Posted to IPR by Paulie
Sent by Tom Knapp to [email protected]. Knapp is a candidate for the Libertarian and Boston Tea Party 2012 presidential nominations, was the BTP candidate for VP in 2008 on the ballot in Tennessee as well as a Libertarian Congressional candidate in Missouri, and has run as a Libertarian in a number of prior races. He has written articles for IPR, and I worked with him on the Steve Kubby 2008 campaign for the Libertarian presidential nomination.
The Boston Tea Party’s national committee is currently voting on a resolution:
“Resolved, that the Boston Tea Party’s national committee hereby calls upon both houses of the US Congress to promptly pass,and calls upon the state legislatures to ratify, a constitutional amendment repealing section 4 of the 14th amendment, prohibiting future indebtedness and deficit spending on the part of the federal government, and repudiating all federal government debt and debt service obligations accrued prior to the ratification of said amendment.”
The resolution arises from an online petition:
http://www.petitiononline.com/repudiat/petition.html
… and skeletal web site:
http://www.repudiatethedebt.org
… which in turn are explained in three blog posts:
http://knappster.blogspot.com/2009/01/three-things.htmlhttp://knappster.blogspot.com/2009/01/fourth-thing.html
http://knappster.blogspot.com/2009/01/more-on-debt-repudiation.html
… which, although I’ve been talking about this here and there for
the last year or so, were inspired by an interesting YouTube campaign
out of the Ernie Hancock/Arizona movement maelstrom:Anyway, the BTP is looking like the early adopter (no great surprise),
but I think it may catch on among some other third parties.
http://www.freepatriot-press.com/2011/07/debt-ceiling-repudiation.html
Screw you, screw you, he said, with a very even temperament.
Temper, temper.
Here’s a thought Steven. Go fuck yourself.
FWIW, Prospective, I have zero interest in comparing libertarian dick-sizes with you. Interestingly enough, there is no one who can verify your act of non-heroism.
I could get arrested, or throw my life away. Which is a hell of a lot more than you’ve ever done.
Chickened out, huh? What a hero.
lol
This solution is too drastic and not fair to our Red Chinese friends. Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke can work off the debt at a Nike factory. That seems fair.
By the way, hat tip to CaseyResearch.com on the ABN Amro deal.
“If our party’s anarchist wing thinks that it did collapse, they should join the Republicans, because America only needs one Party of Stupid.”
Does that mean you think the Democrats arent stupid George? Why not just join them? Again I ask, how’re you different than a low-tax Democrat?
No, Steven, I was stopped by many more guys with guns than I could deal with myself. I made a sincere effort to meet up with several others at a designated rendezvous. When they didn’t show up, I headed further in. I got to the point where I could get arrested, or throw my life away. Which is a hell of a lot more than you’ve ever done.
No, George, it didn’t completely collapse. It only cost hundreds of billions of dollars to bail it out of near collapse. Only major named firms like AIG and Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch and others came close to collapse, or actually collapsed.
Let me put this character on it for you, George. Remember one year ago? Royal Bank of Scotland paid $100 billion for ABN Amro?
For the same amount of money today, one could now buy:
Citibank $22.5 billion
Morgan Stanley $10.5 billion
Goldman Sachs $21 billion
Merrill Lynch $12.3 billion
Deutsche Bank $13 billion
Barclays $12.7 billion
And still have $8 billion change… with which one would be able to pick up GM, Ford, Chrysler, and the Honda Formula 1 Racing-Team.
So, yeah, the value of the major banks has collapsed, several actually went bankrupt, and systemic faults in the system are revealed. You can mumble about how it is stupid to defy the Federal Reserve, talk about gold as money, or repudiate the debt.
But, just so we are on the same page, George, I’m not part of your party. I’m not part of its anarchist contingent. The anarchists aren’t welcome in your political party, George, as the experience with Angela Keaton makes so painfully clear. So, take your clever little libertarian party and go jump in a lake.
LPBuster:
If you’re interested in debate, fine, let’s get it on.
