Tom Sawyer might need a passport to get his sticky bun fix...
http://www.boston.com/news/local/vermont/articles/2007/06/03/in_vermont_nascent_secession_movement_gains_traction/
In Vermont, nascent secession movement gains traction
By John Curran, Associated Press Writer | June 3, 2007
MONTPELIER, Vt. --At Riverwalk Records, the all-vinyl record store just down the street from the state Capitol, the black "US Out of Vt.!" T-shirts are among the hottest sellers.
But to some people in Vermont, the idea is bigger than a $20 novelty. They want Vermont to secede from the United States -- peacefully, of course.
Disillusioned by what they call an empire about to fall, a small cadre of writers and academics is plotting political strategy and planting the seeds of separatism.
They've published a "Green Mountain Manifesto" subtitled "Why and How Tiny Vermont Might Help Save America From Itself by Seceding from the Union." They hope to put the question before citizens at Town Meeting Day next March, eventually persuading the state Legislature to declare independence, returning Vermont to the status it held from 1777 to 1791.
Whether it's likely is another question.
But the idea has found plenty of sympathetic ears in Vermont, a left-leaning state that said yes to civil unions, no to slavery (before any other) and last year elected a socialist to the U.S. Senate.
About 300 people turned out for a 2005 secession convention in the Statehouse, and plans for a second one are in the works. A poll this year by the University of Vermont's Center for Rural Studies found that 13 percent of those surveyed support secession, up from 8 percent a year before.
"The argument for secession is that the U.S. has become an empire that is essentially ungovernable -- it's too big, it's too corrupt and it no longer serves the needs of its citizens," said Rob Williams, editor of Vermont Commons, a quarterly newspaper dedicated to secession.
"Congress and the executive branch are being run by the multinationals. We have electoral fraud, rampant corporate corruption, a culture of militarism and war. If you care about democracy and self-governance and any kind of representative system, the only constitutional way to preserve what's left of the Republic is to peaceably take apart the empire."
Such movements have a long history. Key West, Fla., staged a mock secession from America in the 1980s. The Town of Killington, Vt., tried to break away and join New Hampshire in 2004, and Hawaii, Alaska, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Texas all have some form of secession organizations today.
The Vermont movement, which is being pushed by several different groups, has been bubbling up for years but has gained new traction in the wake of disenchantment over the Iraq war, rising oil prices and the formation of the pro-secession groups.
Among its architects:
--Thomas Naylor, 70, a retired Duke University economics professor and author who wrote the manifesto and founded Second Vermont Republic, a group pressing for secession, in 2003.
--author Kirkpatrick Sale, 69, founder of the Middlebury Institute, a Cold Spring, N.Y., think tank that hosted a North American Separatist Convention that drew representatives from 16 organizations last fall in Burlington. The group is co-sponsoring another one Oct. 3-4 in Chattanooga, Tenn.
--author Frank Bryan, 65, a professor at the University of Vermont who has championed the cause for years.
Naylor's 112-page manifesto contains precious little explanation of how Vermont would do without federal aid and programs when it comes to security, education and social programs. Some in the movement foresee a Vermont with its own currency and passports, for example, and some form of representative government formed once the secession has taken place.
The cachet of secession would make the new republic a magnet, Bryan said recently during a strategy session with organizers in Naylor's home.
"People would obviously relish coming to the Republic of Vermont, the Switzerland of North America," he said. "Christ, you couldn't keep them away."
But there are plenty of skeptics.
"It doesn't make economic sense, it doesn't make political sense, it doesn't make historical sense. Other than that, it's a good idea," said Paul Gillies, a lawyer and Vermont historian.
While neither the Vermont Constitution nor the U.S. Constitution forbids secession per se, few think it's viable.
"I always thought the Civil War settled that," said Russell Wheeler, a constitutional law expert at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C.
"If Vermont had a powerful enough army and said, `We're leaving the union,' and the national government said, `No, you're not,' and they fought a war over it and Vermont won, then you could say Vermont proved the point. But that's not going to happen," he said.
For now, the would-be secessionists are hoping to draw enough support to get the question on Town Meeting Day agendas.
"We're normal human beings," said Williams, 39, a history professor at Champlain College. "But we're serious about this. We want people in Vermont to think about the options going forward. Do you want to stay in an empire that's in deep trouble?"
Can somebody help me understand why the people are so gung-ho about firearms ownership yet also so gung-ho about Socialism?
Typically firearms are one of the first things to go when people are espousing Socialism (i.e like California or Canada).
If they want to secede and have a Socialist paradise, far be it for me to interrupt them. Just trying to understand our neighbors to the west...
It would take a long time to break down the gun culture up here, which has its roots in the leave me alone culture up here.
So the socialists are forging blindly ahead, not realizing, or perhaps forgetting, that they have to complete the critical step of making people dependent before their evil plans will succeed.
Quote from: Quantrill on June 03, 2007, 09:48 PM NHFT
Can somebody help me understand why the people are so gung-ho about firearms ownership yet also so gung-ho about Socialism?
there are gun nuts and socialists everywhere .... they might not be the same people.
Quote
While neither the Vermont Constitution nor the U.S. Constitution forbids secession per se, few think it's viable.
"I always thought the Civil War settled that," said Russell Wheeler, a constitutional law expert at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C.
I'm so glad there are law experts in D.C. keeping the facts straight. ::)
The Second Vermont Republic is *not* a socialist group.
In fact, FSP icon Jason Sorens is an advisor to their group.
I sure hope those Vermonters don't beat us to secession! :icon_pirat:
Quote from: Quantrill on June 03, 2007, 09:48 PM NHFT
Can somebody help me understand why the people are so gung-ho about firearms ownership yet also so gung-ho about Socialism?
Typically firearms are one of the first things to go when people are espousing Socialism (i.e like California or Canada).
If they want to secede and have a Socialist paradise, far be it for me to interrupt them. Just trying to understand our neighbors to the west...
Remember government and the people aren't the same thing, just cause socialist are in office... a lot of free folks in the hills here.
As far as gun rights go, nobody has it better in the whole country.
QuoteArticle 16th. Right to bear arms; standing armies; military power subordinate to civil
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State - and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.
Quote from: Caleb on June 03, 2007, 10:26 PM NHFT
The Second Vermont Republic is *not* a socialist group.
In fact, FSP icon Jason Sorens is an advisor to their group.
that is what makes them too radical .... remember? ;)
Assuming Vermont abandons its socialist tendencies, wouldn't secession be more likely to succeed if VT and NH did so concurrently and formed one libertarian limited-government political entity? Just a thought.
