2012 forecast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror

On 2009-10-16, Dweezil Dwarftosser > wrote:
> Brent said...
>> On 2009-10-16, Dweezil Dwarftosser > wrote:
>>
>> >> Most communist governments that have failed simply failed. People
>> >> withdrew consent in mass and they just failed.
>>
>> > Most of the old Warsaw Pact states (except Yugoslavia,
>> > particularly under Tito) had Soviet-puppet communist parties
>> > controlling every facet of their lives from Moscow. Just
>> > _mentioning_ the existence of something as wimpy as a
>> > circulating petition, could result in a middle-of-the-
>> > night disappearance, forever. The slightest provocation
>> > (e.g. - a freedom demonstration) resulted in Soviet tanks in
>> > their cities within 24 hours.
>>
>> > None of these communist governments (including Russia) ever
>> > had the consent of the people after 1930 or so. They were
>> > slave societies with one master: the USSR.
>>
>> They certainly did, through fear and deception. People consented to the
>> state because they were affraid of what the state would do to them.
>
> Coerced, forced compliance is not 'consent'.

It wasn't forced. No government has enough force to do that, not even
the massive spending of the US federal government on the military can
force consent from the masses. A few examples can create fear and fear
encourages people to accept the rule of the state, but ultimately they
choose to recognize the state as the authority.

> No slave ever consented to subjugation; neither did those behind the
> iron curtain of communism.
> The same is true today in communist China, North Korea, Cuba,
> Venezuela, and a host of other places around the world.

Their consent is that they accept that the state rules them. The state
must convince people of that fraud to retain power.

> (Increasingly, it is also becoming true of today's United States.)

The 'love it or leave it' types are very consenting.

Stanley Moore said...

> None of the above would be Constitutional.

Please hold that thought a second; I'll come right back
to it . . .

> Sounds like a military coup not any lawful process.

Were there some sort of rogue general violently attacking
the DC establishment so he could personally take over the
reins of power in the USA, I'd agree with your assessment.

However, that's not the hypothetical scenario I presented.

While plenty of politics come into play during the selection
and confirmation of any candidate for Supreme Court Justice,
our Constitution wisely made the SC a completely independent
co-equal branch with lots of features to enable it to truly
be apolitical - and the ultimate 'check and balance' against
the executive and legislative branches. (Appointed for life,
and with primary authority not only of appelate review, but
also all cases arising involving 'other public Ministers' of
the United States.)

The scenario I presented included that latter facility: enough
evidence to arrest an openly-Marxist president (who holds that
the first ten amendments to the Constitution are a 'Bill of
Negative Rights', preventing the government from taking full
control), and a super-majority of co-conspirators in our Congress
seeking to nullify many articles of that Constitution by simply
ignoring the prohibitions it places upon them. (The powers of
the three branches are enumerated and specific; EVERYTHING else
is reserved to the states, or to the people.)

Ordinarily (in a non-corrupted government), a Bill of Impeachment
(and subsequent trial before an uncorrupted Senate) would do.
However, that is surely not possible under the conditions extant
today.

With the Justice Department and it's subordinates (like the FBI)
under the ruling thumb of the Executive (where it even proposes
and defends new policies which clearly ignore the prohibitions
of the Constitution), what institution is left in America for the
SC to empower to make the arrest? What institution remains which
the people will find trustworthy of guarding their Constitution
from the political plunderers?

There is only one; the US military: their brothers, spouses, uncles,
fathers, and their sons/daughters. They - and they alone - are the
dedicated, apolitical representatives of the people who can accomplish
the job.
And all of them have read the Declaration of Independence.
And all of them FULLY understand that one of the rights of THE PEOPLE
is to abolish and replace any government which is destructive of
liberty, and which no longer has the consent of the governed.

Sadly, it shouldn't have to come to that; but I think that day
may come far sooner than most think.
And every bit of it will be in accord with the Constitution.