However, a repetitive exchange of true factual claims on my part for false claims as to what I said on your part isn’t a “debate,” it’s just me telling the truth and you lying. That’s happened twice now. Make it three times and I’ll just claim victory and let you look like the idiot you’re acting like.
cc: Steve Druckenmiller
The banking system did not collapse in Fall 2008. If our party’s anarchist wing thinks that it did collapse, they should join the Republicans, because America only needs one Party of Stupid.
LPBuster: Collecting can be a noble hobby, but the folks who collect paranoid conspiracy theories about the sane 9/11 collapse explanation, global warming being a hoax, the Bilderbergers, the trilateral commission, the Federal Reserve bank, the German Holocaust being a myth, the American holocaust of slavery not being the overwhelming cause of the Civil War, et very tedious cetera should form their own party.
I did not sign on to any debt, it should definitely be repudiated. I don’t agree to owe something I never agreed to.
Don’t flip your whig, buster.
Knapp may need to get a new hobby soon… whining about being a slave and then backing away from it creates a small credibility issue and is way over the top. And it also looks like his political party has about crumbled away based on the fact that it is paralyzed because its playground of members are too busy sniping at each other and can’t even get along.
LP is not right, but if Knapp the self-proclaimed slave is the alternative, then it’s an independent’s life for me.
Knapp, may I suggest stamp collecting?
Yes, I did. Got as far as the second road block.
Uh, and then what? You just stopped?
Regardless, I am not going to play this “my religious cred is deeper than your religious cred.” I am perfectly aware of the debt; I do not like that it exists. That does not make me a “slave”. Representative democracy sucks…except for all other forms of government.
Yes, I did. Got as far as the second road block.
Meanwhile, returning to the topic of the national debt, and what you get for your money, since you are oh so willing to abide by all the rules, here’s some missing money:
http://solari.com/blog/?p=1983
> > In fiscal 1999, the Department of Defense was “missing” $2.3 trillion.
…
> > In fiscal 2000, the Department of Defense was “missing” $1.1 trillion,
…
> > From 1997 to March 2001, the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) who served as the chief financial officer for the Department of Defense was William J. Lynn III.
…
> > Today, President Elect Obama nominated William J. Lynn III as the Deputy Secretary of Defense.
Plus-ce que change, plus-ce que le meme chose.
I see I pushed the dancing monkey’s buttons!
In no way do I like or enjoy the fact that there has to be coercion in this world, but I am more inclined to defer to the rule of the United States Government than I am to roving bands and hordes.
If you were in Congress you would have voted for every budget increase for the FBI and BATFE in the time since.
Wrong again, Francis. Just because I am not an anarchist does not make me an authoritarian. You need to learn some nuance and dial yourself back a notch before the government ambulances take you to the hospital because you’ve given yourself a heart attack.
You jumped in your car and rushed over to engage the government in opposition to this activity? No?
For one, I was 10 years old then. For two…did you, o Noble Freedom Fighter? Go out there with your sexay-badass Freedom Fightin’ self, little Che.
Mr. Druckenmiller, I’m not calling myself a slave. I’m calling you a slave. I’m saying that you enjoy paying taxes, and you like the fact that the government butchers people who don’t.
You were there in front of your television set in April 1993 when seven dozen Texans were shot, gassed, detonated, and burned to death in their church because some months earlier a group of tax collectors wanted to get tough about having them file paperwork on some gun-related taxes, right? You jumped in your car and rushed over to engage the government in opposition to this activity? No?
No. You stayed at home, ate popcorn, watched the Davidians get thrown to the lions, and cheered on the government troops. If you were in Congress you would have voted for every budget increase for the FBI and BATFE in the time since.
You are an authoritarian. This country is optimal? It may be the least ruined, but that doesn’t make it optimal.
You don’t like what I say, so you describe it as whining.
The class of persons described as peasants are distinct from the political class who get to spend $3 trillion in Fiscal 2009 without bothering to earn $3 trillion. So, yes, it is a metaphor.