Nah, VT and NH should seceed separately. VT isn't abandoning their socialism. Besides, it will be an interesting study in contrasts to have Vermont as a socialist state and New Hampshire as a truly free market.
Quote from: FTL_Ian on June 06, 2007, 12:47 PM NHFT
Nah, VT and NH should seceed separately. VT isn't abandoning their socialism. Besides, it will be an interesting study in contrasts to have Vermont as a socialist state and New Hampshire as a truly free market.
And both equally fed up with the federal government. That might make a good point.
Maybe we can share a missile shield.
I will move to Vermont if they seceed. I already live in a socialist country. If I'm going to live in a socialist country anyway, I might as well live in one that's close to New Hampshire.
I have to admit, I'd be mighty tempted to move there as well depending on the amount of socialism imposed, if any, and whether or not they retained the lack of gun laws.
Quote from: Captain Liberty on June 06, 2007, 11:55 PM NHFT
I will move to Vermont if they seceed. I already live in a socialist country. If I'm going to live in a socialist country anyway, I might as well live in one that's close to New Hampshire.
Same. I mean, rather just socialism than socialism and fascism. ;D Atleast there's the opportunity to own firearms and flee to neighbour NH should things get really out of hand.
Recent surveys here report that 75% of the surveyed group was in favour of biometric passports, national ID, DNA and fingerprint registries and increased camera surveillance as long as it was for 'their safety'. <shudder>
Quote from: Russell Kanning on June 03, 2007, 11:04 PM NHFT
Quote from: Caleb on June 03, 2007, 10:26 PM NHFT
The Second Vermont Republic is *not* a socialist group.
In fact, FSP icon Jason Sorens is an advisor to their group.
that is what makes them too radical .... remember? ;)
I advise them to drop the secession thing in favor of self-government. ;D In all seriousness, I think Vermont could become independent one day, but I think it might take 30-40 years to get that 13% up to 51%. Most of the group seems to think that peak oil + imperialism + global warming will cause everything to come crashing down imminently.
some of us cant handle self governing, but we are willing to try it since the current system is so bad :)
Quote from: jsorens on June 08, 2007, 05:46 PM NHFT
Quote from: Russell Kanning on June 03, 2007, 11:04 PM NHFT
Quote from: Caleb on June 03, 2007, 10:26 PM NHFT
The Second Vermont Republic is *not* a socialist group.
In fact, FSP icon Jason Sorens is an advisor to their group.
that is what makes them too radical .... remember? ;)
I advise them to drop the secession thing in favor of self-government. ;D In all seriousness, I think Vermont could become independent one day, but I think it might take 30-40 years to get that 13% up to 51%. Most of the group seems to think that peak oil + imperialism + global warming will cause everything to come crashing down imminently.
Do they see secession as helping towards the goal of surviving Peak Oil and collapse, or are the topics not related in their thinking?
Quote from: Insurgent on June 08, 2007, 09:00 PM NHFT
Quote from: jsorens on June 08, 2007, 05:46 PM NHFT
Quote from: Russell Kanning on June 03, 2007, 11:04 PM NHFT
Quote from: Caleb on June 03, 2007, 10:26 PM NHFT
The Second Vermont Republic is *not* a socialist group.
In fact, FSP icon Jason Sorens is an advisor to their group.
that is what makes them too radical .... remember? ;)
I advise them to drop the secession thing in favor of self-government. ;D In all seriousness, I think Vermont could become independent one day, but I think it might take 30-40 years to get that 13% up to 51%. Most of the group seems to think that peak oil + imperialism + global warming will cause everything to come crashing down imminently.
Do they see secession as helping towards the goal of surviving Peak Oil and collapse, or are the topics not related in their thinking?
Yes... They think transportation networks will degrade, which will force people to eat and buy locally, so they want to create a "self-sufficient" Vermont for that eventuality. I'm talking here of the "mainstream" of the secessionist movement, but not the organization's official stances. Officially, SVR is open to all ideological persuasions, something that has actually riled the left wing of the movement. If those silly ideas were part of their official platform, I wouldn't be on their Board of Advisers.
Quote from: Lasse on June 07, 2007, 06:39 PM NHFT
Quote from: Captain Liberty on June 06, 2007, 11:55 PM NHFT
I will move to Vermont if they seceed. I already live in a socialist country. If I'm going to live in a socialist country anyway, I might as well live in one that's close to New Hampshire.
Same. I mean, rather just socialism than socialism and fascism. ;D Atleast there's the opportunity to own firearms and flee to neighbour NH should things get really out of hand.
Recent surveys here report that 75% of the surveyed group was in favour of biometric passports, national ID, DNA and fingerprint registries and increased camera surveillance as long as it was for 'their safety'. <shudder>
There is no non-fascist socialism, except to those whose property has not yet been taken by socialists. Socialism is lower on the morality scale than armed robbery because an armed robber at least has the courage to take a gun, point it in your face and rob you personally--socialists get together, pass a law that declares they need your property "for the greater good," then hire storm troopers to come take it from you.
It's one of history's great ironies to hear the socialists in Vermont complaining about how large and unwieldy the U.S. government is, considering that they are essentially responsible for its present form.
But let the Vermont socialists secede. After the federal government invades under the A. Lincoln Mafia Manifesto (You can join the U.S., but you can't get out alive.), there won't be too many living people left there. The state will be laid waste in the March to Lake Champlain. If the feds do to a whole state what they did to the religious extremists at Waco, it might wake a lot of Americans up as to the true nature of their government. Years later, we can honor all the dead Vermonters as martyrs of the New Republic.
Quote from: KurtDaBear on June 09, 2007, 12:12 PM NHFT
Quote from: Lasse on June 07, 2007, 06:39 PM NHFT
Quote from: Captain Liberty on June 06, 2007, 11:55 PM NHFT
I will move to Vermont if they seceed. I already live in a socialist country. If I'm going to live in a socialist country anyway, I might as well live in one that's close to New Hampshire.
Same. I mean, rather just socialism than socialism and fascism. ;D Atleast there's the opportunity to own firearms and flee to neighbour NH should things get really out of hand.
