Lysander Spooner wrote No Treason: Constitution of No Authority

[Alfonso Jones]

The President's oath also mentions the Constitution. This oath is given in article 2 sect. 1 of the Constitution. I believe Congressmen and Federal judges take an oath to defend the Constitution.

Yes, there are multiple places where some individuals do affirm the Constitution. YOu mention some here. Michael has mentioned some others.

The fact remains - - - the notion of everyone "affirming the Constitution" just doesn't make sense unless by that notion you mean that they affirm it every moment when they do not leave the country and become a citizen of another country.

Bill P

[galtgulch]

So the question remains if it is not a contract how does it get to be upheld for those of us who didn't sign it.

Gulch,

I already said that: by oath of allegiance and by force.

What do you think you did your entire childhood at school? You crossed your heart, looked at the flag and said, "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, with liberty and justice for all."

The republic is defined by the Constitution.

I believe the oath taken by the military specifically mentions the Constitution.

Michael

Michael,

Actually I was in grammar school long before "under God" was imposed (in my opinion in violation of the First Amendment) and I was an atheist from the very first time I thought about the issue probably around age six, so I never said those words.

At least in those days we did learn about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

If signing the Constitution were a rite of passage into adulthood I would have no problem with only 90% or so signing it. That would give legitimacy to the government which would impose the laws on everyone, not just those who signed. At least most would read it or take a special course on the subject so they would understand what it means.

I just find it intolerable that so many office holders are insincere in their oath to uphold the C. when they demonstrate blatant ignorance at best of its limits on their power.

www.campaignforliberty.com 23feb 5am 104455

gulch

[galtgulch]

We intend to eliminate the bullies from govt:

Gulch,

That is an ongoing process. I wish it were possible to to it for once and for all, but it can't be done without changing human nature. You have to do it one bully at a time and a new one always pops up. This is where I marvel at the wisdom of our Founding Fathers.

If you want to be as effective as possible in your pro-freedom activities (which incidentally I applaud), my suggestion is do not leave out bolstering checks and balances. Believe me, those who like power don't like checks and balances, but they are afraid to mess with that part. They can BS about individual rights and fool people, but they know that BSing about checks and balances doesn't work. They run smack up against others who like power.

Look what happened with Terry Schiavo for a clear example.

The thing they secretly dream about is how to eliminate checks and balances so they can have all the power. So keep checks and balances on the table always.

Michael

Michael,

I appreciate your responses.

A little disappointed that despite my pleas, no one chose to comment on the whole issue raised by Lysander Spooner. I am not an anarchist but the idea of the Constitution being a contract, like a business contract, had a certain appeal. My wife is smarter than me and points out that the Constitution is not a contract. So the question remains if it is not a contract how does it get to be upheld for those of us who didn't sign it.

www.campaignforliberty.com 23Feb 104450

gulch

Gulch -

I can't speak for others, but I can speak for myself on this. The idea of periodic reaffirmations of the Constitution having any sort of legal-contractual validity just doesn't make any sense! What if a country has a population of 1,000,000 and only 999,000 so affirm? What does this mean? What could it mean? If you are trying to get to some sort of notion of everyone agreeing on the Constitution you're going to have a hard time getting there - unless you affirm that they so agree by not LEAVING THE COUNTRY when they are old enough to have the option to do so.

There might be a symbolic benefit in such a reaffirmation, but nothing contractual makes sense...

Bill P

I would just suggest that you read Lysander Spooner's treatise entitled No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority for yourself so you will understand his argument. I will not attempt to repeat or summarize it here. If a significant percentage were willing to sign it that makes more sense to me than for no one living to sign it. If it is not considered to be a contract maybe it should be!

To answer your question in part. If a certain percentage does not sign it but the vast majority does sign then either the ones who don't sign it decide to sign it afterall, or they just go about their business the way we all do now, because that is the situation we are all in now. None of us signed it and I fail to see how that makes any sense at all.

