Is this the vision?

[HelioPrime]

Honest question: The following is a fictional vision of the US. Honestly answer without being rude. Is this a vision of what american should be, and also what it was intended to be?

America: A group of 50 independent states. America is self sufficient, all people are responsible to obtaining their own food, medicine, and goods. They work through the combined efforts of others but in bad times they have only themselves to be dependent on.

Education is the duty of the parents. They must teach their children and then their child's intelligence is a reflection only on their own intelligence or lack of it.

There are no schools other than those volunteers willingly open to provide education, which is only partly done in class as it still remains the parents duty.

There are also no churches, because religion is a threat. People can have personal beliefs but they are expected to hold true to absolute logic. Personal beliefs that might threaten are reason enough to give fellow citizens the right to deal with these threats as they see fit.

There is no government save a limited one in each state and town. It is popularly elected and only decided on issues relating to trade or resources. People themselves are responsible for their own actions and decisions.

There is no speed limit, no property laws, no drinking laws, no drug laws. People are responsible for their property and defending it thru force of arms if needed. People will learn from the hard times or death how to use drugs and drink in moderation. The idiots will hopefully be killed off.

There is no police, people again hold themselves as their own defenders. If they fail to defend their land then they failed to deserve it in the first place.

There is no military. Only citizens with arms keeping their government in check. If the need arises citizens can freely decide to join together and fight to defend as a unit.

The people are responsible for all their own actions. Thru death and suffering people will learn responsibility. They need no nanny, state, fed, or otherwise. Every person and his gun is the sole protector of his domain and his/her rights.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: HelioPrime Honest question: The following is a fictional vision of the US. Honestly answer without being rude. Is this a vision of what american should be, and also what it was intended to be?

Source?

America: A group of 50 independent states. America is self sufficient, all people are responsible to obtaining their own food, medicine, and goods. They work through the combined efforts of others but in bad times they have only themselves to be dependent on.

No, in bad times, neighbors voluntarily and charitably help one another.

Education is the duty of the parents. They must teach their children and then their child's intelligence is a reflection only on their own intelligence or lack of it.

This seems to falsely equate intelligence with education.

There are no schools other than those volunteers willingly open to provide education, which is only partly done in class as it still remains the parents duty.

I have no problem with this. Add to it business owners and others (e.g. lawyers and doctors) offering apprenticeships.

There are also no churches, because religion is a threat. People can have personal beliefs but they are expected to hold true to absolute logic. Personal beliefs that might threaten are reason enough to give fellow citizens the right to deal with these threats as they see fit.

Absolutely not! This is an utter affront to liberty.

There is no government save a limited one in each state and town. It is popularly elected and only decided on issues relating to trade or resources. People themselves are responsible for their own actions and decisions.

So, why have a United States at all?

There is no speed limit, no property laws, no drinking laws, no drug laws. People are responsible for their property and defending it thru force of arms if needed. People will learn from the hard times or death how to use drugs and drink in moderation. The idiots will hopefully be killed off.

I disagree: there should be laws protecting the rights of property owners.

There is no police, people again hold themselves as their own defenders. If they fail to defend their land then they failed to deserve it in the first place.

If a community chooses to hire people to enforce laws on their behalf, they're free to do so.

There is no military. Only citizens with arms keeping their government in check. If the need arises citizens can freely decide to join together and fight to defend as a unit.

Also known as a militia.

The people are responsible for all their own actions. Thru death and suffering people will learn responsibility. They need no nanny, state, fed, or otherwise. Every person and his gun is the sole protector of his domain and his/her rights.

With this statement you've entirely eliminated even local communities or other social units that form for the mutual aid and benefit of their members.

[Osborn F Enready]

Helio said: Is this the vision?

Short answer, no, but close in several ways.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Short answer, no, but close in several ways.

Then please change what I wrote. Address each subject and tell me what the "true form" of american should be.

I tried a forum search but couldn't find a thread. So here in one thread how do you think american should be run: Please address the following -

Military
foreign wars
limited Resources
speed limits and other enforced protections
police
what does the fed do anyway
solve crime, prevent terrorism
drugs
anything you'd like to add

I want to appologize for being so rude recently. You have to understand there is nothing but false claims on what the whole ron paul platform is. I can't find anything on what his vision for america is short of what I see as a nightmare. I feel a nightmare is trusting citizens with everything. There are stupid people out there and just letting them die off or learn the hard way doesn't seem to be a good answer for me.

[Osborn F Enready]

Helio said: Then please change what I wrote.

I will repost and address the issues from your OP.

First I will respond to this:

Address each subject and tell me what the "true form" of american should be.

I will do that to the best of my ability.