Recent surveys here report that 75% of the surveyed group was in favour of biometric passports, national ID, DNA and fingerprint registries and increased camera surveillance as long as it was for 'their safety'. <shudder>
There is no non-fascist socialism, except to those whose property has not yet been taken by socialists. Socialism is lower on the morality scale than armed robbery because an armed robber at least has the courage to take a gun, point it in your face and rob you personally--socialists get together, pass a law that declares they need your property "for the greater good," then hire storm troopers to come take it from you.
It's one of history's great ironies to hear the socialists in Vermont complaining about how large and unwieldy the U.S. government is, considering that they are essentially responsible for its present form.
But let the Vermont socialists succeed. After the federal government invades under the A. Lincoln Mafia Manifesto (You can join the U.S., but you can't get out alive.), there won't be too many living people left there. The state will be laid waste in the March to Lake Champlain. If the feds do to a whole state what they did to the religious extremists at Waco, it might wake a lot of Americans up as to the true nature of their government. Years later, we can honor all the dead Vermonters as martyrs of the New Republic.
I know, socialism and fascism is the same, I just used 'socialism' for economic oppression and 'fascism' for general civil liberties oppression. It's practical. ;)
Before the FSP existed my long term plan was to move to VT. Among the reasons were: lack of gun laws, incredible natural beauty, proximity to my folks, great skiing and hiking, and great motorcycle roads. The socialism has gotten much worse in recent years and they now have one of the highest tax rates in the country. In the movie "White Christmas" they made a joke about how rare Democrats are in VT, which shows how far they've gone in the wrong direction.
Quote from: LiveFree on June 07, 2007, 10:32 AM NHFT
I have to admit, I'd be mighty tempted to move there as well depending on the amount of socialism imposed, if any, and whether or not they retained the lack of gun laws.
History is won by the victors, the south had a president... GAHHH!!! stupid historians
Quote from: supperman15 on June 20, 2007, 10:30 AM NHFT
History is won by the victors, the south had a president... GAHHH!!! stupid historians
???
dugh, history is won by the victors... you obviously fail to see my briliance...
I ment history is written by the victors, as a confedorate if they were a seperate union. They were just forced to rejoin
Trouble with the Vt secession movement is, it's moving toward governance ala UN whether some proponents know it or not.
If it were just Vt independence, that would be a hoss of a different color.
But to join with the maritimes in a 'shire', wlll that's just becoming world government.
Quote from: supperman15 on June 21, 2007, 09:55 AM NHFT
dugh, history is won by the victors... you obviously fail to see my briliance...
I ment history is written by the victors, as a confedorate if they were a seperate union. They were just forced to rejoin
Sure . . . I was just wondering if that was a response to another post, like one from a stupid historian, or if you just wanted to share your wisdom with us without relation to anything else a stupid historian said in the thread . . . .
Quote from: KBCraig on June 03, 2007, 05:02 PM NHFTlast year elected a socialist to the U.S. Senate.
While I don't agree with socialism, I do have to respect socialists who admit what they are. Too often in this country we find people pushing for socialism but hide what it is they truly support in order to trick the simple minded.
Quote from: nonya on June 22, 2007, 01:48 PM NHFT
Has anyone else heard a story regarding Vermont trying to break away from the union? I cant find any material on it.
Thanks,
Nonya
There is a secessionist movement but they are leftists and would join a 'bioregion' under the auspices of the UN so they really would just be joining bigger government than the USA.
Quote from: CNHT on June 22, 2007, 08:09 PM NHFT
Quote from: nonya on June 22, 2007, 01:48 PM NHFT
Has anyone else heard a story regarding Vermont trying to break away from the union? I cant find any material on it.
Thanks,
Nonya
There is a secessionist movement but they are leftists and would join a 'bioregion' under the auspices of the UN so they really would just be joining bigger government than the USA.
This is not true as they dislike both big business and big government. The bioregions are confederations of towns which have nothing to do with the UN. They only said they may seek recognition from the UN once they suceeded.
The use of "socialist" or "socialism" is much too general a term to gain any insight in this context. For instance, Gar Alperovitz wrote a book called "Beyond Capitalism" which was featured in the SVR's publication arm called "Vermont Commons". His arguments of a "cooperative commonwealth" harked back to the 19th century individualist anarchists who called themselves "socialists" that Murray Rothbard credits with having ideas that eventually became market anarchism.
http://www.blackcrayon.com/essays/capitalism/take2/ (http://www.blackcrayon.com/essays/capitalism/take2/)
The terms 'socialism' has become conflated with centralized-authority, just as the term 'capitalism' has become conflated with free markets. These are both dangerous confusions. The social-anarchists are truer to the original conceptions of socialism than the more prevalent state-socialists. Socialism was, as Benjamin Tucker summarized it, the position "that labor should be put into its own."
To understand what this means requires a reassessment of, for instance, the word 'capitalism'. In its strictest (and simplest) form, the term means only this: PROFIT FROM CAPITAL. 'Socialism', in a less-strict, but nevertheless accurate and simple form means: OPPOSITION TO CAPITALISM.
WHAT IS AND WHAT ISN'T CAPITALISM
1. If I build a house and sell it to you, that is not capitalism, although it might be a free-market transaction.
2. If I lend you the money to build a house and charge you interest, that IS capitalism, and the anarchists (including Benjamin Tucker) claimed that the transaction did not take place in a free market.
Why isn't the first scenario capitalism? Because I didn't use capital to make my money -- I used my labor.
Quote from: EthanAllen on June 23, 2007, 08:16 PM NHFT
Quote from: CNHT on June 22, 2007, 08:09 PM NHFT
Quote from: nonya on June 22, 2007, 01:48 PM NHFT
Has anyone else heard a story regarding Vermont trying to break away from the union? I cant find any material on it.
Thanks,
Nonya
There is a secessionist movement but they are leftists and would join a 'bioregion' under the auspices of the UN so they really would just be joining bigger government than the USA.
This is not true as they dislike both big business and big government. The bioregions are confederations of towns which have nothing to do with the UN. They only said they may seek recognition from the UN once they suceeded.
See: http://www.oilempire.us/secession.html
Surely there's a footnote/ escape clause or exclusion for us in lil' 'ol New Hampshire with our Article 10 Right of Revolution, right?
Quote from: JosephSHaas on June 23, 2007, 08:49 PM NHFT
Quote from: EthanAllen on June 23, 2007, 08:16 PM NHFT
Quote from: CNHT on June 22, 2007, 08:09 PM NHFT
Quote from: nonya on June 22, 2007, 01:48 PM NHFT
Has anyone else heard a story regarding Vermont trying to break away from the union? I cant find any material on it.