Some of the people who are brutalized by your government with your eager approval are, in fact, people who till the soil. I know you don’t live on a farm, or go near one, but many people in my state do.
Out of curiosity, can you name the last time a farmer was elected to Congress?
If you are not willing to pay the taxes that the Congress levies…
I have had adequate notice of the operations of the United States Government since I was 16. I was and am well aware of the process and what happens to the money I pay in taxes.
And yet…here I am. Is the United States Government doing the things I want it to be doing? No. Is the United States still, despite all that, the optimal place to live in the world? Yes. And when that changes I will let you know.
In the meantime, stop calling yourself a slave.
peasant: a member of a class of persons tilling the soil as small landowners or as laborers.
OK, when you call people who are free to leave this country any time to any place they like “peasants”, I still cannot take you seriously.
If I don’t like what my government is doing, I will just have to change governments. In life, there are two types of people: those who whine about their circumstances and those who change them. I readily grant that libertarians in general are trying to change their circumstances, but they shouldn’t whine in the process.
But you don’t like that imagery. So, let’s put a different face on it. If you are not willing to pay the taxes that the Congress levies to repay the debts they have incurred to pass out monetary favors and fat contracts to their buddies, then men with guns may show up on your doorstep, kill your dogs, and take your things. They might also lock you in a cage until you come up with a king’s ransom – assuming you are a sovereign individual.
“Flog the peasants” is meant to be shorthand for that process of coercion.
No Mr. Druckenmiller, I was saying flogging the peasants in reference to you.
It seems to me that what Madoff was doing was returning high returns to early investors in the hopeful assumption that doing so would generate an endlessly larger and larger supply of new investors. Madoff’s scheme was fraudulent, but do you think the people who invested in it should be made to pay off the people victimized by it? Madoff’s scheme is no different in fact than the Social Security scheme. Ponzi is as Ponzi does.
The complete collapse of the banking system would be *caused* by repudiating the national debt. Were you awake in October and November 2008 when the collapse of the banking system occurred entirely without the national debt being repudiated? You may be aware of the collapse of the banking system in the 1930s when various national banking emergency “holidays” were called, and the president declared all privately held gold forfeit. The national debt wasn’t repudiated then.
But, I’ll allow as how the repudiation of the national debt might cause a lot of disgusting bailout banking gangsters to go bankrupt, and, if we’re very fortunate, commit suicide. Shall I shed tears for them, or would you do that for me?
I believe the assertion is that taxpayers are coerced. If they were coerced to pay the taxes then what makes you think they agreed to assume the national debt? Do you have my signature somewhere on some piece of paper saying that I am in any way responsible for ten trillion dollars of other people’s money? I didn’t think so.
Last year’s BTP platform is identical to this years. The program changes every other year, the platform never does.
see, when you say things like “flog the peasants” in reference to yourself, I just cannot take you seriously.
“The national debt as issued by Congress is an agreement of the people of the United States to borrow someone’s money and commit to returning it.”
No. The national debt as issued by Congress is an agreement of the members of Congress to borrow someone’s money and commit, not to returning it, but to flogging the peasants to get them to pay for it.
The idea that the Congress represents the people of the country is just silly. Most of the people in the country never voted for any of these creeps.
Mr. Phillies, I have severely criticized you in the past, but today I say “right on.”
The national debt as issued by Congress is an agreement of the people of the United States to borrow someone’s money and commit to returning it. Failing to return it to the people from whom it was borrowed is theft, no different from Mr. Madoff’s alleged intent not to return money to some of his investors as an alleged plan.
Mind you, repudiating the national debt will also cause the complete collapse of the banking system.
The assertion that taxpayers are slaves — Do they pass the key test of being a slave: Can I buy one? I don’t think so. — is nonsense. The nonsense shows largely that while some of our party’s radical are sensible people, as witness last year’s BTP platform, others in my opinion have to be recognized as not being in their right mind, in that they prefer their ideological statements to any attention to reality.
