Previous 31 - 40 Next
In response to:

Parting Company

Daniel30 Wrote: Nov 29, 2012 7:44 AM
The common money has become a fiat tool for bankers and people connected to print at will and then allow to trickle down to the rest of the folks. By eliminating the common money's ties to precious metals the money became a wealthy elite's insurance policy on power. This common money has become a tool of oppression rather than production. A currency limited by precious resources favors anyone who is able to sell their product on the market. A fiat currency favors anyone with the power to print. End the Fed and restore gold if you want to save the union.
In response to:

Parting Company

Daniel30 Wrote: Nov 29, 2012 1:14 AM
While I have no real debate with the issue you are raising, there was no Senator Lincoln from Illinois. Lincoln debated Douglas in the Senate race of 1858 and Douglas won. Lincoln was a US Congressmen representing a district from Illinois but never served in the US Senate.
In response to:

Parting Company

Daniel30 Wrote: Nov 28, 2012 9:33 AM
That is always a possibility isn't it? This is why there should be no rush to such a decision. However centralization of power in a growing federal government is not the answer. I would suggest that a smaller central government with limited delegated powers such as those outlined in the Constitution leaving significant powers of government to the states and local communities would allow local communities a sense of self-empowerment necessary to create a sense of loyalty to the union. Otherwise communities differing from the central government will yearn for the freedom to follow their own path.
In response to:

Parting Company

Daniel30 Wrote: Nov 28, 2012 9:16 AM
Lysander Spooner could support neither side during the War Between the States. He faulted the South for, at least in part, perpetuating slavery. He faulted the North because turning the United States into an involuntary union the North was enforcing an enslavement to the state. So the Civil War was not a war to end slavery but a war to determine what sort of slavery was to be imposed by the winner.
In response to:

Parting Company

Daniel30 Wrote: Nov 28, 2012 9:12 AM
America did not begin as a belief or a god or anything like that. It began as a union of states where local communities would not be governed from far away distant places. The northwest Territory ordinance established the means by which new territories would be developed around the township government. As late as 1900 most taxes paid by Americans went to county or township coffers where people had vast say in their own locality's affairs. Today those same communities are more like lobbyists begging London (sorry that was 1770) DC (today) for a piece of the pie.
In response to:

Thoughts on Secession

Daniel30 Wrote: Nov 27, 2012 10:35 AM
Take away the redistribution and they would soon look not to the plantation owner in DC for their wellness but to their own resources, talents, abilities, and determination. That is the cost of DC for all of us. Sooner or later we won't want to put up with that cost any longer.
In response to:

Thoughts on Secession

Daniel30 Wrote: Nov 27, 2012 10:32 AM
Arkansas could survive, it has all the major needs for a society. It has a strong vital lumber industry. It is also agriculturally very capable of feeding itself. One of the forgotten costs of centralization is how regions a bit poorer than others are badly served by centralization. If a region or family is poorer than others in a purely free market system without a centralized system, that region or family works harder at making use of their resources, whereas a centrlaized system with a tendency towards socialism enables the poorer regions to short circuit their own development. By the way, Arkansas has at least one entrepreneur that brought wealth to Arkansas - Sam Walton.
In response to:

Thoughts on Secession

Daniel30 Wrote: Nov 27, 2012 10:24 AM
Most studies show that more money goes to red states than come from red states, and actually more money comes from blue states than goes to blue states. But metropolitan areas are almost always more inclined to socialist ideals of safety nets while rural and suburban populations are almost always more attracted personally to limiting government taxation and spending. Also northern states have had more of a collective mindset and southern states more of an individual mindset. One of the strongest secession movements has been in Vermont, which is socially and politically left of center and just wants out of spending billions on policing the world. They would perhaps be more collectivist than ever, but that would be their choice.
In response to:

Thoughts on Secession

Daniel30 Wrote: Nov 27, 2012 10:15 AM
The present calls for secession are signs of problems percolating. We are not yet close to an actual secession, However given a few more years of centralized costly solutions, high volumes of more currency resulting in decreasing soundness of American money, combined with a foreign policy that will grow increasingly incapable of policing the world, a time may come when one state secedes and all the rest simply say, "Maybe that is the only solution to a failed federal government. Forty years ago most of us expected the Soviet Union to be around for another century, then a republic or two claimed independence and the centralized nightmare passed away in just a moment. It could happen here, just not yet.
In response to:

What Ron Paul Gets Wrong

Daniel30 Wrote: Nov 17, 2012 8:50 AM
Your point is well taken. The colonies under British rule were treated more as territories than sovereign states. That is why states have the authority under provisions within numerous original states entrance into the union to withdraw from the union. Several of the original states had provisions passed when entering the union that they could leave the union as sovereign states. When some norheastern states talked of secession during the War of 1812, it was largely acknowledged those states had the right to do so, but in the end they didn't. Early on secession was viewed as whether or not the union was voluntary or a tyranny. If the people were free, their states would have a right to secede. A union held by force was a tyranny.
In response to:

What Ron Paul Gets Wrong

Daniel30 Wrote: Nov 17, 2012 8:33 AM
Perhaps Ken Blackwell makes a point. In a revolution a people demand their rights and use bullets rather than ballots. In a movement ofr secession, a local region desiring autonomy notifies the nation it wishes to separate from that it yearns to leave peacefully without bullets. A peaceful negotiated withdrawal of one local entity from a voluntary union does not require bullets in a secession, a revolution does. I suspect that the agenda of an ever growing government of the land that has now become the regulated, screened, taxed, and spent people offered up in endless foreign entanglements will later if not sooner lead to multiple states leaving the union.
Previous 31 - 40 Next