Thanks,
Nonya
There is a secessionist movement but they are leftists and would join a 'bioregion' under the auspices of the UN so they really would just be joining bigger government than the USA.
This is not true as they dislike both big business and big government. The bioregions are confederations of towns which have nothing to do with the UN. They only said they may seek recognition from the UN once they suceeded.
See: http://www.oilempire.us/secession.html
Surely there's a footnote/ escape clause or exclusion for us in lil' 'ol New Hampshire with our Article 10 Right of Revolution, right?
I question any movement that thinks it needs the sanction of the UN to exist? If you're going to secede, that means breaking all ties to national or international entities that have any sort of CONTROL over you, otherwise, what's the point? You are just seceding out of sovereignty and into world goverment -- frying pan to fire as it were.
Welcome back, er, I think, Bill.
Quote from: CNHT on June 23, 2007, 08:52 PM NHFT
Quote from: JosephSHaas on June 23, 2007, 08:49 PM NHFT
Quote from: EthanAllen on June 23, 2007, 08:16 PM NHFT
Quote from: CNHT on June 22, 2007, 08:09 PM NHFT
Quote from: nonya on June 22, 2007, 01:48 PM NHFT
Has anyone else heard a story regarding Vermont trying to break away from the union? I cant find any material on it.
Thanks,
Nonya
There is a secessionist movement but they are leftists and would join a 'bioregion' under the auspices of the UN so they really would just be joining bigger government than the USA.
This is not true as they dislike both big business and big government. The bioregions are confederations of towns which have nothing to do with the UN. They only said they may seek recognition from the UN once they suceeded.
See: http://www.oilempire.us/secession.html
Surely there's a footnote/ escape clause or exclusion for us in lil' 'ol New Hampshire with our Article 10 Right of Revolution, right?
I question any movement that thinks it needs the sanction of the UN to exist? If you're going to secede, that means breaking all ties to national or international entities that have any sort of CONTROL over you, otherwise, what's the point? You are just seceding out of sovereignty and into world goverment -- frying pan to fire as it were.
Not "sanction". Upon secession they had at one point said they "
may seek
recognition from the UN" as a new country.
Welcome EthanAllen :)
Quote from: EthanAllen on June 23, 2007, 08:46 PM NHFT
The terms 'socialism' has become conflated with centralized-authority, just as the term 'capitalism' has become conflated with free markets. These are both dangerous confusions. The social-anarchists are truer to the original conceptions of socialism than the more prevalent state-socialists. Socialism was, as Benjamin Tucker summarized it, the position "that labor should be put into its own."
To understand what this means requires a reassessment of, for instance, the word 'capitalism'. In its strictest (and simplest) form, the term means only this: PROFIT FROM CAPITAL. 'Socialism', in a less-strict, but nevertheless accurate and simple form means: OPPOSITION TO CAPITALISM.
WHAT IS AND WHAT ISN'T CAPITALISM
1. If I build a house and sell it to you, that is not capitalism, although it might be a free-market transaction.
2. If I lend you the money to build a house and charge you interest, that IS capitalism, and the anarchists (including Benjamin Tucker) claimed that the transaction did not take place in a free market.
Why isn't the first scenario capitalism? Because I didn't use capital to make my money -- I used my labor.
Why didn't #2 take place in a free market? I don't see a market encumbered by external/involuntary regulation of any kind, i.e., coercion.
I say that capitalism is conflated with corporatism moreso than with truly free markets.
Rob
I don't think most VT secessionists are one-worlders at all. They're radical decentralists, so they could be counted on to fight world government more fiercely than they fight (verbally) the U.S. government. I'm sure many of them would be interested in joining the UN, because a lot of them are essentially naive liberals, who typically think the UN is a good idea in theory. However, the U.S. are currently part of the UN, so I don't see Vermont's becoming any worse than the status quo in that respect.
In the end, I think secessionism in Vermont might be a kind of "noble lie" if it gets enough traction, a wedge to get lefties around the country to think twice about further centralization of the U.S. If it ever got far enough, the feds would probably hand over a few billion to the state government for distribution to the citizens to keep them happy. That's what they did with Alaska when the Alaskan Independence Party started to win elections in the 1980's.
Quote from: jsorens on June 23, 2007, 09:13 PM NHFT
I don't think most VT secessionists are one-worlders at all. They're radical decentralists, so they could be counted on to fight world government more fiercely than they fight (verbally) the U.S. government. I'm sure many of them would be interested in joining the UN, because a lot of them are essentially naive liberals, who typically think the UN is a good idea in theory. However, the U.S. are currently part of the UN, so I don't see Vermont's becoming any worse than the status quo in that respect.
In the end, I think secessionism in Vermont might be a kind of "noble lie" if it gets enough traction, a wedge to get lefties around the country to think twice about further centralization of the U.S. If it ever got far enough, the feds would probably hand over a few billion to the state government for distribution to the citizens to keep them happy. That's what they did with Alaska when the Alaskan Independence Party started to win elections in the 1980's.
Well before I would step outside the sovereignty of the USA, I would want to be SURE I had NOTHING to do with the UN....that would be worse to me. I don't know how Bill can deny the bioregions are not part of the UN, as he clearly stated in an original post that this would be a multi-state deal that would even cross borders into Canada, JUST LIKE THE UN PERCEIVES.
See this thread: http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=1129.45
As hankster said: "the ultimate goal of the SVR is a confederation of VT, NH, ME and the Canadian maritimes to form a new nation called "New Acadia" about the size of Denmark."
That is the exact description of what the UN wants to do --- worldwide.
Divide up the world according to biologically homogenious units.
Then they can control us better.
And methinks hankster, bgreen, FrankChodorov et al, lives again as Ethan Allen.
QuoteWhy didn't #2 take place in a free market?
Because there is no free market in credit so the interest can only be usurous.
Quote from: EthanAllen on June 23, 2007, 09:26 PM NHFT
QuoteWhy didn't #2 take place in a free market?
Because there is no free market in credit so the interest can only be usurous.
::) ::) ::)
Quote from: EthanAllen on June 23, 2007, 09:04 PM NHFT
Not "sanction". Upon secession they had at one point said they "may seek recognition from the UN" as a new country.
And you promptly erased that from the site when I questioned it. It did not say 'may' it said 'will'. It is part of the UN...sorry!
QuoteIf it ever got far enough, the feds would probably hand over a few billion to the state government for distribution to the citizens to keep them happy. That's what they did with Alaska when the Alaskan Independence Party started to win elections in the 1980's.