Between yourself and Mr. Druckenmiller, that particular statement has now twice been incorrectly imputed to me.
You drew no less than three analogies comparing your current situation to slavery. No, you did not say “I, Tom Knapp, am a slave to the USG”, but you certainly implied it by drawing analogies to yourself and slavery/villeinism.
Trent, since Lew Rockwell’s site is the most widely read libertarian web site in the world, yes, it does matter.
Lew likes the Boston Tea Party. So does Walter Block.
And to return to the topic of repudiating the debt, my buddy Clyde Harrison sent along this quote.
“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”
— Margaret Thatcher
Tom asks, “Why should I have to pay $75, $50 or any other amount — or take an oath of fealty — for the privilege of crossing an imaginary line drawn on the ground by the people demanding the money and the oath?”
You don’t have to pay anything, Tom. I can show you how to roll your own. There’s no particular reason why documents have to be made for you by government agencies, nor by the World Service outfit.
I don’t see an oath requirement on the World Service site. So, that might suit you better.
Once upon a time, a group calling itself The Republic of Texas gave me a diplomatic passport. I used it to travel to Holland where I delivered official documents to the Unrecognized Nations and Peoples Organization (UNPO) – you can look them up, if you like.
Why shouldn’t Missouri issue you a free identity paper or a free passport? They hand out a lot of other stuff. And, again, why wait for them to do so? Identity papers are easy to make. Simply identify yourself.
“Hi, I’m Tom Knapp and I say that I’m Tom Knapp.” When you think about how little people examine the documents that do pass for identity papers, or the assumptions that go into taking them on face value, such a document is not meaningfully more self-referential than a government issued photo ID.
I certainly don’t think you *should* be required to pay a fee to cross a border. So, I suggest you get a back pack and some hiking boots, and cross one of the many long, undefended borders. Or make friends at a dockyard and take passage on a ship.
Most people who traveled in the 18th and 19th Centuries did not have any sort of passport. Millions arrived at Ellis Island unable to spell out the English characters of their names, let alone “prove” who they were.
Bismark started the 19th Century fascination with passports, including internal passports, as I recall. You could look that up, too.
As of the last time I tried, I could still walk into Mexico unimpeded. However, to go more than a few kilometers into Mexico required additional paperwork. I use my US naturalization certificate.
To return to the territory claimed by the US ruling regime gang “legally” at the time required a state ID, but I’ve read they now require a passport (or the naturalization certificate might work). Of course, I could cross “illegally” – after all, millions of Mexicans do it. I think I’ll do that next time, I don’t like the idea of having to go through those stupid lines and answering their ridiculous questions – what the hell gives them the right to detain me and question me?
And besides, I can’t get a paSSport and I can’t get my state ID renewed without the SS number anymore either… but I see no reason why I can’t do what “illegal aliens” do – and we should show solidarity with undocumented workers, which I basically am becoming.
Here’s an interesting bit of info concerning passports:
“The idea of a passport has existed since people began to travel from one country to another. In the United Kingdom, the origin of the passport is the ‘Safe Conduct’, which was at first little more than a note signed by the king or queen asking that the person who held it be allowed to travel freely. Safe Conducts were issued to people of all nationalities and were mentioned in an Act of Parliament in the reign of King Henry V in 1414. ”
And
“After the First World War ended, the League of Nations held an international conference on passports in 1920. At the conference they agreed on a new book-format passport for League of Nations member states.”
(This article primarily deals with passports in the UK, but it is still interesting reading.
http://www.ips.gov.uk/passport/about-history.asp)
Now this guy is suggesting that the entire world should abandon their immigration and custom laws just so us Americans can travel passport free. In other words, he is dictating his views on other countries and cultures. That, my friends, is fascist and typical America is the center of the universe mentality.
The actions of foreign “government” gangs are no more legitimate than the actions of the US regime gang. Neither should even exist at all. Opposing the actions of regime gangs is not imperialism. The US regime using extorted tax money to invade other countries or extort them – that is imperialism.