Most of all I wish that elected officials were required not only to take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution but were also required to take a course and a test to prove that they understand it!

www.campaignforliberty.com 23feb 8am 104458

gulch

[Alfonso Jones]

We intend to eliminate the bullies from govt:

Gulch,

That is an ongoing process. I wish it were possible to to it for once and for all, but it can't be done without changing human nature. You have to do it one bully at a time and a new one always pops up. This is where I marvel at the wisdom of our Founding Fathers.

If you want to be as effective as possible in your pro-freedom activities (which incidentally I applaud), my suggestion is do not leave out bolstering checks and balances. Believe me, those who like power don't like checks and balances, but they are afraid to mess with that part. They can BS about individual rights and fool people, but they know that BSing about checks and balances doesn't work. They run smack up against others who like power.

Look what happened with Terry Schiavo for a clear example.

The thing they secretly dream about is how to eliminate checks and balances so they can have all the power. So keep checks and balances on the table always.

Michael

Michael,

I appreciate your responses.

A little disappointed that despite my pleas, no one chose to comment on the whole issue raised by Lysander Spooner. I am not an anarchist but the idea of the Constitution being a contract, like a business contract, had a certain appeal. My wife is smarter than me and points out that the Constitution is not a contract. So the question remains if it is not a contract how does it get to be upheld for those of us who didn't sign it.

www.campaignforliberty.com 23Feb 104450

gulch

Gulch -

I can't speak for others, but I can speak for myself on this. The idea of periodic reaffirmations of the Constitution having any sort of legal-contractual validity just doesn't make any sense! What if a country has a population of 1,000,000 and only 999,000 so affirm? What does this mean? What could it mean? If you are trying to get to some sort of notion of everyone agreeing on the Constitution you're going to have a hard time getting there - unless you affirm that they so agree by not LEAVING THE COUNTRY when they are old enough to have the option to do so.

There might be a symbolic benefit in such a reaffirmation, but nothing contractual makes sense...

Bill P

I would just suggest that you read Lysander Spooner's treatise entitled No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority for yourself so you will understand his argument. I will not attempt to repeat or summarize it here. If a significant percentage were willing to sign it that makes more sense to me than for no one living to sign it. If it is not considered to be a contract maybe it should be!

To answer your question in part. If a certain percentage does not sign it but the vast majority does sign then either the ones who don't sign it decide to sign it afterall, or they just go about their business the way we all do now, because that is the situation we are all in now. None of us signed it and I fail to see how that makes any sense at all.

Most of all I wish that elected officials were required not only to take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution but were also required to take a course and a test to prove that they understand it!

www.campaignforliberty.com 23feb 8am 104458

gulch

I am familiar with L. Spooner.

The key thing - - - test what is suggested against reality. That is what I am urging. Learn the content of the U. S. Constitution - YES! STudy it, yes! Talk about it, yes! Defend it verbally, yes! None of those things are disputed by me. I simply dispute whether some sort of referendum would have any meaning. The state was created, when the Union was formed. There is no "sunset clause" provided whereby every 20 years it must pass a 90% vote or be dissolved.

And for that we should be glad. I suspect that if a Constitutional Convention were to be convened to do surgery on the U. S. COnstitution, or write wholesale amendments, the results - in the philosophical atmosphere in which we live - would be horribly worse than the current Constitution. In fact, it would probably even be worse than current practice.

Bill P

Bill P

[Chris Grieb]

Bill P, On your last post I agree completely. Any document produced today would be much worse than the Constitution we have now.

After all it almost all written by dead white males.

[Alfonso Jones]

Bill P, On your last post I agree completely. Any document produced today would be much worse than the Constitution we have now.

After all it almost all written by dead white males.

Chris -

I have it on the best of evidence that NO dead white male wrote any part of the document. At least - - - they weren't dead white males while they were writing...

