Jump to content



Photo

Government oppression and slavery


  • Please log in to reply
64 replies to this topic

#1 voltaire

voltaire

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 1,134 posts

Posted 29 January 2013 - 05:37 AM

I don't understand this fear of Government slavery. After all, we vote them in and out. Are they some homogenous body? No. Mostly they are wankers and are easily dislodged. So why this fear that many have. It makes no sense to me. Does anyone have any evidence that voting does NOT remove a candidate? So why the paranoia about slavery?

#2 Dex

Dex

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 2,173 posts

Posted 29 January 2013 - 08:49 AM

What do you mean by Government Slavery?
"The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made. "
17_16


#3 uburack

uburack

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 628 posts

Posted 29 January 2013 - 09:29 AM

please step away from the punchbowl, you've had too much
John 21:6 And he said unto them, "Cast the net on the right side of the ship, and ye shall find". They cast therefore, and now they were not able to draw it for the multitude of fishes.

#4 colion

colion

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 1,079 posts

Posted 29 January 2013 - 10:32 AM

You have to define your terms. What is government slavery?

Of course voting can remove a person from office but unfortunately we don't vote them in and out. That's the problem that has to be addressed. Why don't we vote them out?

The corruption and cronyism associated with getting elected and staying in office is well documented as is the attitude of the public and associated tuning out of things political. Too many politicians will do whatever it takes to get into office and stay there by pandering, lying, or otherwise distorting the truth to the public both before being elected and afterwards. Large donors and special interests are quite knowledgeable and know what their money is buying. However, the public is either relatively uncritical, reacting emotionally rather than thinking for themselves, and/or wants to purposely continue to feather their nest with government entitlements and other programs that we all pay for now or in the future. And too many of the public say that it makes no difference because you can't "fight city hall". These things and resulting numerous ramifications produce "lifetime" appointments to Congress. Fortunarely, at one point we got smart and limited presidents to two terms. This type of reality is perhaps the main argument for term limits that might grab hold at some point. Many years ago while living in the Chicago area (land of big time political bosses) the general wisdom for non-sheeple was vote for the guy who is out on the assumption that it takes time to build a political power structure. I must confess that I did just this a few times and don't regret it at all.

I'm surprised that you have not Googled which turns up numerous articles that address your question at least to some degree. Here are a few links to get you going that popped up with a quick Google but there are many, many more. I have only skimmed these articles so they might not all be on point but all seem to touch on your question.

Rationalizatin for slavery and government

Government/slavery

We the Sheeple article and podcast

Fed up

Why 40% don't vote

Political diapers

Political corruption

Why not voting

Why vote

#5 salsabob

salsabob

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 1,164 posts

Posted 29 January 2013 - 11:40 AM

I don't understand this fear of Government slavery.

After all, we vote them in and out.

Are they some homogenous body? No.

Mostly they are wankers and are easily dislodged.

So why this fear that many have.

It makes no sense to me.

Does anyone have any evidence that voting does NOT remove a candidate?

So why the paranoia about slavery?


I have a much simplier take on this -

If I can't make the case to fear the govt, then I have no excuse for having an AR and high capacity magazine clips.

If I don't have an AR and high capacity magazine clips, then the ladies might notice my very small wanker.

I'd then be forced to buy a 'vett or a BMer and those suckers are expensive!
John Galt shrugged, outsourced to Red China and opened a hedge fund for unregulated securitized credit derivatives.

If the world didn't suck, wouldn't we all just fly off?

#6 Rogerdodger

Rogerdodger

    Member

  • TT Member*
  • 24,789 posts

Posted 31 January 2013 - 09:38 PM

Slavery can be a matter of degree.
It can be voluntary or forced.
The American revolution was in part about taxation without representation.
Taxation without benefit is not unlike forced labor, even if it's just part-time servitude.
Some people don't value freedom, especially the freedom of others.

IRS: Cheapest "Affordable" Government Healthcare Plan Will Be $20,000 Per Family...
In a final regulation issued Wednesday, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) assumed that under the "Affordable Healthcare Act" the cheapest health insurance plan available in 2016 for a family will cost $20,000 for the year.

Edited by Rogerdodger, 31 January 2013 - 09:51 PM.


#7 Rogerdodger

Rogerdodger

    Member

  • TT Member*
  • 24,789 posts

Posted 31 January 2013 - 10:00 PM

Government/slavery
"In the United States today, democracy means that most people have essentially zero political power, and a relative handful of people have almost unimaginable power.
I find it totally baffling that so many self-styled progressives are vociferously rooting for this political inequality to increase. They want technocrats making even more decisions, with even fewer political checks and balances."

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's G0D entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Edited by Rogerdodger, 31 January 2013 - 10:08 PM.


#8 Rogerdodger

Rogerdodger

    Member

  • TT Member*
  • 24,789 posts

Posted 01 February 2013 - 10:16 AM

The question is still unanswered: How much of someone else's life and property do I have a right to? Is theft immoral? If theft is re-named "progressive redistribution" and done by government agents under threat of force does that make it moral? How much of someone else's life and property do I have a right to?

#9 salsabob

salsabob

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 1,164 posts

Posted 01 February 2013 - 10:59 AM

IRS: Cheapest "Affordable" Government Healthcare Plan Will Be $20,000 Per Family...
In a final regulation issued Wednesday, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) assumed that under the "Affordable Healthcare Act" the cheapest health insurance plan available in 2016 for a family will cost $20,000 for the year.


First, the $20K is an IRS hypothetical to show how the penalty works. Have you ever come across an IRS analysis that underestimates "the hit?" That would be akin to putting their gonads on the table and waiting for a Congress critter to come by with a hammer.

Second while the $20K is likely a pretty high estimate, it's not unreasonable high for a family of 5 that has no employer contribution nor being otherwise subsidized (you have to be making over $90K under the new ACA to lose your subsidy) - anyone shocked by that $20K number has probable always been under an employer's plan, otherwise subsidized, never had insurance or is living on another planet.

Third, paying the alternative penalty of $200/mo is pretty close to the current cost built into everyone's premiums to cover the uninsured - that's the "freerider" issue that any healthcare policy has to wrestle with. I'm actually okay with us (or our employer) paying that premium for freeriders; I figure a couple making over $120K with three kids and not having coverage - we should just make sure to hand them Darwin Awards instead of admitting them to emergency rooms. On the other hand, these are probably the same people who believe Rick Santelli offers sage advice - I like taking these people's money.
John Galt shrugged, outsourced to Red China and opened a hedge fund for unregulated securitized credit derivatives.

If the world didn't suck, wouldn't we all just fly off?

#10 salsabob

salsabob

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 1,164 posts

Posted 01 February 2013 - 11:16 AM

...

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,....


And of course, that led to (and in the law, essentially trumped by) -

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,...


Around 70 years later, some folks tried to go back to the first; after 450K killed, it was settled again. Outside of a lot of whining today, I kind of doubt enough people have the stomach for that again. Maybe past time to get use to it? :rolleyes:
John Galt shrugged, outsourced to Red China and opened a hedge fund for unregulated securitized credit derivatives.

If the world didn't suck, wouldn't we all just fly off?