Since they’re the ones who “require” it, why don’t they pay for it?
Good point, except that of course as you know, they don’t produce anything legitimate and have no way of paying for anything except with money they extorted from us. Not that this justifies making anyone pay for their paperwork, whether it’s the person being forced to use it or someone else.
Since they’re the ones who “require” it, why don’t they pay for it?
It’s worse than that. Not just a payment issue…
They will not issue me one, period. Too many people in my family died with the last version of the SS number on their arms. I think it’s the number of the beast from Revelations.
Bottom line: I don’t use an SS number.
So, no paSSport.
I stand by Corn Flakes. It’s what my Iowa CORN farming roots used for the expression. It’s the expression used all over the west and midwest. If you said “pissed in the Post Toasties” in Michigan you’d get lynched for state treason.
Besides, Corn Flakes predate Toasties (1894 vs. 1908) and have outlasted them as well (Toasties discontinued in 2006).
Corn Flakes win that war.
Tom,
If it helps, Lew Rockwell seems to be backing you,lol. He posted something on LRC by Rothbard today–the first item.
http://www.lewrockwell.com
And by the way, it’s Post Toasties.
LPBuster,
“Also, calling yourself a ‘slave’ for living in America is probably a bit insulting and offensive to a few African Americans among others.”
Mayhap it is … or, rather, mayhap it would have been had I actually done it.
Between yourself and Mr. Druckenmiller, that particular statement has now twice been incorrectly imputed to me. It strikes me that people who continue to argue against something I didn’t say may be doing so because they don’t have any good arguments against what I did say.
Mr. Druckenmiller,
I know from personal experience that walking across a “border” without one does not cause one’s legs to magically fall off or anything of the sort. I’m not the one who “requires” a passport — the governments claiming a legitimate power to control the imaginary lines they’ve drawn on the ground to separate their gang’s turf from other gangs’ turfs do. Since they’re the ones who “require” it, why don’t they pay for it?
If he really wants to leave without a passport, I suggest taking aride over to the Chinese, Iranian, Venezuelan embassays and seek refugee status. Perhaps they will take you in, passport free, and let you be a citizen in their countries. Of course, if you then want to leave their countries, you might want to pony up for a passport.
Also, calling yourself a “slave” for living in America is probably a bit insulting and offensive to a few African Americans among others. Cry me a river. Then again, lengthy weeklong debates about peeing in someone’s Wheaties will cause one to say such uncredible and jackass things.
So, you’re not “free” to leave because the U.S. Government charges you processing and manufacturing fees to make the thing you requested.
Mr. Knapp, this is some really weak sauce.
“this guy is suggesting that the entire world should abandon their immigration and custom laws just so us Americans can travel passport free.”
Actually, no, I’m not “suggesting” any such thing. I’m just stating the facts of the situation. The “you’re free to leave, so why don’t you” argument is without basis in fact. Issuance of passports and visas is conditioned upon payment, and is subject to veto by the issuers. That’s a fact. It will remain a fact regardless of how you frame your objections to me pointing out that it is a fact.
Well, one should be free to reject the state. Why is membership not optional?
Of course, getting to call yourself a “slave” means that people cannot argue with your construction that the existence of any kind of state is slavery and only anarchy keeps people from oppression.
And he or she may not leave without the lord’s permission, which is subject to arbitrary refusal, fees, etc.
You can leave your land anytime you want to leave your land. You cannot leave the United States without a visa/passport because of the laws of other countries, not our own.
This is the kind of over-the-top insanity that keeps libertarians marginalized. Calling yourself a slave or a “villein” or whatever decreases your credibility and makes you look like a jackass.
urination of his national committee’s Wheaties
TOLD YOU IT WAS WHEATIES! lol
Perhaps Knapp should stick with overseeing the mass urination of his national committee’s Wheaties and other compelling debates related to this… Now this guy is suggesting that the entire world should abandon their immigration and custom laws just so us Americans can travel passport free. In other words, he is dictating his views on other countries and cultures. That, my friends, is fascist and typical America is the center of the universe mentality. Knapp, you need a passport to cross these “imaginary lines” because the world operates beyond your limited borders.