Bill P

[wjbiii]

Power without strength is not power and there are oodles of strong bullies. We have to deal with them. That is what government is for.

Excuse me: there is no "we". You might "have to deal with them", but you have no authority in the world to enlist me in the project.

It doesn't matter what your problem is, Michael: you have no right to force me to help you solve it. My answer to you is exactly the same one that I have for liberals who moan about what to do with poor people without the welfare state.

I don't care, and I don't have to. There is nothing that you can do about that.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Billy,

Your premise is wrong. I am not enlisting anyone in that statement. I am making a metaphysical statement of fact, not a political statement.

If we (people in general, i.e. human beings) do not deal with bullies, bullies will deal with us (people in general). That's a fact proven by just a cursory glance at history. That's my meaning.

We (you and I—different meaning for "we" this time) can disagree, but it would be far better if we (you and I) disagreed over the correct idea, not an incorrectly attributed one.

In fact, it would be far better if we (people in general) disagreed over correctly attributed ideas, not incorrectly attributed ones. I don't expect that to happen anytime soon, though.

EDIT: btw- I do not need to "enlist" you in order to classify you as a human being. That's a cognitive task, not a normative one. All I need to do is observe you, think with my own mind and "Voila!" I say you are a human being and there is nothing on earth you can do about it.

Michael

[galtgulch]

We intend to eliminate the bullies from govt:

Gulch,

That is an ongoing process. I wish it were possible to to it for once and for all, but it can't be done without changing human nature. You have to do it one bully at a time and a new one always pops up. This is where I marvel at the wisdom of our Founding Fathers.

If you want to be as effective as possible in your pro-freedom activities (which incidentally I applaud), my suggestion is do not leave out bolstering checks and balances. Believe me, those who like power don't like checks and balances, but they are afraid to mess with that part. They can BS about individual rights and fool people, but they know that BSing about checks and balances doesn't work. They run smack up against others who like power.

Look what happened with Terry Schiavo for a clear example.

The thing they secretly dream about is how to eliminate checks and balances so they can have all the power. So keep checks and balances on the table always.

Michael

Michael,

I appreciate your responses.

A little disappointed that despite my pleas, no one chose to comment on the whole issue raised by Lysander Spooner. I am not an anarchist but the idea of the Constitution being a contract, like a business contract, had a certain appeal. My wife is smarter than me and points out that the Constitution is not a contract. So the question remains if it is not a contract how does it get to be upheld for those of us who didn't sign it.

www.campaignforliberty.com 23Feb 104450

gulch

Gulch -

I can't speak for others, but I can speak for myself on this. The idea of periodic reaffirmations of the Constitution having any sort of legal-contractual validity just doesn't make any sense! What if a country has a population of 1,000,000 and only 999,000 so affirm? What does this mean? What could it mean? If you are trying to get to some sort of notion of everyone agreeing on the Constitution you're going to have a hard time getting there - unless you affirm that they so agree by not LEAVING THE COUNTRY when they are old enough to have the option to do so.

There might be a symbolic benefit in such a reaffirmation, but nothing contractual makes sense...

Bill P

I would just suggest that you read Lysander Spooner's treatise entitled No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority for yourself so you will understand his argument. I will not attempt to repeat or summarize it here. If a significant percentage were willing to sign it that makes more sense to me than for no one living to sign it. If it is not considered to be a contract maybe it should be!

To answer your question in part. If a certain percentage does not sign it but the vast majority does sign then either the ones who don't sign it decide to sign it afterall, or they just go about their business the way we all do now, because that is the situation we are all in now. None of us signed it and I fail to see how that makes any sense at all.

Most of all I wish that elected officials were required not only to take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution but were also required to take a course and a test to prove that they understand it!

www.campaignforliberty.com 23feb 8am 104458

gulch

I am familiar with L. Spooner.