Helio said: I tried a forum search but couldn't find a thread. So here in one thread how do you think american should be run: Please address the following - Military foreign wars limited Resources speed limits and other enforced protections police what does the fed do anyway solve crime, prevent terrorism drugs anything you'd like to add

A fair, and lofty challenge. I accept, but it will take me a bit to respond.

Helio said: I want to appologize for being so rude recently.

No apology necessary. I have been rude also, but I view heated debate as a hobby which requires thick skin and an empathy for emotions pushed beyond their normal range. We are debating issues every individual finds important, critical and life altering, so it is no wonder emotions run high in debates like this.

Helio said: You have to understand there is nothing but false claims on what the whole ron paul platform is.

No, in fact I don't.

I have asked several people who have made such allegations to prove those same allegations, but they all come up short of meeting the measure of validity.

Helio said: I can't find anything on what his vision for america is short of what I see as a nightmare.

His vision of America is exactly as it is spelled out in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, along with all of the Constitiutionally sound portions of U.S. code and tangential laws.

He is hiding nothing, and his record bears everything.

Helio said: I feel a nightmare is trusting citizens with everything. There are stupid people out there and just letting them die off or learn the hard way doesn't seem to be a good answer for me.

I am not saying it is a good answer. I am saying it is the only sound answer, the only possible answer, in which we can maintain governmental validity, avoid national fragmentation, and retain what is left of out international image. Our officials are bankrupting our nation, and our currency, and have seriously damaged out international image. To pull out of this is going to require people to stand up for themselves, carry their own weight, and stop proposing ridiculous new laws to enact socialism which will surely doom us to complete and total economic failure. (something many believe is the goal of the current bi-partisan majority, which their actions surely attest to.)

The fact is, this nation was built on reason and individual responsibility for ones actions. Justice is a product of objective law, in this system.

Regardless of how "not good" it is, logic and reason dictate that there are finite limits to everything, and we are pushing past our limit of national stability (with partisanship) and past our national economic capability, due to unconstitutional programs, agencies and corruption. (under a 157 year bi-partisan monopoly, is it hard to believe there has been time for solid lines of coercion to form between them?) Belief or not, its provable.

I will reply in depth as soon as I can.

[Osborn F Enready]

In the United States of America, as a Constitutionally Limited, Democratic Representative Republic, this is how I understand things should work regarding these issues.

Military:

We have a national obligation to raise and maintain a Navy for border protection and enforcement, as well as an Army for land border protection and enforcement. Our military serves as a voluntary defensive force, used only against attack or imminent threat. Our peacetime military is barebones, our wartime military made up of the bulk of able bodied men and utilizing the production facillities of the nation in necessity in times of war. (again, only defensive war)

The policy is "non-interventionism", which means, to freely act with nations who bear us no threat, economicly (trade) , socially (travel, leisure, education exchange) but with no entangling alliances, that threaten or put in jeopardy the validity or economic viability of the United States. (such as the bulk of current existing trade policies with communist china, and other nations that don't recognize individual rights, the bulk of our foreign aid treaties and agreements, as well as many others constructions of alliance)

The Constitution of the United States provides for

Strong Individual Rights, and Strong States Rights with limited national authority. The guarantee was to a republic, limited from infringing directly into the lives of individuals unless force or transgressions against rights take place. The concept was to allow people to find states and local governments that suited them, as well as to assure no one path chosen wrongly, prooved the defeat or insolvency of the union.

foreign wars:

Foreign wars would be a last chance scenario. They would be missions of defense, not offense.

limited Resources:

Limited and finite resources pose a serious issue in the day of a globe containing 6.6 BILLION people. Now more than ever it is necessary to invoke the individual rights and responsibilities we all bear as our existence demands. We as a species, are overpopulating the earth, and limiting by excessive expansion the very resources which we depend on to live, namely, water, wildlife and essential resources for fuel and energy. At this same time, we are not utilizing renewable resources which we have now learned to harness and replace other resources with, nor are we reasonably handling our trade with foreign nations responsibly to our national cause.

speed limits and other enforced protections:

These are local government issues. People can affect local government through appeal much easier than they can affect change at the national level. Smaller populations affected by a given law, means more support for or against a law when a law is proposed, put up for vote, or reviewed for repeal. In general, the smaller the group affected by a law, the more moral the system to the affected group, as they can easily move to evade bad law, and find law more suitable to their moral necessity.

police:

Police and fire are forms of community insurance. Not every point on the national map has a right police and fire insurance. Communities have a right to enact or repeal police and fire coverage, based on their budget and populace needs. These are local issues, and should be dealt with at the local level, funded at the local level, and could be introduced with code to suit either voluntary tax or mandatory tax, depending on the existing code of the area. (building codes and structures that exist affect what can reasonably be changed)

what does the fed do anyway:

