Would you sign this?

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: NarcoticHobo

Originally posted by: HalosPuma

Originally posted by: NarcoticHobo

Originally posted by: HalosPuma

Originally posted by: NarcoticHobo
Maybe you don't understand... the few officials are the government, we have a contract with them. Our contract gives us a helluvah lot of control over them, which is nice... but when it comes down to it they are the government.

Maybe we are disagreeing on the definition of government. I can get enough signatures on a petition to run for a local office. If I am on a jury, I can nullify a law or a ruling if I disagree with it. I pay the salary for all of our politicians. Our entire political system is based on the fact that, "we the people" are the government.

The former Soviet Union, Iraq, Iran, China, Cuba, North Korea, etc., etc., etc., are all examples where the poeple are not the government.

Right... but you can't make a decision all willy nilly like a president or senator or Judge can. WE control the government, as our social contract is much more binding of our government than other countries (soviet union, iraq, etc). You participate in government functions occasionally, but the real government stuff is done by the senators, etc.

Actually, in our republic, we elect our representatives to act in our best interest. We are too busy in our capitalistic society to worry about the day-to-day political happenings. That is why they are called representatives - they represent their constituients. And, yes, I can make a decision "all willy nilly" like the President does (i.e. today I will run for office, or today I will collect signatures to put a measure on the ballot), but on a much smaller scale.

And a contract implies that it needs to be enforced. Who will enforce it? That means we now need men with guns to check on everyone to make sure the contract is enforced. That leads to a police state where, ironically, the very contract that is proposed to keep the politicians in check will actually be used against us.

Okay... you don't understand. The USA, right now, is operating under a social contract. That is not debateable, that is a fact, its what the term means. What is this contract? It is the constitution and the bill of rights. How is it enforced without having men with guns? Checks and balances, the most ingenious part of the system the founding fathers established, how is it enforced beyond that? Bill of rights 2nd amendment, worse comes to worst and we start fighting the government (ie the elected officials) with guns.

As to you making willy nilly decisions, the point as you said, is it is on a much smaller scale. Point is you have limited control over what the government does, in fact your point about running for office is a good example, as you have no control whatsoever until you get elected.

Too bad the Constitution is interpreted by the very government it is supposed to limit.

 

[NarcoticHobo]

Too bad the Constitution is interpreted by the very government it is supposed to limit.

That's the ingenious part! 🙂

By having one branch have their only power as interpreting it, another as making laws through it, and another enforcing those laws it perfectly balances out. See the judicial branch will fight for all the power they can get, and thus will limit the exec and leg, by going by the constitution as best they can, as if they start allowing too much their branch will be overridden.

 

[HalosPuma]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Too bad the Constitution is interpreted by the very government it is supposed to limit.

Our Constitution enumerates and limits the power of each of the 3 branches of our government. It is interpreted by the Supreme Court judges who are appointed by the President who are elected by the Electors who we vote for, and then who are approved by the Congress that we also vote for.

The social contract we are supposed to be operating under today is nothing like the example posted above. Our contract is between all of the people in our nation. It states that we can select a few amongst us to represent us, but they are heavility restricted in what they can do and we have the right to toss them from office. Over the years, however, that social contract has unfortunately been changed to be more like the one in the OP.

I still do not like the idea that I am not the government. Granted, the scope of my actions are much, much, much, smaller than that of our elected officials, but I can still run for office or put a measure on the ballot. I can make a difference.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: NarcoticHobo

Too bad the Constitution is interpreted by the very government it is supposed to limit.

That's the ingenious part! 🙂

By having one branch have their only power as interpreting it, another as making laws through it, and another enforcing those laws it perfectly balances out. See the judicial branch will fight for all the power they can get, and thus will limit the exec and leg, by going by the constitution as best they can, as if they start allowing too much their branch will be overridden.

The linchpin of the modern state is the Federal Reserve System. The Supreme Court acted in the interest of the rest of the government by nullifying the clause that explicitly states that the official money of the United States shall be gold and silver coin. So much for checks and balances, eh?

 

[HalosPuma]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
The linchpin of the modern state is the Federal Reserve System. The Supreme Court acted in the interest of the rest of the government by nullifying the clause that explicitly states that the official money of the United States shall be gold and silver coin. So much for checks and balances, eh?

Yup. Glad to see you're on the up and up. :thumbsup:

Actually, it was the Congress that approved the bill to create the Fed in Dec of 1913.

 

[NarcoticHobo]

Originally posted by: HalosPuma

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Too bad the Constitution is interpreted by the very government it is supposed to limit.

