehab, hell we don't even spend > enough to prevent them from committing crimes (usually on one another) > while they have forfeited their freedom to us (during their jail stay). > I'm not sure that we should be doing the former but I think it's > unethical to not be doing the latter. > > > > > > > > >We say we do not believe in slavery. I say au contraire, we most > > > >certainly do. We, the people, are the slaves, compelled to > > > >financially subsidize the irresponsibility of these people, compelled > > > >at the point of a gun by this communist perversion of a gov't to > > > >cough > > > >up the money, threatened with loss of our liberty and property unless > > > >we cooperate with this extortion agenda which does little to help > > > >those for whom it is intended, all the while fattening the pockets of > > > >those involved with policing, jailing, judging, beaurocratically > > > >managing and otherwise so-called treating these addicts. > > Had you talked about -taxes- I would agree. But seperating out the > payment of the judicial system like this really muddies the water. If > you only object to being forced (don't forget folks, you stop paying and > the men with guns will come to -take- everything you think you own) to > pay for part of what you are forced to pay for then I think your > argument is not very sound IMO. > > > > > > > We would be much better off if those "helped" by government handouts were > > > required to perform some service to the rest of us, like picking up trash, > > > sweeping the sidewalks, or whatever. This would give them both some true > > > dignaty, since they would have at least partially *earned* their keep, and > > > would also given them some incentive to get off the program, since if they > > > have to peform "honest labor" anyway, they might as well do so in the > > > private sector where wages and working conditions might be more favorable. > > > I would set the rules and standards to inusre that private sector work > > > would be more attractive. :) > > Are we talking about social welfare programs or about incarceration here > or drawing some parallel?? You've made a zig and I can't seem to catch > up with where the conversation has gone. Government handouts remove the > disincentive to economic bad behaviour. That, is a BAD thing. > "Improving" such systems by adding forced labor to them is also bad and > could get the percentage of people currently dependent on those systems > into thinking it's good for the government to tell them what to do in > their daily lives, ight down to where to work for whom and when. Is > -that- a step toward restoring our constitution? I think not. We need to > devolve the power currently engorging our federal beuracracies not make > it more "efficient" or "better". Wether or not you agree that smaller > government is better, the wholesale warping of economic incentives that > social welfare programs create is -bad-. > SWelfare is -not- however criminal justice. It is an obvious and clear > duty of a federal government to provide a system of criminal justice. > That system is the white blood cells of our society and our societal > self defense. The failure of ours paints a bright and parallel line to > the decline of some of our society IMNSDHO. > > snip > all IMO Boyd > > - - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 9 May 00 08:09:56 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: [newsucanuse] VIN -- more "wilderness" (fwd) On May 9, SlickEditor@aol.com wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz Extremists want millions more acres fenced off Stumbling across a wild animal or a breathtaking vista in some remote area is a memorable experience. Wanting to preserve at least the possibility of such an experience for younger generations is admirable. To the extent that philanthropists and private outfits like the Nature Conservancy can buy up unique pieces of fertile wildlife habitat, maintaining them in a natural state either through voluntary donations or (where appropriate) fee-based camping or even hunting at a level designed to mimic prehistoric predation, such efforts should be encouraged -- perhaps even through tax waivers. And surely the government should stop building lumber roads at taxpayer expense, without which active forestry in remote areas would be economically prohibitive -- a typical result of leaving such lands under "collective," political control. But it's much more tempting to use the might of government to indulge one's nostalgic reverie of the forest primeval, isn't it, forcing one's half-baked notions of "wilderness" on the residents of distant places -- even on private property owners whose losses you'll never actually have to see? America was born in the spirit of men and women courageous enough to go into the wilderness and tame it. They did this to win a measure of