The key thing - - - test what is suggested against reality. That is what I am urging. Learn the content of the U. S. Constitution - YES! STudy it, yes! Talk about it, yes! Defend it verbally, yes! None of those things are disputed by me. I simply dispute whether some sort of referendum would have any meaning. The state was created, when the Union was formed. There is no "sunset clause" provided whereby every 20 years it must pass a 90% vote or be dissolved.

And for that we should be glad. I suspect that if a Constitutional Convention were to be convened to do surgery on the U. S. COnstitution, or write wholesale amendments, the results - in the philosophical atmosphere in which we live - would be horribly worse than the current Constitution. In fact, it would probably even be worse than current practice.

Bill P

Bill P.,

I think you would agree that govt officials who take the oath of office to unhold and defend the C. are engaging in a, to them, meaningless ritual. No media interviewer ever even asks them just what the oath means to them or what their understanding is of Section 8 and 9 of Article 1.

Everyone who passes into adulthood in this country does so with no fanfare. Some have to register for the draft. Some get a job and witness the withholding from their first paycheck. Some graduate from high school and get a diploma. Some get married early and have to get a license to do so. Some apply for a hunting or fishing permit or an FID card.

None of those things involves learning anything about our country or its history or govt. Those who apply for legal citizenship do have to make a study and pass a test. That is far more than someone born here has to do.

When I suggest that a law be passed which enables one to claim no additional rights or privileges for someone who reads certain books and passes a written test than someone who does not take that test but just enables them to claim that they did so, it does not confer a different level or class of citizenship. Or does it? There would be no punishment or different treatment for anyone not taking the course and test. There would be no cost involved. The books could all be found in libraries. Those who pass would simply be more enlightened about our history, our govt, our Constitution, our individual rights and the limits imposed by the C. itself.

You say you are familiar with Lysander Spooner's work. I just find that the populace and the voters are ignorant which is a sad reflection on the public school system, on the incompetence of their parents, and on themselves for choosing to remain so. Over the last fifty years I think the pro freedom movement has taken root and is educating more and more young people and has found its way into the colleges and universities where it has to be if we are to have any chance of turning the tide. Obama's misguided efforts are bound to make things worse which will only serve to help our recruiting more people to our cause.

I do not believe in one man one vote. Perhaps their should be some criteria one would have to meet before one could vote. Otherwise once the recipients of govt handouts and privileges out number the productive it will be all over.

But I digress. I just wish more people would take the trouble to delve deeper into what is going on. I heard a fellow on Book Notes on CSpan yesterday talking about the need for even a larger bailout. He traced the root of our crisis only to the bankers and never mentions the govt interventions, e.g.the Community Reinvestment Act, and their role in forcing bankers to lower their standards.

I think that the Citizens For Liberty movement will address this need for an educated populace.

www.campaignforliberty.com 32feb11AM 104471 growth seems to be speeding up a bit.

gulch

[BaalChatzaf]

The U.S. Constitution is a kludge. It replaced another kludge the Articles of Confederation. The Civil War effectively abolished the Constitution of 1787 by making the National Government supreme over State government in virtually every respect including sovereignty. The process of ending the Federal System as conceived by the founders continued and was completed by the popular election of the Senate. Further on the perverse interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause led to the essential negation of the tenth amendment. Our Constitution is dead and buried lo these many years.

If you wish try to start a Revolution to either restore something like the Constitution of 1787. I wish you lots ofl luck. You will need it.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[galtgulch]

The U.S. Constitution is a kludge. It replaced another kludge the Articles of Confederation. The Civil War effectively abolished the Constitution of 1787 by making the National Government supreme over State government in virtually every respect including sovereignty. The process of ending the Federal System as conceived by the founders continued and was completed by the popular election of the Senate. Further on the perverse interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause led to the essential negation of the tenth amendment. Our Constitution is dead and buried lo these many years.