Our Constitution enumerates and limits the power of each of the 3 branches of our government. It is interpreted by the Supreme Court judges who are appointed by the President who are elected by the Electors who we vote for, and then who are approved by the Congress that we also vote for.

The social contract we are supposed to be operating under today is nothing like the example posted above. Our contract is between all of the people in our nation. It states that we can select a few amongst us to represent us, but they are heavility restricted in what they can do and we have the right to toss them from office. Over the years, however, that social contract has unfortunately been changed to be more like the one in the OP.

I still do not like the idea that I am not the government. Granted, the scope of my actions are much, much, much, smaller than that of our elected officials, but I can still run for office or put a measure on the ballot. I can make a difference.

Thats fine, you can make a difference. Hell you can even be a part of the government from time to time, as can anyone and everyone in the US. The thing is not everyone is part of the government at all times, only our representatives are for an extended period of time, and since they have the most influence over the way the people are governed they are considered the government.

 

[NarcoticHobo]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: NarcoticHobo

Too bad the Constitution is interpreted by the very government it is supposed to limit.

That's the ingenious part! 🙂

By having one branch have their only power as interpreting it, another as making laws through it, and another enforcing those laws it perfectly balances out. See the judicial branch will fight for all the power they can get, and thus will limit the exec and leg, by going by the constitution as best they can, as if they start allowing too much their branch will be overridden.

The linchpin of the modern state is the Federal Reserve System. The Supreme Court acted in the interest of the rest of the government by nullifying the clause that explicitly states that the official money of the United States shall be gold and silver coin. So much for checks and balances, eh?

Not really thats exactly how it should work. They limit each other on anything slightly controversial, this way in order for a massive massive change to be made, all of the branches have to cooperate to make it happen, which is very hard to do thus ensuring whatever the change is is a very good idea. For instance like going off the gold standard.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: HalosPuma

Originally posted by: Dissipate
The linchpin of the modern state is the Federal Reserve System. The Supreme Court acted in the interest of the rest of the government by nullifying the clause that explicitly states that the official money of the United States shall be gold and silver coin. So much for checks and balances, eh?

Yup. Glad to see you're on the up and up. :thumbsup:

Actually, it was the Congress that approved the bill to create the Fed in Dec of 1913.

No, actually it was a decision in a landmark case called Julliard v. Greenman.

 

[HalosPuma]

Originally posted by: NarcoticHobo
you can even be a part of the government from time to time, as can anyone and everyone in the US. The thing is not everyone is part of the government at all times, only our representatives are for an extended period of time, and since they have the most influence over the way the people are governed they are considered the government.

Okay, I'll acquiese, except for one important point - anyone, at any time, can enter or leave the "government" in our country.

The reason I don't like to say "The Government" is because it gives away some of the power we have over them, as well as removes the responsibility that we have. After all, it is us who elected these b@stards into power.

 

[HalosPuma]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: HalosPuma

Originally posted by: Dissipate
The linchpin of the modern state is the Federal Reserve System. The Supreme Court acted in the interest of the rest of the government by nullifying the clause that explicitly states that the official money of the United States shall be gold and silver coin. So much for checks and balances, eh?

Yup. Glad to see you're on the up and up. :thumbsup:

Actually, it was the Congress that approved the bill to create the Fed in Dec of 1913.

No, actually it was a decision in a landmark case called Julliard v. Greenman.

Is this in response to the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd (current Fed) central bank of the US? I know that Thomas Jefferson vehemetly opposed the creation of a central bank.

 

[RedPickle]

Originally posted by: HalosPuma

Originally posted by: Dissipate
No we aren't the government. "We" (we actually being voters) elect people to become the government out of the general population. If we were to believe your nonesense then we would have to conclude that we subjected oursevles to everything the government does, which is absurd.

W.O.W. - the level of education in this country has obviously plummeted to new lows. WE, THE PEOPLE ARE THE GOVERNMENT - BY THE PEOPLE, OF THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE.

Here's our Constitution - you know that document most politicians disregard:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

And, yes, we get what we vote for - that is why we can also throw them out of office like California did.

Where the hell does it say we ARE the government? It says that it was made by and for the people. Now where does it say we ARE the government. You are not everything you create.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: NarcoticHobo

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: NarcoticHobo

Too bad the Constitution is interpreted by the very government it is supposed to limit.