personal and economic freedom unknown in Europe, where all land was considered to be first the property of the crown, subsequently divided among the feudal aristocracy based on military and political expediency. A "right to be secure in his home"? Not if the peasant's cottage was provided only at the pleasure of the local baron. And don't today's most extreme environmentalists really seek a return to such a pre-revolutionary regime -- at least here in the distant West -- with the federal government now conveniently filling the role of Prince John, who owned "all the deer in the forest"? A coalition of radical environmental groups led by The Wilderness Society is now petitioning Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt to renounce the inventory of federal wilderness lands conducted in the late '70s under President Jimmy Carter. Instead, they seek to arbitrarily declare hundreds of millions of additional federally-controlled acres to be de facto "wilderness" -- under a new definition meaning fenced off and guarded by armed men against human travel, mining, grazing, or other uses "until a more detailed wilderness inventory can be completed." Which is to say, forever. As it is, the Bureau of Land Management has set aside 5.1 million acres of Nevada (just for example) as "wilderness study areas" -- areas which Congress has not identified as wilderness, mind you, but which are still "managed as de facto wilderness" -- off limits to new roads, off-road vehicles, mining claims, or virtually any other human use until such time as someone can get around to "completing their study." The BLM is now recommending that 1.8 million of those acres be retained for "wilderness" in the Silver State, while the rest should be returned to "multiple use" -- still a far cry from being paved over as parking lots. But John Wallin, coordinator of the Nevada Wilderness Project, complains that the original BLM inventory arbitrarily eliminated another 10 to 44 million acres of land that could and should have been considered "wilderness." Such extremists contend the BLM missed "50 to 70 percent of the wilderness out here" in their original inventory. "This petition is coming at a time when the BLM is shifting toward becoming a greener agency," explains Bill Meadows, president of the Wilderness Society. In truth, the Republican Congress has made some modest improvements in restoring land rights since that party swept to power in 1994. For instance, Congress managed to block some of the most onerous provisions of the original National Biological Survey, under which private land owners were to be blackmailed with automatic "endangered species habitat" designations of their property (marking huge parcels off limits even to farming) unless they "voluntarily" allowed federal officials to trespass on their properties in search of "threatened" rats and bugs. In truth, what the green extremists really sense now is that the approaching end of the Clinton-Gore administration puts them under a short deadline to get additional millions of acres "set aside," out of the reach of "greedy exploiters" who might want to increase the nation's timber and mineral and agricultural wealth, feeding their own families and improving the standard of living for the whole world in the process. It is a measure of the wealth of this nation that we can even toy with such notions. But make no mistake -- abandon the traditions of entrepreneurship, sharply limited government power, and private property rights which created our national wealth, and it can still change. Vin Suprynowicz is assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. His book, "Send in the Waco Killers: Essays on the Freedom Movement, 1993-1998," is available by dialing 1-800-244-2224; or via web site http://www.thespiritof76.com/wacokillers.html. *** Vin Suprynowicz, vin@lvrj.com "The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it." -- John Hay, 1872 "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and thus clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." -- H.L. Mencken * * * To subscribe, send a message to vinsends-request@ezlink.com, from your NEW address, including the word "subscribe" (with no quotation marks) in the "Subject" line. All I ask of electronic subscribers is that they not RE-forward my columns until on or after the embargo date which appears at the top of each, and that (should they then choose to do so) they copy the columns in their entirety, preserving the original attribution. The Vinsends list is maintained by Alan Wendt in Colorado, who may be reached directly at alan@ezlink.com. The web sites for the Suprynowicz column are at http://www.infomagic.com/liberty/vinyard.htm, and http://www.nguworld.com/vindex. The Vinyard is maintained by Michael Voth in Flagstaff, who may be reached directly at mvoth@infomagic.com. **** SPECIAL OFFER **** "Waco: A New Revelation" the new video by MGA Films. Normally $29.95 + s/h. Mention of Rich Slick and pay $27.50 and get FREE delivery. Credit card call: 888-658-2913 or mail check or money order to: CDS Dept RS P.O. Box 14002 Fort Worth, TX 76117 [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** RKBA! - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 09:41:09 -0700 From: boyd@seanet.com Subject: Re: Slavery, an honest look (fwd) Larry Ball wrote: > > Well, Boyd, I am NOT a libertarian. I am a Republican in the Constitutional sense and > a populist in the individual sense. Aside from that I gather from your post that you > would rather these dregs of society sit arround pumping iron, watching color TV and > enjoying their deviant sex life? Taking your last point first, their "deviant sex life" is ILLEGAL. It was MY POST that pointed out our ethical obligation to stop these people from committing crime while in our jails so why are you painting me here as some sort of pro rape, pro drug abuse pro socialist welfare state poster? Please -think- before you reply, if you don't understand what's said ask questions and for the record I didn't say anyone here was Libertarian, I said many were using phrases that sounded to me like Libertarian words (said it clearly, at the very top of the reply). Boyd Kneeland NRA, JPFO, LP and former longtime GOP area chair. > > Larry Ball > lball@inetnebr.com > > boyd@seanet.com wrote: > > > It's interesting to read these messages, wich are rife with libertarian > > sounding phrases and expression and find myself (a Libertarian) > > disagreeing with so much. > > > > Larry Ball wrote: > > > > > > Sorry, Joe, all involuntary servitude (slavery) is not prohibited under the 13th > > > Amendment. Those convicted of crime can be forced to perform involuntary > > > servitude. Seems like a good idea to me. It would be better having these blokes > > > working an producing than sitting arround pumping iron, watching T.V. and > > > improving their sex lives. > > Sure it is legal, does that make it right? I can think of many crimes > > that produce what I consider -wrong- outcomes, many laws that I don't > > consider -ethical-. This may be one of 'em. B > > > > > Larry Ball > > > lball@inetnebr.com > > > > > > Joe Sylvester wrote: > > > > > > > roc@xpresso.seaslug.org wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >On May 05, david-ben..david wrote: > > > > > > > > > >[-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] > > > > > > > > > >I have, in the past, contemplated the "cause" of slavery in ancient > > > > >times, why it was accepted and continued for millenia. The reason is > > > > >quite obvious considering their lack of socialist societies. If a > > > > >person had no family, was not landed, had no property, had no > > > > >employment, he/she became a vagabond and thus a threat to the people, > > > > >it being necessary to turn to crime to survive. > > > > > > > > > >Just my opinion, but, I think slavery was instituted either > > > > >for prevention or punishment for infraction of laws regarding theft > > > > >of > > > > >other people's property. It is easy to believe in slavery and > > > > >support it, even practice it, in a "truly civilized" society where > > > > >people look to their families for support rather than calling on > > > > >their > > > > >gov't to rape their neighbor of funds for support. > > > > The last line sure -sounds- Libertarian, but no libertarians I know > > object to the money spent on criminal justice. Many, like myself think > > that far more should go to that cause (at least for a time). > > > > > > Not hardly, slaves were either members of "other" groups, a nother tribe or > > > > people from another village, who were captured. Often the only purpose of > > > > the fighting they were captured in was to collect slaves. > > > > > > > > The African slaves that were brought to this country usually fell into this > > > > category, with the additional twist that the were caputured not to be the > > > > slaves of the capturors, although they did that too, but to be sold, first > > > > to other Africans, or to Arabs, who in turn sold them to the slavers who > > > > then distrubed them to various places, most importantly to the Americas. > > > > Slaves, wich in the history of the US means african slaves, were an > > economic commodity -especially- in the eyes of those who traded and > > transported them. I hope that's a point most here agree on (it seems > > obvious to me). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >I look at all of these crack-heads walking the streets of America and > > > > >can't help but think that these people are totally out of control and > > > > >unable to help themselves, worthy only of slavery because of the > > > > >crimes which are committed in order to support their habit. > > > > I think this is a contradiction, though I generally avoid areas where > > such people would hang out so I might not know. If people are stealing > > to support their addiction it seems to me they are very tightly in > > control (of that theft and related anti social behaviour). I know that I > > could not live a life on the street, facing the daily violence of the > > narco terrorists we call "teen gangs" and go about stealing enough goods > > (figure, the fence is giving them 20-30% of used value) to support an > > illegal drug abuse habit without falling afoul of law enforcement. In a > > perverse way they are probably more focused and more "in control" in > > their drive to meet the needs of their sickness then I am in my drive to > > buy that new motorcycle or splurge on some Glenfiddich. Please be sure I > > am NOT compensating for their evil behaviour, just noting that they seem > > focussed and in control in the narrow sense of getting their next fix, > > in a way most people I know could never be (notably including myself ; > > ). > > > > So, what > > > > >do we do in reality? We incarcerate them, put them through > > > > >rehabilitation whether they want it or not, which seldom ever works > > > > >without desire on their part, letting the gov't rape us of our money > > > > >to accomplish this. > > > > No we don't. Very few prisoners get drug rehab, hell we don't even spend > > enough to prevent them from committing crimes (usually on one another) > > while they have forfeited their freedom to us (during their jail stay). > > I'm not sure that we should be doing the former but I think it's > > unethical to not be doing the latter. > > > > > > > > > > > >We say we do not believe in slavery. I say au contraire, we most > > > > >certainly do. We, the people, are the slaves, compelled to > > > > >financially subsidize the irresponsibility of these people, compelled > > > > >at the point of a gun by this communist perversion of a gov't to > > > > >cough > > > > >up the money, threatened with loss of our liberty and property unless > > > > >we cooperate with this extortion agenda which does little to help > > > > >those for whom it is intended, all the while fattening the pockets of > > > > >those involved with policing, jailing, judging, beaurocratically > > > > >managing and otherwise so-called treating these addicts. > > > > Had you talked about -taxes- I would agree. But seperating out the > > payment of the judicial system like this really muddies the water. If > > you only object to being forced (don't forget folks, you stop paying and > > the men with guns will come to -take- everything you think you own) to > > pay for part of what you are forced to pay for then I think your > > argument is not very sound IMO. > > > > > > > > > > We would be much better off if those "helped" by government handouts were > > > > required to perform some service to the rest of us, like picking up trash, > > > > sweeping the sidewalks, or whatever. This would give them both some true > > > > dignaty, since they would have at least partially *earned* their keep, and > > > > would also given them some incentive to get off the program, since if they > > > > have to peform "honest labor" anyway, they might as well do so in the > > > > private sector where wages and working conditions might be more favorable. > > > > I would set the rules and standards to inusre that private sector work > > > > would be more attractive. :) > > > > Are we talking about social welfare programs or about incarceration here > > or drawing some parallel?? You've made a zig and I can't seem to catch > > up with where the conversation has gone. Government handouts remove the > > disincentive to economic bad behaviour. That, is a BAD thing. > > "Improving" such systems by adding forced labor to them is also bad and > > could get the percentage of people currently dependent on those systems > > into thinking it's good for the government to tell them what to do in > > their daily lives, ight down to where to work for whom and when. Is > > -that- a step toward restoring our constitution? I think not. We need to > > devolve the power currently engorging our federal beuracracies not make > > it more "efficient" or "better". Wether or not you agree that smaller > > government is better, the wholesale warping of economic incentives that > > social welfare programs create is -bad-. > > SWelfare is -not- however criminal justice. It is an obvious and clear > > duty of a federal government to provide a system of criminal justice. > > That system is the white blood cells of our society and our societal > > self defense. The failure of ours paints a bright and parallel line to > > the decline of some of our society IMNSDHO. > > > > snip > > all IMO Boyd > > > > - > > - - - ------------------------------ End of roc-digest V2 #339 *************************