If you wish try to start a Revolution to either restore something like the Constitution of 1787. I wish you lots ofl luck. You will need it.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ba'al,

I agree with you but think it will take more than just luck. The passion for freedom beats in the hearts of those who are joining the www.campaignforliberty.com. They are determined to try to make it happen in the only way that it ever could happen by educating others to how their freedoms have been lost and that there is an opportunity in our lifetime to create it as it should have been in the first place. There is no stopping us and our numbers are growing. Join us now or wait until you are convinced that what we are up to is plausible.

What are you hoping will make it happen?

www.campaignforliberty.com 104473

gulch

Edited February 23, 2009 by galtgulch

[Selene]

Gultch:

"Some have to register for the draft." Some equals males - this is such an objectivist and libertarian issue that is a perfect example of the collectivism and tribalism that is government.

Nixon abolished the draft, I believe by an act of Congress, so registering only males for the draft at 18 makes sense ...how?

Adam

[galtgulch]

Gultch:

"Some have to register for the draft." Some equals males - this is such an objectivist and libertarian issue that is a perfect example of the collectivism and tribalism that is government.

Nixon abolished the draft, I believe by an act of Congress, so registering only males for the draft at 18 makes sense ...how?

Adam

Adam,

Where did I ever say that requiring anyone to register for the draft made sense? You know that if the perspective of Objectivism were prevalent how different things would be for the better. I am aware that there are efforts being made by Objectivist as individuals and in certain organizations. The same is true for the libertarians, the tax freedom folks, the pro constitution folds and others. But time is of the essence as things are happening fast and the ones in power are on the verge of having us all live in their socialist utopia.

I realize that the Campaign For Liberty is at an early stage and may never achieve its goals. Either we help or not. i have chosen to help by putting in my two cents. Go see the movie Defiance and then get back to me.

gulch

[Brant Gaede]

Billy,

Your premise is wrong. I am not enlisting anyone in that statement. I am making a metaphysical statement of fact, not a political statement.

If we (people in general, i.e. human beings) do not deal with bullies, bullies will deal with us (people in general). That's a fact proven by just a cursory glance at history. That's my meaning.

We (you and I—different meaning for "we" this time) can disagree, but it would be far better if we (you and I) disagreed over the correct idea, not an incorrectly attributed one.

In fact, it would be far better if we (people in general) disagreed over correctly attributed ideas, not incorrectly attributed ones. I don't expect that to happen anytime soon, though.

EDIT: btw- I do not need to "enlist" you in order to classify you as a human being. That's a cognitive task, not a normative one. All I need to do is observe you, think with my own mind and "Voila!" I say you are a human being and there is nothing on earth you can do about it.

"We the people" you the something else. The implicit collectivism shot into the arm of the body politic making a mockery of a society of individuals individual rights all protected by vigilant philosopher kings hence the Civil War and all this crap "we" are now drowning in.

Please, Michael, you are only beating on a rhetorical drum instead of chewing on the essence of things.

--Brant

[Selene]

Gultch:

My point would be for some enterprising person with those networks - hint hint - call for a one day nationwide strike protesting the sexist compulsion to enslave its male citizens.

Are you aware that if a male does not register for the draft, he is discriminated against by being excluded from programs that are available to those who do?

And on that day we enroll and empower who ever shows up.

Get the Liberty on the Rocks folks - I just joined them last night.

Adam

Edited February 23, 2009 by Selene

[Brant Gaede]

Adam, could you be a little specific: what programs?

--Brant

[Selene]

Student loans for one. But I will inquire from my client this afternoon.

Edited February 23, 2009 by Selene

[BaalChatzaf]

Ba'al,

I agree with you but think it will take more than just luck. The passion for freedom beats in the hearts of those who are joining the www.campaignforliberty.com. They are determined to try to make it happen in the only way that it ever could happen by educating others to how their freedoms have been lost and that there is an opportunity in our lifetime to create it as it should have been in the first place. There is no stopping us and our numbers are growing. Join us now or wait until you are convinced that what we are up to is plausible.