That's the ingenious part! 🙂

By having one branch have their only power as interpreting it, another as making laws through it, and another enforcing those laws it perfectly balances out. See the judicial branch will fight for all the power they can get, and thus will limit the exec and leg, by going by the constitution as best they can, as if they start allowing too much their branch will be overridden.

The linchpin of the modern state is the Federal Reserve System. The Supreme Court acted in the interest of the rest of the government by nullifying the clause that explicitly states that the official money of the United States shall be gold and silver coin. So much for checks and balances, eh?

Not really thats exactly how it should work. They limit each other on anything slightly controversial, this way in order for a massive massive change to be made, all of the branches have to cooperate to make it happen, which is very hard to do thus ensuring whatever the change is is a very good idea. For instance like going off the gold standard.

Making blatantly contradictory interpretations of the Constitution is the way things should work? In that case it might as well be torn up and thrown in a dumpster.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: HalosPuma

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: HalosPuma

Originally posted by: Dissipate
The linchpin of the modern state is the Federal Reserve System. The Supreme Court acted in the interest of the rest of the government by nullifying the clause that explicitly states that the official money of the United States shall be gold and silver coin. So much for checks and balances, eh?

Yup. Glad to see you're on the up and up. :thumbsup:

Actually, it was the Congress that approved the bill to create the Fed in Dec of 1913.

No, actually it was a decision in a landmark case called Julliard v. Greenman.

Is this in response to the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd (current Fed) central bank of the US? I know that Thomas Jefferson vehemetly opposed the creation of a central bank.

No, it was in response to a sale of 100 bails of cotton and whether or not paper currency would be deemed to be a legal tender for the debt.

 

[HalosPuma]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
No, it was in response to a sale of 100 bails of cotton and whether or not paper currency would be deemed to be a legal tender for the debt.

Paper currency as legal tender, or a bank receipt for gold &/or silver in storage as legal tender?

 

[NarcoticHobo]

Making blatantly contradictory interpretations of the Constitution is the way things should work? In that case it might as well be torn up and thrown in a dumpster.

Yes, but only for major things. Like the example you posted, and removing the part about slaves getting counted as 3/5 of a person in population counts for the house of reps. Stuff like that.

I mean thats the point, sometimes the constitution must be changed, and in those cases it is very very hard to do so as all three bodies have to agree.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: HalosPuma

Originally posted by: Dissipate
No, it was in response to a sale of 100 bails of cotton and whether or not paper currency would be deemed to be a legal tender for the debt.

Paper currency as legal tender, or a bank receipt for gold &/or silver in storage as legal tender?

They were U.S. notes that were issued during the Civil War.

 

[HalosPuma]

Originally posted by: NarcoticHobo
I mean thats the point, sometimes the constitution must be changed, and in those cases it is very very hard to do so as all three bodies have to agree.

Actually, it's 2/3 of the states have to agree. 😛 Okay, I'm off to bed! Hopefully whatever social contract we live under will protect me from home invasion.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: NarcoticHobo

Making blatantly contradictory interpretations of the Constitution is the way things should work? In that case it might as well be torn up and thrown in a dumpster.

Yes, but only for major things. Like the example you posted, and removing the part about slaves getting counted as 3/5 of a person in population counts for the house of reps. Stuff like that.

I mean thats the point, sometimes the constitution must be changed, and in those cases it is very very hard to do so as all three bodies have to agree.

There is no current amendment that has changed the clause that I referred to.

 

[NarcoticHobo]

Originally posted by: NarcoticHobo

Making blatantly contradictory interpretations of the Constitution is the way things should work? In that case it might as well be torn up and thrown in a dumpster.

Yes, but only for major things. Like the example you posted, and removing the part about slaves getting counted as 3/5 of a person in population counts for the house of reps. Stuff like that.

I mean thats the point, sometimes the constitution must be changed, and in those cases it is very very hard to do so as all three bodies have to agree.

Ok, dissipate, I skimmed over those links in your sig, and as a philosophy/economics major I think I have enough backing to comment on them, let me just say, they are missing a lot of stuff. The one about a gold back monetary system doesn't seem to understand that the international fiat money system we have now is much more efficient than a gold backed system, and has no real setbacks... I mean yea sure with fiat money your money is actually worthless... but so what? It is a proven theory, and works wonders I must say. The other link... about socialism... way too much to read but the guy seemed to put emphasis on a lot of things that he didn't qualify. I'd say both of those are fair arguments at absolute best... probably more in the poor range.

I guess my point is I hope you aren't getting your ideas about our government and world strictly from sources like that...