Jim,
Why should I have to pay $75, $50 or any other amount — or take an oath of fealty — for the privilege of crossing an imaginary line drawn on the ground by the people demanding the money and the oath?
It may be that “sundry international laws” recognize a right to cross those lines. The system you just described, however, is a system in which one has the privilege of purchasing the ability to do so, if the seller cares to sell.
FICA taxes are owed by the company making payroll payments to employees. It is not clear that persons who do not earn any income have any obligation to collect payroll taxes on themselves. As long as you are happy living below the poverty line, there’s very little chance that you’ll be asked to pay taxes, or even file papers about them.
In 1999, the IRS reported to Congress that approximately 66 million persons were not filing taxes that they were expected to file. If that figure is correct, and not just an IRS gimmick to ask for more money for enforcement, about 25% of the adult working age population was not filing.
Tom, if you mail in the form, and you seek only a passport in booklet form the fee is $75. If you appear in person they knock you for another $25. So, you can get a passport, assuming you have documentation pertinent to their requirements and are agreeable to the oath of citizenship, for less than one hundred dollars. Many countries have a visa exchange program with the USA so you can visit them without advance purchase of a visa.
State Department fees here:
http://travel.state.gov/passport/get/fees/fees_837.html
Also for $75 you can apply for a five year World Service passport from WorldService.org which is accepted de jure in six countries and de facto by 168 countries. Everyone has the right to leave their country and return to it, according to sundry international laws.
Steven,
Asserting that Person A is as free to leave location B as Person C is to leave location D is not the same as asserting that Person A is Person C.
American citizen-serfdom correlates more closely to the status of villein than to that of slave:
“Villeins had more rights and status than those held as slaves, but were under a number of legal restrictions that differentiated them from the freeman. Villeins generally rented small homes, with or without land. As part of the contract with their landlord, they were expected to use some of their time to farm the lord’s fields and the rest of their time was spent farming their own land. Like other types of serfs, they were required to provide other services, possibly in addition to a rent of money or goods. These services could be very onerous. Villeins were tied to the land and could not move away without their lord’s consent. However, in other regards, they were free men in the eyes of the law.”
An American citizen rents his or her home (either from a landlord, who in turn rents it from the government, or directly from the government if he or she is a “homeowner”). A certain percentage of his or her labor (bottoming out at 15.3% in FICA taxes) is “owed” the lord. He or she may be subject to military conscription, jury duty, etc.. And he or she may not leave without the lord’s permission, which is subject to arbitrary refusal, fees, etc.
Of course, American villeins do receive some leeway in choosing their lords, and may even aspire to become lords of one sort or another. As one ascends the levels of lordship, one may get away with ignoring some of the restrictions of his or her villeinage.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
Why can’t I reject the laws and keep my property?
And, from that, you’ve completed the mental gymnastics to the point where you can straight-facedly call yourself a slave.
Whatever floats your boat.
Steven,
You have to buy a passport — I believe the base fee, not counting expenses incurred in the application process, is currently a couple of hundred dollars. That’s if they’ll sell you one at all — which they won’t, if they decide that you “owe” them or one of their client states other money.
I’m “free to leave the United States” in the same way that any slave is free to leave the cotton plantation. I might try to buy my way out
What? Buy your way out? All you need is a passport and a visa from another country, which are not terribly difficult things to procure. I do not know what you’re trying to say; you do not have to buy anything to leave.
must be regional (las vegas) , Ive never heard anything but ‘who pissed in your wheaties’
cornflakes sounds like second place…
WTF is a post toastie? LOL
It has been “pissed in your Post Toasties” at least in my neck of the woods (Texas)…plus, Post Toasties not only predates Wheaties (introduced in 1904 http://www.foodreference.com/html/fbreakfastcereals.html) but has the additional advantage of being more alliterative and thus more pleasing to the ear 🙂
I stand by Post Toasties.