What are you hoping will make it happen?

www.campaignforliberty.com 104473

gulch

What it will take is a complete failure of our economy and pray that our enemies do not use that moment to attack us. If we survive the failure of our economy without a war, just maybe we can reconstruct a better society that will last maybe three generations before it starts to go to squash-rot (just as it happened the first time -- four score and seven years).

I bet you think liberty can be achieved and it will keep forever thereafter. It won't. People are lazy and inattentive and very fixated on their small private concerns which is why societies go bad.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Please, Michael, you are only beating on a rhetorical drum instead of chewing on the essence of things.

Brant,

Sez you.

I have no idea if you guys really want to discuss ideas or just hurl accusations.

1. If you want to discuss ideas, the first requirement is conceptual precision.

2. The second is to stop making unwarranted assumptions based on erroneous reading of posts.

3. The third is to stop with accusations until you can be sure you have a real enemy in front of you.

I am in the first stage of making sure there is conceptual precision with whoever wants to discuss this with me. Irrespective of your accusation of "beating on a rhetorical drum instead of chewing on the essence of things," or Billy's in-your-face-no-damn-body-is-going-to-tell-me-what-to-do-especially-you implicit (and wrongheaded) accusation of me trying to enlist him in some dastardly something-or-other against his will, I find conceptual precision necessary for understanding. And I use a specific system of cognitive identification before making normative abstractions, plans for action, and even accusations.

I realize this is not in vogue in these discussions, but I am going to try anyway.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Please, Michael, you are only beating on a rhetorical drum instead of chewing on the essence of things.

Brant,

Sez you.

I have no idea if you guys really want to discuss ideas or just hurl accusations.

1. If you want to discuss ideas, the first requirement is conceptual precision.

2. The second is to stop making unwarranted assumptions based on erroneous reading of posts.

3. The third is to stop with accusations until you can be sure you have a real enemy in front of you.

I am in the first stage of making sure there is conceptual precision with whoever wants to discuss this with me. Irrespective of your accusation of "beating on a rhetorical drum instead of chewing on the essence of things," or Billy's in-your-face-no-damn-body-is-going-to-tell-me-what-to-do-especially-you implicit (and wrongheaded) accusation of me trying to enlist him in some dastardly something-or-other against his will, I find conceptual precision necessary for understanding. And I use a specific system of cognitive identification before making normative abstractions, plans for action, and even accusations.

I realize this is not in vogue in these discussions, but I am going to try anyway.

Michael,

"We" as in we all are human beings is quite different from a particular human being in his psychological relationship to the state. Billy simply objected because your formulation left no room for him unless he saw himself inside your stated "we." You were being much too inclusive. This is all about the core essence of lived individualism, not that an individual cannot be an individual inside your "we." Billy is outside. I am inside. My anarchism is in my head. His is within both his head and his politics. There is no road to freedom from here that does not embrace my psychological relationship to the state. I am free of it, just as some people are free inside a prison.

--Brant

[edit] PS: Because I advocate delimited government and am not a political anarchist, I think I can do something, somewhere, somehow to help obtain more political freedom generally. I don't think Billy has any but literal defensive weapons for this which he doesn't dare use offensively.

Edited February 23, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

My "formulation" is not a formulation. It is an identification. Bullies exist. They will bash you at their pleasure. If you don't mind being bashed, OK. If you do, you have to do something about it.

There is no formulation in that, neither inside nor outside. That's reality identified.

I also notice that our Founding Fathers did present a formulation (and implemented it) based on checks and balances. It works imperfectly, but it works a hell of a lot better than dictatorships.

There is no formulation on my part in that, either, just because I deeply admire that achievement. That's nothing but reality identified.

I have not presented my own formulation since I have not arrived at one. How in hell can I "enlist" someone in something I don't know?