 

[NarcoticHobo]

Originally posted by: HalosPuma

Originally posted by: NarcoticHobo
I mean thats the point, sometimes the constitution must be changed, and in those cases it is very very hard to do so as all three bodies have to agree.

Actually, it's 2/3 of the states have to agree. 😛 Okay, I'm off to bed! Hopefully whatever social contract we live under will protect me from home invasion.

Well yes, and no. Depends on the way they do it. If the SC changes something in a ruling and then the senate and exec can do it or not do it (not ignore it, just they have a choice, like they have the right to do something), otherwise yes 2/3 state legislatures.

 

[NarcoticHobo]

There is no current amendment that has changed the clause that I referred to.

I understand it was done through the judicial branch, in which case they probably found some very precise wording to avoid directly contradicting the constitution, but by changing it they would have basically given the legislature the right to do this, or of course they could have ordered it. Either way it wouldn't have come to them had it not gone through the legislature and passed first... This is an extremely complicated process and I feel that every hole I close you are just asking about another one, when in fact the whole thing is circular, and thats how it works.

Edit: three posts in a row, time for sleep, goodnight.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: NarcoticHobo

Originally posted by: NarcoticHobo

Making blatantly contradictory interpretations of the Constitution is the way things should work? In that case it might as well be torn up and thrown in a dumpster.

Yes, but only for major things. Like the example you posted, and removing the part about slaves getting counted as 3/5 of a person in population counts for the house of reps. Stuff like that.

I mean thats the point, sometimes the constitution must be changed, and in those cases it is very very hard to do so as all three bodies have to agree.

Ok, dissipate, I skimmed over those links in your sig, and as a philosophy/economics major I think I have enough backing to comment on them, let me just say, they are missing a lot of stuff. The one about a gold back monetary system doesn't seem to understand that the international fiat money system we have now is much more efficient than a gold backed system, and has no real setbacks... I mean yea sure with fiat money your money is actually worthless... but so what? It is a proven theory, and works wonders I must say. The other link... about socialism... way too much to read but the guy seemed to put emphasis on a lot of things that he didn't qualify. I'd say both of those are fair arguments at absolute best... probably more in the poor range.

I guess my point is I hope you aren't getting your ideas about our government and world strictly from sources like that...

You didn't skim hard enough. Centralized fractional reserve banking will never be able to allow international transactions to occur in real time. Heck, centralized fractional reserve banking does not even allow person-to-person domestic transactions to occur in real time i.e. from my checking account to yours, instantly. Hence, people have resorted to PayPal and other full-reserve systems and will continue to do so.

No, I haven't gotten my ideas about our government strictly from sources like "that," I have gotten them straight from the source: the government.

 

[NarcoticHobo]

[
You didn't skim hard enough. Centralized fractional reserve banking will never be able to allow international transactions to occur in real time. Heck, centralized fractional reserve banking does not even allow person-to-person domestic transactions to occur in real time i.e. from my checking account to yours, instantly. Hence, people have resorted to PayPal and other full-reserve systems and will continue to do so.

No, I haven't gotten my ideas about our government strictly from sources like "that," I have gotten them straight from the source: the government.

It actually will fairly soon, in fact some new legislation was passed that allows real time check transfers. So with that in mind the only thing that offers is a gold backed system, for which there is no point, and is actually dangerous to us economically, hence the reason we got off of it. Seriously though, sleep time.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: NarcoticHobo

[
You didn't skim hard enough. Centralized fractional reserve banking will never be able to allow international transactions to occur in real time. Heck, centralized fractional reserve banking does not even allow person-to-person domestic transactions to occur in real time i.e. from my checking account to yours, instantly. Hence, people have resorted to PayPal and other full-reserve systems and will continue to do so.

No, I haven't gotten my ideas about our government strictly from sources like "that," I have gotten them straight from the source: the government.

It actually will fairly soon, in fact some new legislation was passed that allows real time check transfers. So with that in mind the only thing that offers is a gold backed system, for which there is no point, and is actually dangerous to us economically, hence the reason we got off of it. Seriously though, sleep time.

They can do whatever they want, they are still doomed. Currency is going 100% digital, and since it is going 100% digital the banks are going to have to compete with everyone else (i.e. PayPal). Their entire cartel will become completely irrelevant due to the fact that the entry barriers into the digital currency industry will be extremely low. The main entry barrier that will be lifted is the one having to do with government banking regulations.

The banks will have two options:

1. Go legitimate and end the practice of fractional reserve banking.

2. Go out of business entirely.

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

I'm gonna second what 1EZduzit said.