The federal governments role is to protect the rights of individuals, ensure justice between the states regarding trade and legal issues, to enter into foreign policy talks, representing the people of the United States.(Not only their corporate intrests)

solve crime,

Is a local police issue, and in some cases, a state or national issue which requires teamwork between police in multiple locales, regarding state or locality extradition, or in some cases national extradition.

prevent terrorism:

The best way to prevent terrorism is to have a government free of hypocrisy, free of offensive force in our own nation, as well as foreign nations, maintain a non-interventionist stance and stance of defensive readiness, and to be clear, transparent and open in our activites both in trade and politics.

drugs:

Drugs? Drugs are a consumption issue. Drugs should not be prohibited, nor controlled by the federal government.

anything you'd like to add

I will address any issue in specific you question, whether I addressed it or not, though Chancellor did a fine job for being pertinent to your points and not expanding on all the other areas that exist. I agree with the bulk of what Chancellor said also, with the only possible exception being the religion issue.

Also, keep in mind this is a huge scope of questioning, so this is not a complete answer, it is a vague skimming over of pertinent questioned topics.

[Dieval]

Not a very united picture of the United States....

Quote by: Helio they are expected to hold true to absolute logic.

Also, I don't believe we're Vulcans....

[Osborn F Enready]

Dieval said: Not a very united picture of the United States....

The very thing that is supposed to unite us is the "common thread" value of liberty.

[Milton Bradley]

Trying to explain the reasons to protect our liberties to you guys reminds me of the comedy routine where the "average working man" trys to explain the benfits of having a good work eithic to the "bum wino". In the end, the bum asks, what was all this lifetime of work for, and the fastidious man answers, "why, so you can retire, and enjoy your old age", and the bum replies, "well, I'm retired now".

[HelioPrime]

I guess my issue is with the removal of police powers and prohibited items.

I think both you and I can speculate that if we legalized drugs there would be an increase in drug abuse related crime and accidents. This is course entirely speculative but I think we can both agree that people in the US are not the brightest in some areas and there would be an increase in injury and death to both the user and bystanders.

Of course we don't have anything to compare to, no study to show the effect of legalized drugs on US society.

So I'm guessing that without that study we can't make a law on a speculation, so we have no choice but to legalize all substances?

I'm assuming only way to make drugs a controlled substance would be to first make them legal, then do a study on mass numbers of people to show that these drugs directly caused a problem?

[HelioPrime]

I think you didn't take the resources one far enough.

Example: We live in a nation where some regions like NY are incapable of producing enough food in the winter months to feed its population. NY would depend on other regions more southernly or on food stores.

What if bread plant in state X depends on wheat from state Y. Now state Y needs cash so it decided its going to put a 50% tax on the cost of traded wheat. Bread plant can't afford and goes bankrupt. Where is the protection from cross state trade?

So the problem is how do independent states deal with resources like power generation, fuel, food, and even basic trade. What is to stop say NJ from taxing goods coming into port destined for interior states? What's to stop reckless taxation on goods as they cross the nation?

And what is to protect the consumer in cross state issues? If an oil company that has paid its way into the pockets of texas rips of people in California what is the california people to do about it? Take up arms and deal with it themselves?

[Milton Bradley]

Come on Helio, have you had no history education either.


Now how do you suppose those things would be handled? Why, just as they were before Federal interference, of course.


I do not understand why you feel we need to explain everything, right down to the last detail.

[Osborn F Enready]

Helio said: I guess my issue is with the removal of police powers and prohibited items.

Police would still have power at the local level, and the state level, IF THAT IS WHAT THE PEOPLE support, which I think it is clear they do.

Helio said: I think both you and I can speculate that if we legalized drugs there would be an increase in drug abuse related crime and accidents. This is course entirely speculative but I think we can both agree that people in the US are not the brightest in some areas and there would be an increase in injury and death to both the user and bystanders.

I don't think we can agree on that. The black market allows no regulation, nor does the legal market for drugs, currently. This prevents regulation of drugs at all, because the government doesn't trust its own people, and the people who seek drugs don't trust their own government. This is the cause of the problem, not the drugs.

Marijuana is a PRIME example. It is harmless compared to the majority of LEGAL drugs, yet people aren't allowed to use it, or grow it. Its a natural substance with both medical and recreational uses, but the government refuses to respect the DEMANDS of the people regarding marijuana.

Marijuana is one of the most used drugs in any nation, whether legal or illegal. The people have spoken, the government refuses to listen.

They learned this lesson through the prohibition of alchohol, but failed to recognize the lesson when they created drug prohibition, which is yielding the same results.