Take care
>

On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 00:59:45 -0400, Dweezil Dwarftosser
> wrote:

>> None of the above would be Constitutional.
>
>Please hold that thought a second; I'll come right back
>to it . . .
>
>> Sounds like a military coup not any lawful process.
>
>Were there some sort of rogue general violently attacking
>the DC establishment so he could personally take over the
>reins of power in the USA, I'd agree with your assessment.
>
>However, that's not the hypothetical scenario I presented.
>
>While plenty of politics come into play during the selection
>and confirmation of any candidate for Supreme Court Justice,
>our Constitution wisely made the SC a completely independent
>co-equal branch with lots of features to enable it to truly
>be apolitical - and the ultimate 'check and balance' against
>the executive and legislative branches. (Appointed for life,
>and with primary authority not only of appelate review, but
>also all cases arising involving 'other public Ministers' of
>the United States.)
>
>The scenario I presented included that latter facility: enough
>evidence to arrest an openly-Marxist president (who holds that
>the first ten amendments to the Constitution are a 'Bill of
>Negative Rights', preventing the government from taking full
>control), and a super-majority of co-conspirators in our Congress
>seeking to nullify many articles of that Constitution by simply
>ignoring the prohibitions it places upon them. (The powers of
>the three branches are enumerated and specific; EVERYTHING else
>is reserved to the states, or to the people.)
>
>Ordinarily (in a non-corrupted government), a Bill of Impeachment
>(and subsequent trial before an uncorrupted Senate) would do.
>However, that is surely not possible under the conditions extant
>today.

My thoughts exactly.

>With the Justice Department and it's subordinates (like the FBI)
>under the ruling thumb of the Executive (where it even proposes
>and defends new policies which clearly ignore the prohibitions
>of the Constitution), what institution is left in America for the
>SC to empower to make the arrest? What institution remains which
>the people will find trustworthy of guarding their Constitution
>from the political plunderers?
>
>There is only one; the US military: their brothers, spouses, uncles,
>fathers, and their sons/daughters. They - and they alone - are the
>dedicated, apolitical representatives of the people who can accomplish
>the job.
>And all of them have read the Declaration of Independence.
>And all of them FULLY understand that one of the rights of THE PEOPLE
>is to abolish and replace any government which is destructive of
>liberty, and which no longer has the consent of the governed.
>
>Sadly, it shouldn't have to come to that; but I think that day
>may come far sooner than most think.
>And every bit of it will be in accord with the Constitution.

It's worth recalling that the Constitutional Convention met in
Philadelphia charged with the responsibility of revising the Articles
of Confederation. Although that was what they were supposed to do,
they quickly relalized that they'd have to scrap the Articles and
create something new. What they did was "unconstitutional" (in a
generic sense) in that it was not in accord with the provisions of the
Articles of Confederation, but it worked pretty well, at least for a
while.

When Franklin left the Convention after it had completed its work, it
is reported that a woman in the street asked him, "Well, doctor, what
have we got?" He responded, "A Republic, if you can keep it."

Too bad we didn't.

--
W. de N.

"I am certain that nothing has done so much
to destroy the juridical safeguards of individual freedom
as the striving after this mirage of social justice."

-- Friedrich A. Hayek (1899-1992)

jim > wrote in
:

>
>
> Shuurai wrote:
>>
>> > >Health care reform is so corporations can dump their
>> > >employees en masse into the public option and the execs can
>> > >pocket the "savings" while we all get poorer.
>> >
>> > Only if we let them.
>>
>> Who is going to stop them?
>
> Ah.... the free market system would.

The problem is that there is no free market once the public option is
available, because you're skewing the playing field into bankrupting
the insurance companies.

Government doesn't have to have a positive balance sheet at the end
of the quarter. Therefore, the rules that are laid down will be
impossible for a private insurer to comply with without losing money.

Larrybud wrote:
>
> jim > wrote in
> :
>
> >
> >
> > Shuurai wrote:
> >>
> >> > >Health care reform is so corporations can dump their
> >> > >employees en masse into the public option and the execs can
> >> > >pocket the "savings" while we all get poorer.
> >> >
> >> > Only if we let them.
> >>
> >> Who is going to stop them?
> >
> > Ah.... the free market system would.
>
> The problem is that there is no free market once the public option is
> available, because you're skewing the playing field into bankrupting
> the insurance companies.

Interesting bit of contorted and twisted logic. If the insurance
companies are as bad as people say then Yes, they may well go out of
business. And why shouldn't they? If their only role is as blood suckers
then good riddance to them.