I once lived under a military dictatorship where you needed to get an exit visa to leave the country. I played a small part in helping abolish that dictatorship (I actually did). So I know what being inside and outside mean on a very practical level.

When someone says he is not "inside" or "enlisted" here in the USA, at least he can leave. He should not insinuate that others are enslaving him—or want to enslave him because of ignoring a common meaning for the word "we" (if he wants to be taken seriously).

That, I contend, is rhetoric voided of idea.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Michael,

That's essentially the problem: the "common meaning." Common meanings can be psychologically enslaving, just like the manipulation of language in "1984." I am not accusing you of manipulating language, but in this case I think you are using manipulated language not being aware of it and getting angry when it is pointed out. As for Billy, he is crude and rude and I think you are keying off of that.

--Brant

[tjohnson]

My "formulation" is not a formulation.

There is nothing you can say that is not a formulation, as soon as you utter a word you are formulating.

[galtgulch]

Ba'al,

I agree with you but think it will take more than just luck. The passion for freedom beats in the hearts of those who are joining the www.campaignforliberty.com. They are determined to try to make it happen in the only way that it ever could happen by educating others to how their freedoms have been lost and that there is an opportunity in our lifetime to create it as it should have been in the first place. There is no stopping us and our numbers are growing. Join us now or wait until you are convinced that what we are up to is plausible.

What are you hoping will make it happen?

www.campaignforliberty.com 104473

gulch

What it will take is a complete failure of our economy and pray that our enemies do not use that moment to attack us. If we survive the failure of our economy without a war, just maybe we can reconstruct a better society that will last maybe three generations before it starts to go to squash-rot (just as it happened the first time -- four score and seven years).

I bet you think liberty can be achieved and it will keep forever thereafter. It won't. People are lazy and inattentive and very fixated on their small private concerns which is why societies go bad.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ba'al, You said:

<"If we survive the failure of our economy without a war, just maybe we can reconstruct a better society ">

The struggle will be between the democrats who caused the failure but blame it on the republicans, and the independents who may be the second largest voting block although there are about 65m republicans.

The trick will be to appeal to the reason of individuals in all camps. It remains to be seen how large this emerging Campaign For Liberty becomes in the next few years.

www.campaignforliberty.com 104535 At the rate it is adding new torch passers the likelihood exists that the pace will accelerate. At this point the movement is virtually invisible but perhaps that will change. If they can get up to a couple of million then the doubling process would only require a few redoublings to get into the tens of millions.

Imagine that, millions of Americans reading Mises, Rothbard, Rand, Bastiat! There would be no stopping them. The trick is to get to the crucial kindling point of a million or two. In other words now is the time to join, become an active participant in this movement. You can see that those involved are already letting others know about the movement and the consequence of their individual efforts is the growth I keep posting here. In the past few weeks the numbers have gone from 97000 to 104,535.

You can see the evidence and they are just getting started. They are organizing in every Congressional district in the country. They will be running candidates for office in every election far into the future. The dialog heard in their campaigns will enlighten the voters. There will be a surge in membership in the movement. At the very least you might consider letting people you know become aware of its existence. Let them know of the links and the handful of books. There is no charge for doing any of that. It will bring hope to those who already see that Obama's plans are going to add a huge debt burden on the taxpayers.

www.campaignforliberty.com 104536, 10PM 104547

gulch

Edited February 24, 2009 by galtgulch

[Selene]

Gultch:

"The struggle will be between the democrats who caused the failure but blame it on the republicans,..."

Please tell me you are not trying to absolve the Republican Congress and Senate.

"At this point the movement is virtually invisible but perhaps that will change." This will and is the key. Can this virtual movement get its ass out into an election district.

O'Biwan's did and he is the President of this Republic with a marxist House and Senate.

There was an off hand comment by an investment expert on one of the radio shows today that said when the tax rates get back to the 78% level, or sooner, the wealthy will just "...pull a John Galt and vanish!"

Adam