Helio said: Of course we don't have anything to compare to, no study to show the effect of legalized drugs on US society.

Drugs weren't always illegal, and if you go back and investigate how they were made illegal, the unconstitutional nature of these laws becomes apparent.

Hemp used to be a national crop.

Helio said: So I'm guessing that without that study we can't make a law on a speculation, so we have no choice but to legalize all substances?

We have no RIGHT to illegalize substances of consumption. We DO HAVE A RIGHT to create laws that regulate actions, which impact the lives of others. We can hold people guilty for their actions, not their consumption.

Being "under the influence" is not an excuse to reduce individual responsibility, yet that is the way the government frames the debate.

Helio said: I'm assuming only way to make drugs a controlled substance would be to first make them legal, then do a study on mass numbers of people to show that these drugs directly caused a problem?

I don't see how this would change the fact that the government has no authority to outlaw substances of consumption.

Helio said: I think you didn't take the resources one far enough. Example: We live in a nation where some regions like NY are incapable of producing enough food in the winter months to feed its population. NY would depend on other regions more southernly or on food stores. Does each and every state have to be responsible for their own people?

No, we have a free-trade policy in our own nation. People in need have an obligation to provide the means to aquire what they need.

Helio said: If there is a disaster in one region and other states don't feel like donating what to do?

Has this ever happened, in the U.S. EVER? I think not.

People resent being FORCED to give, but people, including myself, give when it is voluntary, and the need is clear and its help obvious and unmolested by bureaucracy.

Helio said: So the problem is how do independent states deal with resources like power generation, fuel, food, and even basic trade.

They have the right to enter free-trade in our nation, and trade with nations who respect individual rights.

Trade does not entail entangling alliances.

Helio said: What is to stop say NJ from taxing goods coming into port destined for interior states?

Taxes and duties must be uniform throughout the states.

Helio said: What's to stop reckless taxation on goods as they cross the nation?

Above reply.

Helio said: And what is to protect the consumer in cross state issues?

The government is put in place to protect the rights of individuals, both in the marketplace, and unde the auspice of legal authority.

Helio said: If an oil company that has paid its way into the pockets of texas rips of people in California what is the california people to do about it? Take up arms and deal with it themselves?

Only if justice can't be aquired through the courts, which is not likely under a Constitutionally Limited system.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Come on Helio, have you had no history education either. Now how do you suppose those things would be handled? Why, just as they were before Federal interference, of course. I do not understand why you feel we need to explain everything, right down to the last detail.

We didn't have states entirely dependent on trade or each other 200 years ago.

Of course that matters little to you. You would no doubt enjoy seeing modern society grind to a halt, fall to pieces, then have to rebuild itself as 50 self sufficient states.

Your fantasy of an 18th century farmland where people might value the skills of your fellow gear heads and need you as an important aspect of community life.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Chancellor Source? No, in bad times, neighbors voluntarily and charitably help one another. This seems to falsely equate intelligence with education. I have no problem with this. Add to it business owners and others (e.g. lawyers and doctors) offering apprenticeships. Absolutely not! This is an utter affront to liberty. So, why have a United States at all? I disagree: there should be laws protecting the rights of property owners. If a community chooses to hire people to enforce laws on their behalf, they're free to do so. Also known as a militia. With this statement you've entirely eliminated even local communities or other social units that form for the mutual aid and benefit of their members.

I guess the original poster has no comment.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: HelioPrime We didn't have states entirely dependent on trade or each other 200 years ago.

Why does everything just naturally default to a defunct, decrepit 200 year old system in your mind? Lemme guess, Sonart?


Well, if your going to him for advice on government, that would make you a Democrat, and you will automatically dislike pretty much everything I have to say about Democrats. Go figure...

Quote by: HelioPrime Of course that matters little to you. You would no doubt enjoy seeing modern society grind to a halt, fall to pieces, then have to rebuild itself as 50 self sufficient states.

What matters little to me? The state of the Nation, or the state of your entertaining prognostication?


I would tell you that you are completely misguided, and arguing out of ignorance. But waht did I suspect, as again I claim that you want every last detail described to you here. Nevermind why you would choose to believe us rather than investigatte these things for yourself from a more credible source. ( As if one actually existed )

Quote by: HelioPrime Your fantasy of an 18th century farmland where people might value the skills of your fellow gear heads and need you as an important aspect of community life.

Dude, WAKE UP! Sorry, I thought I would wake you up rather than see you suffering through Sonart's nightmare again.


This just goes to show the effectiveness of the dastardly tactics employed by people who don't mind lying, and committing character assassination.


Thanks Sonart, old buddy You have potentially tainted another person with your disingenuous bull shite.