But that has nothing to do with the question that was asked. The claim
was:

"Health care reform is so corporations can dump
their employees en masse into the public option
and the execs can pocket the "savings".... "

The question that was asked was what is going to stop employers from
pocketing the savings they receive from the new more cost effective
health care system. The answer I gave to that question was the free
market system.

Even if the contention is true that the employers of America are going
to pocket the savings from the new system of health care, the rest of us
will still be better off because that would be a one time deal rather
than the compounded interest that the current insurance scam is running.
But the reality is the employers won't be pocketing the savings. In
many cases they will be using the savings to stay in business. For many
the alternative to dumping their employees health insurance is to dump
their employees and close their doors.
It is a simple proposition. The US is the leading manufacturing country
in the world. In a few years it won't hold that status if some current
trends are not reversed soon. The main trend that threatens the
manufacturing sector is the number of businesses that disappear every
year because of the burden of the cost of health care.


>
> Government doesn't have to have a positive balance sheet at the end
> of the quarter. Therefore, the rules that are laid down will be
> impossible for a private insurer to comply with without losing money.

Well the reason for health care reform is to address the current problem
of expensive service that costs more and is less effective than what is
available in every other industrial nation. And none of theose countries
have a free market system. It should be obvious that if nothing is done
the problem is only going to continue to get worse. If you are not math
impaired it should understand that a 15% annual increase in health
insurance premiums is not sustainable indefinitely.

-jim

>> >> > >Health care reform is so corporations can dump their
>> >> > >employees en masse into the public option and the execs
>> >> > >can pocket the "savings" while we all get poorer.
>> >> >
>> >> > Only if we let them.
>> >>
>> >> Who is going to stop them?
>> >
>> > Ah.... the free market system would.
>>
>> The problem is that there is no free market once the public
>> option is available, because you're skewing the playing field
>> into bankrupting the insurance companies.
>
> Interesting bit of contorted and twisted logic. If the insurance
> companies are as bad as people say then Yes, they may well go
> out of business. And why shouldn't they? If their only role is
> as blood suckers then good riddance to them.

It doesn't have anything to do with "bad as people say", it has to
do with competing against an government entity that doesn't have
to make a profit, and can leech the rest of their dollars through
the printing of money and taxation.

So once the private insurers are gone (which they will be), along
with the jobs they supply, we'll all have one "option".
Government care. I don't know about you, but by the looks of
public housing, the government isn't all too concerned with health
care.


> But the reality is the employers won't be pocketing the
> savings. In
> many cases they will be using the savings to stay in business.

Yeah, with the taxation policy of the US and the spending by this
government to pay for "free" health care (snicker), I agree.
They'll have to scrape together every last cent to stay in
business. Nice policy you have there.

>> Government doesn't have to have a positive balance sheet at the
>> end of the quarter. Therefore, the rules that are laid down
>> will be impossible for a private insurer to comply with without
>> losing money.
>
> Well the reason for health care reform is to address the current
> problem of expensive service that costs more and is less
> effective than what is available in every other industrial
> nation. And none of theose countries have a free market system.

It's certainly not less effective. Death rates in Canada for
prostate cancer, for example, is 30% higher there than in the US
because of lack of care. I don't see droves of people leaving the
US for care in those other countries, however, the opposite is
true.

The costs are driven BY government interference, not in spite of
interference. It takes years to get drugs through the FDA, which
costs billions of dollars. Adding more layers of bureacracy will
only make that work.

> It should be obvious that if nothing is done the problem is only
> going to continue to get worse. If you are not math impaired it
> should understand that a 15% annual increase in health insurance
> premiums is not sustainable indefinitely.

Why must the conclusion be that the "something" that must be done
is government interference and takeover of the market? It reminds
me of those who conclude that that unidentified object in the sky
MUST be aliens from another planet. How you make that leap is
beyond me.

NOTHING government does is cheaper and better.

EVERYTHING government does costs 10 times more than it currently
costs, and 20 times more than they tell you it's going to cost.
It doesn't matter who's in office, what party is running congress,
or who the czar of this or that is. Be it the "big dig"
(estimated at 2.8 billion, real cost 22 billion), the war of the
month, or name-your-government-project-here.

What amazes me is that there are so many people like yourself who
are blind to that fact, and just hum a tune and go along their
merry way, believing government is the solution to all of life's
problems, when their track record is so lousy.