Are you referring to the Alaska Permanent Fund?
Folks, please don't fee the trolls?
:bs:
Quote from: CNHT on June 23, 2007, 09:29 PM NHFT
Quote from: EthanAllen on June 23, 2007, 09:04 PM NHFT
Not "sanction". Upon secession they had at one point said they "may seek recognition from the UN" as a new country.
And you promptly erased that from the site when I questioned it. It did not say 'may' it said 'will'. It is part of the UN...sorry!
Now that is funny. Are there any other powers of coercion you claim to have over people?
Quote from: CNHT on June 23, 2007, 08:59 PM NHFT
Welcome back, er, I think, Bill.
Well, we haven't seen economic rent (http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=5947.msg103328#msg103328) from Ethan yet ;D
Quote from: CNHT on June 23, 2007, 09:29 PM NHFT
Quote from: EthanAllen on June 23, 2007, 09:04 PM NHFT
Not "sanction". Upon secession they had at one point said they "may seek recognition from the UN" as a new country.
And you promptly erased that from the site when I questioned it. It did not say 'may' it said 'will'. It is part of the UN...sorry!
Perhaps the discussion being on two different threads has caused some confusion here. People were posting in the Brown thread and here back and forth. I have moved these posts here since the Brown thread is quite long enough without debating Vermont secession there.
Quote from: CNHT on June 23, 2007, 09:32 PM NHFT
Folks, please don't fee the trolls?
:bs:
With all due respect, CNHT, EthanAllen's posts are relevant to the topic. I am interested in what he has to say even though I suspect I disagree with him on a lot of things. Until he starts interjecting diatribes across the forum, I am not going to consider him a troll. :)
Quote from: EthanAllen on June 23, 2007, 08:16 PM NHFT
Quote from: CNHT on June 22, 2007, 08:09 PM NHFT
There is a secessionist movement but they are leftists and would join a 'bioregion' under the auspices of the UN so they really would just be joining bigger government than the USA.
This is not true as they dislike both big business and big government.
I attended the secessionist conference in Vermont last year, and if I had to pick one word to describe the general consensus, it would be
decentralize.
Quote from: EthanAllen on June 23, 2007, 09:26 PM NHFT
QuoteWhy didn't #2 take place in a free market?
Because there is no free market in credit so the interest can only be usurous.
Are you referring to the current regulated credit situation in the U.S.?
If there were
zero regulation of the credit market (only borrower and lender involved) would you still consider #2 to be taking place in an unfree market?
Quote from: EthanAllen on June 23, 2007, 09:30 PM NHFT
QuoteIf it ever got far enough, the feds would probably hand over a few billion to the state government for distribution to the citizens to keep them happy. That's what they did with Alaska when the Alaskan Independence Party started to win elections in the 1980's.
Are you referring to the Alaska Permanent Fund?
Well, I've just noticed that federal grants to Alaska increased dramatically in the 1980's. I don't think that had anything to do with the Permanent Fund, but maybe it did somehow.
Quote from: CNHT on June 23, 2007, 09:17 PM NHFT
That is the exact description of what the UN wants to do --- worldwide.
Divide up the world according to biologically homogenious units.
Then they can control us better.
Why can they control us better in "biologically homogeneous units"? And what does that term mean?
Quote from: Braddogg on June 24, 2007, 12:01 AM NHFT
Why can they control us better in "biologically homogeneous units"? And what does that term mean?
The UN's dream per Agenda 21 is to make environmentalism the new religion (and to get rid of all traditional religions). Surely you've heard their main preacher Al Gore, lately, telling us that if we don't pay a carbon tax to the UN it's going to be the end of the world? The UN can't do much without our money...
Anyway, the UN's idea for global governance is to divide up the world in bioregions -- tracts of land that are similar types of terrain.
In the USA we would have New Acadia, Pacifica, and then I think one other in the center, forgot what that is called, but it is consistent with the NAU's superhighway.
We would be part of New Acadia and it would be as hankster/bgreen/FrankChodorov described and the other two would extend down into Mexico as well.
The UN would have control, there would be a new world constitution and all national sovereignty would be dissolved.
Basically there'd be no where to run, because you'd be up against a world court and a world army.
Think that's better than sovereignty? I don't.
I've been studying this for years and now because of the way things are happening people no longer think it's some wild theory...all they have to do is go to any one of the UN's websites and read the reams and reams of stuff they generate of their 'plans' for the world.
I am still looking for the speech where their chairman said he wanted to be the in charge of 'your very happiness'. How 1984 is THAT?
Thus I want nothing to do with the UN because I saw how destructive they were in our schools.
People argue that the UN is not a gov't entity thus has no power and I say, are you kidding? The US would sign some sort of treaty with them and then in order to enforce it they pass some stupid federal law like NCLB or some other politically correct social stuff.
Reagan wanted to get rid of the dept of education for this reason and couldn't.
The UN feels that if they divide people up into environmentally similar areas that will make it easier for them to govern and for the people to get along, because after all they are doing this in the name of 'peace'.
This is why I feel it is important to hang on to sovereignty ---- NOT because open borders are bad on the face of it or immigrants as people are bad , but because of who else wants it and what their bigger agenda is and how they are going to help along and promote that agenda.
And that is why I feel things like this Vt. secessionism plays right into their hands....
Quote from: EthanAllen on June 23, 2007, 08:16 PM NHFT
This is not true as they dislike both big business and big government.
What is wrong with big business? I hope everyone here who has a business gets it to be BIG and they make a lot of money which they can then keep pretty much MOST of.
QuoteIf there were zero regulation of the credit market (only borrower and lender involved) would you still consider #2 to be taking place in an unfree market?
In a totally unregulated free market, how would anyone be able to charge interest on money or capital as competition would force price to cost?
QuoteI attended the secessionist conference in Vermont last year, and if I had to pick one word to describe the general consensus, it would be decentralize.
This confirms what Jason said. The SVR are not one-world, globalists, but rather radical decentralist on both the left and right. Why would the SVR want to free themselves from the US only to be commanded by the UN - a much bigger entity?
It makes no logical sense.
Quote from: CNHT on June 24, 2007, 07:30 AM NHFT
Quote from: EthanAllen on June 23, 2007, 08:16 PM NHFT
This is not true as they dislike both big business and big government.
What is wrong with big business? I hope everyone here who has a business gets it to be BIG and they make a lot of money which they can then keep pretty much MOST of.