The correct cliche is, “pissed in the corn flakes”.
That aside, what would the effects be of such a repudiation on the money supply, the economy, and consumer spending and wages?
I asked Cato this question a few years ago and the dumbasses never replied…
George, I don’t understand how Tom Knapp sowed. He did not sow the wind, so why must he reap the whirlwind?
Tom did not authorize the deficit spending. Congress did. Tom did not elect a majority of those in Congress. There is very little evidence that Tom voted for even one of the existing Congress critters. Did he vote for any of the Congress scumbags who voted to authorize the public debt in the past thirty years? Which one?
So, how does it work, please? Does his vote count? If his vote counts, then the person he didn’t vote for does not represent him. Or are you saying that he actually has no choice in who represents him in Congress?
If that’s so, then how does he have any responsibility for the action of that person? If he is responsible for the actions of that person, shouldn’t there be some evidence, like a contract, say? A contract establishing agency agreement between the representative and the person being represented would definitely show responsibility. If you hire a hit man, you are responsible for the attempted murder.
But, Tom didn’t hire the people in Congress. Neither did I. If we didn’t hire them, and if they don’t represent our preferences, if they spend money on wars we don’t want and other things we don’t want, then how are their actions our responsibility?
George, you make the argument that the people who get the benefit of the national debt have a responsibility to pay it off. That is a sensible argument, and it makes good sense. But, how did Tom get any benefit of the allocation by corrupt means of trillions of dollars over the last sixty years for defense contractors to build cheap crap that blows up when military men try to use it?
Tom, and Ernie Hancock, and generations of people now living, and me, all say, “It’s not my debt.” I didn’t create it. I didn’t gain from it. I didn’t authorize it. I didn’t vote for it. I didn’t agree to it.
Would Congress repudiating the debt be theft? Perhaps. From whom? From the debt holders, such as the slave owning People’s Republic of China government. From the corrupt and abusive banking gangsters around the globe. From central banking filth in various countries, but I repeat myself.
And by whom? Why, by Congress. By the defense contractor companies that gained the benefit of the money distributed by Congress. By the auto makers and big financial firms that get big bailouts.
But how is it theft by me? I’m not getting a bail out. The SBA won’t even approve a little hurricane relief loan for my computer company in Houston that got knocked off its feet by Hurricane Ike. The SEC won’t approve a public offering document for a class of public offering that is allegedly exempt from regulation under federal law.
The government gives me nothing but aggravation and grief. It has nothing for me but abuse and brutality. It kicks in my door, shoots my dogs, and breaks eleven of my bones, and I’m supposed to assume responsibility for this debt?
Fuck no. It isn’t my debt. Scratch that, it doesn’t rate that much courtesy. It isn’t my fucking God damned debt, and to say so is evil.
Steven, the first sentence clearly refers to the validity of the entire public debt of the United States. The clause about some of the things that are included is not especially relevant, true. But it is a clause which does not change the overall sense of the sentence: the validity of the public debt of the United States shall never be questioned.
The current debt actually has a great deal to do with the disharmony or “unpleasantness” or war of brutal occupation of the 1860s. Calling it disharmony sort of puts a pale watercolor to the shocking red pigment of the million and twenty thousand casualties of war on the field of combat, plus the hundreds of thousands of civilians raped and murdered. More Americans died in combat in the War Between the States than in any war every fought in North America before or since.
The constitutional limits on power were clearly abrogated by Lincoln, as explained in diLorenzo and Hummel book-length essays on the topic. The government of imperial power, of centrally consolidated total power, was created by Lincoln. That’s why he is such a hero to authoritarians.
Steven,
I’m “free to leave the United States” in the same way that any slave is free to leave the cotton plantation. I might try to buy my way out, but if I try to leave without doing so, I’ll be subject to capture and punishment.
How are you not free to leave the United States? And while I am not happy that you have to pay your taxes or leave, that fact does not amount to slavery.
How are we free to leave the US? Why can’t I leave the US, but keep my land, why must one be subject to such an ultimatum?