Big businesses are not the product of the free market as unfettered competition would drive costs to price so it is only by statist intervention that they can protect usurious profits. Intellectual property laws being one example of statist intervention used by big business which can only be enforced by violating the property rights of thos excluded by the privilege*.
* see Stephan Kinsella's arguments against IP.
Quoteif we don't pay a carbon tax to the UN it's going to be the end of the world?
Al Gore is suggesting that we substitute a carbon tax for payroll taxes - not pay it to the UN.
Quote from: EthanAllen on June 24, 2007, 08:33 AM NHFT
Big businesses are not the product of the free market...
I'm sorry you've lost me there. If I have a product that takes off wildly, and I end up with a big business because of it, that is not the free market?
Ok I'm done with you now....
:-\
Quote from: EthanAllen on June 24, 2007, 08:35 AM NHFT
Quoteif we don't pay a carbon tax to the UN it's going to be the end of the world?
Al Gore is suggesting that we substitute a carbon tax for payroll taxes - not pay it to the UN.
And it would be based on what? How much OIL I burn?
Quote from: CNHT on June 24, 2007, 08:39 AM NHFT
Quote from: EthanAllen on June 24, 2007, 08:35 AM NHFT
Quoteif we don't pay a carbon tax to the UN it's going to be the end of the world?
Al Gore is suggesting that we substitute a carbon tax for payroll taxes - not pay it to the UN.
And it would be based on what? How much OIL I burn?
How much carbon you sequester by using the sky as a carbon sink. So for instance, burning bio-diesel is carbon nuetral.
Quote from: CNHT on June 24, 2007, 08:38 AM NHFT
Quote from: EthanAllen on June 24, 2007, 08:33 AM NHFT
Big businesses are not the product of the free market...
I'm sorry you've lost me there. If I have a product that takes off wildly, and I end up with a big business because of it, that is not the free market?
How can the product "take off wildly" unless the state intervenes to restrict the market from other competitors? Otherwise, price will be driven to costs.
Quote from: EthanAllen on June 24, 2007, 08:47 AM NHFT
How can the product "take off wildly" unless the state intervenes to restrict the market from other competitors? Otherwise, price will be driven to costs.
So you think the STATE should intervene? (yes I said I was done with you but....)
Quote from: EthanAllen on June 24, 2007, 08:23 AM NHFT
QuoteIf there were zero regulation of the credit market (only borrower and lender involved) would you still consider #2 to be taking place in an unfree market?
In a totally unregulated free market, how would anyone be able to charge interest on money or capital as competition would force price to cost?
Interest represents time preference, including any risks that the money will not come back to the lender. Market interest rates probably would be lower if there were no risk of expropriation through tax increases, inflation, war, or other government-caused disasters, but they wouldn't go to zero.
Quote from: CNHT on June 24, 2007, 07:26 AM NHFT
Anyway, the UN's idea for global governance is to divide up the world in bioregions -- tracts of land that are similar types of terrain.
In the USA we would have New Acadia, Pacifica, and then I think one other in the center, forgot what that is called, but it is consistent with the NAU's superhighway.
Really? That sounds to me more like the utopian visions of some half-crazed "deep ecologist" than official UN policy. The UN has typically been virulently opposed to secessionist movements, consistent with the interests of its members and funders. For instance, it even sent troops to crush, with much bloodshed, the Katanga secession attempt. UN treaties on self-determination have repeatedly explicitly excluded secessionist movements.
Quote from: jsorens on June 24, 2007, 11:11 AM NHFT
Quote from: CNHT on June 24, 2007, 07:26 AM NHFT
Anyway, the UN's idea for global governance is to divide up the world in bioregions -- tracts of land that are similar types of terrain.
In the USA we would have New Acadia, Pacifica, and then I think one other in the center, forgot what that is called, but it is consistent with the NAU's superhighway.
Really? That sounds to me more like the utopian visions of some half-crazed "deep ecologist" than official UN policy. The UN has typically been virulently opposed to secessionist movements, consistent with the interests of its members and funders. For instance, it even sent troops to crush, with much bloodshed, the Katanga secession attempt. UN treaties on self-determination have repeatedly explicitly excluded secessionist movements.
Of course they are opposed to any movement that disagrees with *their* idea of how the world should be divided.
I've been reading about this for years but I think Earth Summit on Agenda 21 was introduced finally to the public in 1992.
It is based on environmentalism, which is why I am so opposed to the half-crazed environmentalist 'religion'.
For some group that is supposedly non-governmental, they sure as hell have some far-reaching plans for us all...scary!
http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=52
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a9Syi12RJo
Quote from: CNHT on June 24, 2007, 11:42 AM NHFT
Quote from: jsorens on June 24, 2007, 11:11 AM NHFT
Quote from: CNHT on June 24, 2007, 07:26 AM NHFT
Anyway, the UN's idea for global governance is to divide up the world in bioregions -- tracts of land that are similar types of terrain.
In the USA we would have New Acadia, Pacifica, and then I think one other in the center, forgot what that is called, but it is consistent with the NAU's superhighway.
Really? That sounds to me more like the utopian visions of some half-crazed "deep ecologist" than official UN policy. The UN has typically been virulently opposed to secessionist movements, consistent with the interests of its members and funders. For instance, it even sent troops to crush, with much bloodshed, the Katanga secession attempt. UN treaties on self-determination have repeatedly explicitly excluded secessionist movements.
Of course they are opposed to any movement that disagrees with *their* idea of how the world should be divided.
I've been reading about this for years but I think Earth Summit on Agenda 21 was introduced finally to the public in 1992.
It is based on environmentalism, which is why I am so opposed to the half-crazed environmentalist 'religion'.
For some group that is supposedly non-governmental, they sure as hell have some far-reaching plans for us all...scary!
http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=52
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a9Syi12RJo
Well, I think Agenda 21 is largely soft-pated, of course, but I don't see anything in there about breaking countries up into bioregions.
Quote from: jsorens on June 24, 2007, 12:50 PM NHFT
Well, I think Agenda 21 is largely soft-pated, of course, but I don't see anything in there about breaking countries up into bioregions.
Oh yes they took that off...hard to find it anywhere except where it's been captured and reprinted.
Here is a great article about it....and then, the quote from their Global Governance plan is enough to curl your hair!
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32662
"Land ... cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice. ... Public control of land use is therefore indispensable. ..."
And now, I'm going out for lobster! :)
Quote from: CNHT on June 24, 2007, 12:59 PM NHFT
Quote from: jsorens on June 24, 2007, 12:50 PM NHFT
Well, I think Agenda 21 is largely soft-pated, of course, but I don't see anything in there about breaking countries up into bioregions.
Oh yes they took that off...hard to find it anywhere except where it's been captured and reprinted.
Here is a great article about it....and then, the quote from their Global Governance plan is enough to curl your hair!
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32662
"Land ... cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice. ... Public control of land use is therefore indispensable. ..."
And now, I'm going out for lobster! :)
Oh, I fully concede that the UN is a nasty organization that wants to arrogate to itself as much power as possible. I just don't think the VT folks have anything to do with these crazy ideas; if they did, I wouldn't bother advising SVR. :)
Quote from: jsorens on June 24, 2007, 01:14 PM NHFT
Oh, I fully concede that the UN is a nasty organization that wants to arrogate to itself as much power as possible. I just don't think the VT folks have anything to do with these crazy ideas; if they did, I wouldn't bother advising SVR. :)
The fact that their stated idea as I found in 'hankster's' original post of 2005 is EXACTLY the same as the UN's, to the letter, including the name of the 'region' made it seem suspicious to me.
Of course they could be unwitting pawns...and not know the danger of the UN.
QuoteI just don't think the VT folks have anything to do with these crazy ideas; if they did, I wouldn't bother advising SVR.
Exactly. Why would an organization devoted to radical decentralism, subsidiarity and secession then sign on to be commanded by a larger more unaccountable organization? It makes no sense at all which is what I usually find as typical of these conspiracy theories.
Quote from: EthanAllen on June 24, 2007, 08:28 PM NHFT
QuoteI just don't think the VT folks have anything to do with these crazy ideas; if they did, I wouldn't bother advising SVR.
Exactly. Why would an organization devoted to radical decentralism, subsidiarity and secession then sign on to be commanded by a larger more unaccountable organization? It makes no sense at all which is what I usually find as typical of these conspiracy theories.
Because Bill, they don't know any better and you could take advantage of them. Why would you want to gather people up and tax their land as rent and insist his way was the only way?
Sounds like a megalomaniac/slavery to me.
Quote from: EthanAllen on June 23, 2007, 08:46 PM NHFT
To understand what this means requires a reassessment of, for instance, the word 'capitalism'. In its strictest (and simplest) form, the term means only this: PROFIT FROM CAPITAL. 'Socialism', in a less-strict, but nevertheless accurate and simple form means: OPPOSITION TO CAPITALISM.
WHAT IS AND WHAT ISN'T CAPITALISM
1. If I build a house and sell it to you, that is not capitalism, although it might be a free-market transaction.
2. If I lend you the money to build a house and charge you interest, that IS capitalism, and the anarchists (including Benjamin Tucker) claimed that the transaction did not take place in a free market.
Why isn't the first scenario capitalism? Because I didn't use capital to make my money -- I used my labor.
If the lender in Example #2 made his money building and selling houses when he was younger, but is now too old to build more houses, would it be more selfish of him to "rent" some of his money to a young builder who will go without a house if he can't get a loan or to refuse to lend the money and leave the young builder with no means to get ahead?
Or maybe he should have just kept the houses he built and rented them to people, then he'd be something else negative by your collectivist view of the world--a landlord or a slumlord.
Any way you slice it, you're just another promoter of class envy trying to entice the poor and gullible into yet another political scheme based on assertions that money is a tool of evil as opposed to just a tool that can be used for good or ill. These ideas have been around in since a power-hungry preacher first corrupted the Biblical admonition that "Love of money is the root of all evil." into "Money is the root of all evil."
Quotewould it be more selfish of him to "rent" some of his money to a young builder who will go without a house if he can't get a loan or to refuse to lend the money and leave the young builder with no means to get ahead?
What would he get for his "rent" of money if the market for access to credit was virtually unlimited (free)?
these vermont secession guys sure don't seem like UN types to me
Quote from: Russell Kanning on July 05, 2007, 04:34 PM NHFT
these vermont secession guys sure don't seem like UN types to me
Maybe not but, they may be inadvertently advocating what the UN would like to see.
Quote from: CNHT on July 05, 2007, 05:00 PM NHFT
Quote from: Russell Kanning on July 05, 2007, 04:34 PM NHFT
these vermont secession guys sure don't seem like UN types to me
Maybe not but, they may be inadvertently advocating what the UN would like to see.
What's the UN position on clean water?
Quote from: EthanAllen on July 05, 2007, 04:24 PM NHFT
Quotewould it be more selfish of him to "rent" some of his money to a young builder who will go without a house if he can't get a loan or to refuse to lend the money and leave the young builder with no means to get ahead?
What would he get for his "rent" of money if the market for access to credit was virtually unlimited (free)?
If the market for access to credit was virtually unlimited, and there were no interest payments, anybody who wanted to could go get great big wheelbarrows of "money" to carry around with them.
This would do them absolutely no good.
What would they do with this money? Who would bother working for it, if they could just pick it off the money trees? Who would exchange things of value, like gold or silver or wheat or oil or houses for money, when they could just walk into a bank and have it for the asking?
What you're describing is called "inflationary credit expansion". Governments prints lots of currency, the currency loses all it's value, hyper-inflation sets in, and smart people barter or just stop working. Consider Germany just before Hitler took over.
The next thing, the government realizes that they money is worthless, so they over-correct. Then you have deflation. Consider the United States during the Great Depression. That is how the Federal Reserve caused it. Sure, they got the "roaring twenties", but you just can't build the same house of cards forever. Sooner or later, every artificial boom is answered with a very natural bust.
If you want a "free credit", go to homeowners, and ask if they will let you rake their yards. Then call all the leaves you accumulate money. When you find nobody will trade anything for it, you can always throw it in the fireplace on a cold winter night.
Quote from: cxxguy on July 06, 2007, 01:59 AM NHFT
If you want a "free credit", go to homeowners, and ask if they will let you rake their yards. Then call all the leaves you accumulate money. When you find nobody will trade anything for it, you can always throw it in the fireplace on a cold winter night.
+1 for the best summation of gummint money I've ever read!
8)
;D
Quote from: Braddogg on July 05, 2007, 08:37 PM NHFT
What's the UN position on clean water?
Same as the UN position on everything else: that the US should pay for everyone else in the world to have all of it that they want.