If people in the United States are still free to leave the United States, that is pretty much the opposite definition of “slave”. So let’s knock off the hyperbole, shall we?
George,
Feel free to explain precisely in what manner you believe I’m “advocating theft in the political process.”
If your logic is what I suspect it is, well, I don’t believe that slaves have any obligation to pay slave owners’ debts, or that people who lend money to slave owners, knowing that it can only be repaid through enslavement, are entitled to repayment.
Now he proposes to repudiate the national debt. That’s advocating theft in the political process.
Not so fast, George. While I would sort of agree with FA&M above, I don’t think it would be necessary to repeal Section 4 of Amendment 14 to repudiate the current debt.
The current debt has NOTHING to do with the disharmony of the 1860’s, which the Constitutional Amendment addresses. It is probably political suicide to even try to connect the two.
OTOH, the current debt is getting so large the it is probably preposterous to assume that our children and grandchildren can even attempt to pay it off.
Indeed, considering that some of them aren’t even born yet, and are yet expected to pay off our largesse, just exactly who is “advocating theft in the political process”?
IMHO, both you AND Knapp need to write about this issue in more detail. It WILL be an issue in the future.
PEACE
Knapp spent the Presidential nomination campaign claiming that I am a racist. That’s using fraud in the political process. Those of you who have met my New Hampshire running mate, Chris Bennett, may be able to understand why.
Now he proposes to repudiate the national debt. That’s advocating theft in the political process.
Do not have a nice day, Tom. You sowed, you get to reap.
Down below the bridge, I see billy goats.
Either way works for me.
I mean Coming on the Back
ROFLMAO , your on a roll Coming on My Back
Look down.
Which part is joke?
its a … drum roll please … JOKE…
Repealing section four of the 14th amendment. It says “Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.”
So you want to make it legal for the great grandchildren of slave owners to demand compensation for emancipated slaves?
Alden Link, ran for VP with Stevens, another LPer.
Ron Paul is a life member of the LP also. He was on the ballot in two states in the general election.
Tom Stevens was another LP member who ran for President in 2008.
Yes, the LP does need to be revamped. Many of us have seen it coming for awhile now. At first glance, I thought the idea of someone with some notable stature like Barr was a bold move for the LP. And in some ways it probably was. Of course, then it turned out that the candidate was actually Bob Barr and we ended up with probably the biggest blown opportunity in many years, if not ever in the history of the LP.
The LP has a refreshingly different approach. First, they have secret discussions. Then, when they think they have enough people to gang up on a member of their party, they browbeat her at successive national committee meetings until she starts vomiting blood and resigns. Isn’t that spectacular?
You have to love the way the LP has inspired so many of its activists to run for president and vice president by nominating a conservative Republican for president. That’s fucking funny. Check it out. Gail Lightfoot, Tom Knapp, Barry Hess, Dan Kilo, John Wayne Smith, Chris Bennett, George Phillies, all on the ballot or registered write-ins.
It’ll be amusing to see the LP national go bankrupt this year, too. Such earnest “professionals.” Or does pro stand for prostitute?
The Boston Tea Party is great. Their National Committee debates totally lighten the mood. The libertarian movement always has taken itself too seriously, and now we have a good parody/joke group.
Speaking of, I couldn’t find the final resolution of the debate over the maternal beating of other members. Any news on this development?
Post Toasties , friggin ridiculous
God cant they get anything right …
the question is ‘who pissed in your WHEATIES ?’Boston Tea Party folk! Geez
LOL!
While this debt resolution is cute, I actually prefer the Boston Tea Party debate on whether or not someone urinated in one of their member’s Post Toasties.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/btpnc-talk/message/506
Then again I am torn on their other parliamentary debate as to whether one national committee member’s mom was going to beat up another member.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/btpnc-talk/message/477
The resolution passed unanimously.
LOL. Me too.
I prefer this Boston Tea Party debate myself…
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/btpnc-talk/message/497
I second this motion.