Quote from: KBCraig on July 06, 2007, 02:34 AM NHFT
Quote from: Braddogg on July 05, 2007, 08:37 PM NHFT
What's the UN position on clean water?
Same as the UN position on everything else: that the US should pay for everyone else in the world to have all of it that they want.
+1 up your karma KB bay-bee!
Quote from: cxxguy on July 06, 2007, 01:59 AM NHFT
Quote from: EthanAllen on July 05, 2007, 04:24 PM NHFT
Quotewould it be more selfish of him to "rent" some of his money to a young builder who will go without a house if he can't get a loan or to refuse to lend the money and leave the young builder with no means to get ahead?
What would he get for his "rent" of money if the market for access to credit was virtually unlimited (free)?
If the market for access to credit was virtually unlimited, and there were no interest payments, anybody who wanted to could go get great big wheelbarrows of "money" to carry around with them.
Exactly. With no barriers to entry into the credit market by the state, a supplier of credit would not be able to charge usurious rates of "rent".
Quote from: EthanAllen on July 06, 2007, 07:10 AM NHFT
Quote from: cxxguy on July 06, 2007, 01:59 AM NHFT
Quote from: EthanAllen on July 05, 2007, 04:24 PM NHFT
Quotewould it be more selfish of him to "rent" some of his money to a young builder who will go without a house if he can't get a loan or to refuse to lend the money and leave the young builder with no means to get ahead?
What would he get for his "rent" of money if the market for access to credit was virtually unlimited (free)?
If the market for access to credit was virtually unlimited, and there were no interest payments, anybody who wanted to could go get great big wheelbarrows of "money" to carry around with them.
Exactly. With no barriers to entry into the credit market by the state, a supplier of credit would not be able to charge usurious rates of "rent".
You didn't respond to my refutation of this argument. It's a couple pages back. :)
Quote from: EthanAllen on July 06, 2007, 07:10 AM NHFT
Quote from: cxxguy on July 06, 2007, 01:59 AM NHFT
Quote from: EthanAllen on July 05, 2007, 04:24 PM NHFT
Quotewould it be more selfish of him to "rent" some of his money to a young builder who will go without a house if he can't get a loan or to refuse to lend the money and leave the young builder with no means to get ahead?
What would he get for his "rent" of money if the market for access to credit was virtually unlimited (free)?
If the market for access to credit was virtually unlimited, and there were no interest payments, anybody who wanted to could go get great big wheelbarrows of "money" to carry around with them.
Exactly. With no barriers to entry into the credit market by the state, a supplier of credit would not be able to charge usurious rates of "rent".
What do you consider usurious? Is there a particular percentage? Does this number vary with conditions, or is it a constant? Do you consider it to be unfair for people to stop lending money when the laws of reality (which Libertarians do not support repealing) make lending money at your magic rate a self destructive act? Or do you propose to force people to "lend" out their money to anyone and everyone at rates that guarantee their destruction?
Quote from: KBCraig on July 06, 2007, 02:34 AM NHFT
Quote from: Braddogg on July 05, 2007, 08:37 PM NHFT
What's the UN position on clean water?
Same as the UN position on everything else: that the US should pay for everyone else in the world to have all of it that they want.
I think he meant that sometimes he and the UN have similar goals .... but that doesn't mean they have all the same goals :)
Quote from: Russell Kanning on July 06, 2007, 12:41 PM NHFT
I think he meant that sometimes he and the UN have similar goals .... but that doesn't mean they have all the same goals :)
Yes that's true -- goals overlap. However, I am loathe to do anything that would help the UN with its ultimate goal which is to rearrange the geo-socio-political structure of the world's countries, basically eradicating them and replacing them by divisions of bio-regional areas and re-situating thousands of people from their homes to the 'safe' areas out of areas they deem to be eco-protected. Ecology after all is the new 'religion' which I fear the most when it comes to being used to force people to pay carbon taxes or give up land to the government.
Could not be more Orwellian.
Personally responsible people do not, nor do they advocate polluting water so it has nothing to do with anyone's ideas about clean water.
They don't necessarily have to put the UN in charge of their whole lives, even to the point of reorganizing their countries, to have clean water.
PS - You know there will be a couple of 'lefty' groups at the picnic -- PrioritiesNH and Carbon Coalition.
Last year, PNH guy was amazed at how many agreed about federal spending for foreign affairs but they disagreed totally that the money should be used by government to fund education, and said he must have heard a million times that gov't and education should be separate.
Likewise, the Carbon Coalition is proud that it passed (non-binding) resolutions in towns that say they demand someone at the national level to 'do something' about global warming. Well, doing something to them, means a UN tax on everyone in the world who can afford to pay for it like KB said. I'm not sure they'll like it when they hear that most are opposed to taxes in any shape or form.
The people who voted for this resolution in the towns had no clue what they were voting for, because then they turned around in most cases and voted down new taxes at the local level! Of course this goal is never mentioned. I mean, if someone comes up to you and says "I'm against killing puppies! I'm for motherhood and apple pie!" are you going to oppose them? Why no. But they are pulling the same alarmist crap that is done with other things.
Anyway there are going to be a lot of new people there this year and I just hope they come back and join us next year and in the meantime get involved in monitoring their local government and expose some of these groups for what they are doing, and vote to help keep the taxes at bay.
QuoteEcology after all is the new 'religion' which I fear the most when it comes to being used to force people to pay carbon taxes
We already have a carbon tax in place today. In economic parlance they are just called "externalities". Unfortunately those that pollute are unjustly subjecting their costs upon innocent third parties.
QuoteWhat do you consider usurious?
Any "rent" that is derived via the state granting of privilege like what we have today with the issuing of credit.
Quote from: Hollywood on June 23, 2007, 10:43 PM NHFT
Quote from: CNHT on June 23, 2007, 09:32 PM NHFT
Folks, please don't fee the trolls?
:bs:
With all due respect, CNHT, EthanAllen's posts are relevant to the topic. I am interested in what he has to say even though I suspect I disagree with him on a lot of things. Until he starts interjecting diatribes across the forum, I am not going to consider him a troll. :)
Jane, I apologize for doubting your intuition about EthanAllen. It would've been nice to simply debate his labor theory of value ideas. Instead we have the same old troll. :(
No need to apologize. It was just a good guess. I mean who else would be called 'Ethan Allen'? LOL
When it comes to harping I don't have a thread with 340 posts in it, so...I might be harping on Ron Paul but I *am* working to get him elected.