Can't wait to hear the screams about the ACLU on this one...

[Boris Godunov]

Being inalienable means they are inherent to being a person. Ergo no document, whether its the Constitution or otherwise, gives us said rights. The framers enumerated specific rights in the Constitution because those weren't so obvious, but rights are not limited solely to those.

[Ben Kenobi]

You have to go to bed, so I'll just say this.

If it's an inherent right, then whomever makes people made these rights. It cannot be society because then society could take these rights away. It cannot be government, for government could do the same.

Also, if there are inherent rights associated with personhood, then it also means society does not get to decide who ought to be a person, for this would be the equivalent of stripping away unalienable rights.

[Berzerker]

Nowhere...they're inalienable. There are countless rights we possess that aren't enumerated in the Constitution--the right to eat, for instance. Its enumeration of some specific rights does not mean they aren't the only ones we possess.

Exactly! This is partly why Madison added the 9th Amendment, there are just too many rights to list so the Framers focused on those rights considered the most important and most likely to come under attack by tyrants. Guns, God, and speech...these were considered the most important and the rights tyrants would target first...

But when you hear someone say we don't have a right if it isn't written in the Bill of Rights, you're listening to someone who, for whatever reason, ignores not only the 9th Amendment, but the purpose of the Constitution - to limit government by granting it specific powers. It shouldn't matter if we have a right to privacy, only what enumerated powers government has to infringe upon our privacy.

While I'm no fan of Alexander Hamilton, he did raise a valid objection to adding a Bill of Rights to the Constitution. He pointed out a BoR was not needed because the Constitution as it was written WAS a Bill of Rights - by limiting government to a handful of activities. And he added a warning and a prediction that has come true - he said if you add a BoR then there will be people who use that short list of rights to deny other rights we have using the very "logic" Bork and Limbaugh have used, i.e., if a right doesn't appear in the BoR, then it doesn't exist. How do these braintrusts respond to someone asking if that means we have no right to sleep, eat, or work when we want? These rights aren't in the Constitution either... Nor is there a government power to dictate when we sleep, eat, or work...

[Berzerker]

Good point Ben, I thought Boris was one of these leftists who deny the existence of natural - inalienable - rights.

Btw, our humble correspondent who is looking out for us, Bill O'Reilly, took credit tonight for the ACLU supporting Limbaugh. Bill said the reason the ACLU is doing this is because he has been hammering the ACLU on other issues so they are trying to get brownie points with the right. Where was O'Reilly when the ACLU stood up for the Neo-Nazis when they wanted to march in Skokie Illinois ~2 decades ago? O'Reilly is like "a rooster taking credit for the rising sun".

[Ben Kenobi]

Berz:

You're going to need more evidence. All we have right now is that Bork and Limbaugh stating that there is no explicit right to privacy enumerated within the constitution.

[Berzerker]

Evidence for what? That they believe we don't have rights unless they are enumerated? Isn't that what their argument requires? They don't offer that tidbit in support of unenumerated rights, but to deny the existence of unenumerated rights. Hell, Bork denies we have a right to keep and bear arms and that right is enumerated... Maybe you don't pay attention to these guys, but I do, and they have consistently argued against unenumerated rights based on the argument that if a right isn't enumerated, it doesn't exist. This thread is your evidence, read what they've said about a right to privacy - it doesn't exist because it isn't in the BoR.

[Capt Dizle]

This issue is whether or not the right to privacy is a contitutionally protected right, not whether or not it is a right. Right?

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Berzerker


Abortion involves at least 2 people...the victim and the
aborter(s). Therefore it is no longer a matter of privacy...

Your libertarian credentials are hereby revoked. A pro-life libertarian is like kosher pork.

BTW, the right to "privacy" involved with reproductive rights is a right against the public infringing on your womb (if you have one) and gonads. The word 'private' here is intended in its broader sense than just keeping a secret.

[Berzerker]

If it's a right, then it's constitutionally protected ala the 9th Amendment. Of course, the courts only pay attention to the 9th Amendment when there's enough political support. That's why we get such perversions of logic that have led to a right to kill unborn babies because that's "private" but no right to use marijuana because that isn't private. The question of what constitutes a right is simple enough to answer, does the activity in question qualify as an act of freedom?

Freedom - the absence of coercion or constraint on choice or action.

Once that's determined, we have to see if any of the enumerated powers granted government by the Constitution allows it to infringe upon said right. So, if I say my religion forbids me to pay taxes, I have a right to practice my religion, but government has the enumerated power to impose taxes upon me. Therefore government's power supercedes my religious freedom.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Hell, Bork denies we have a right to keep and bear arms and that right is enumerated...

Maybe Bork is illiterate - more reason he deserved to get borked.

I saw the guy talk once, and I'm convinced he is insane.

[Ben Kenobi]

That they believe we don't have rights unless they are enumerated?

Yep. I'm hoping someone will be able to answer your question about illegal seach and seizure. I'm sure Bork has an interesting argument consistent with his earlier statement.

[Berzerker]

Your libertarian credentials are hereby revoked. A pro-life libertarian is like kosher pork.

Roughly %35 of libertarians are opposed to abortion. But you're making an assumption about what I believe... Btw, you didn't give me my credentials, therefore you cannot revoke what you did not give...

BTW, the right to "privacy" involved with reproductive rights is a right against the public infringing on your womb (if you have one) and gonads. The word 'private' here is intended in its broader sense than just keeping a secret.

Your womb ceased being "private" when you conceived a baby.
It is illogical to argue that killing a baby 5 minutes before it leaves the womb is a right but not killing it 5 minutes after it leaves the womb.

[Berzerker]

Ben -

Yep. I'm hoping someone will be able to answer your question about illegal seach and seizure. I'm sure Bork has an interesting argument consistent with his earlier statement.

He'd probably argue we only have a right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, not a right to privacy (even though the former obviously implies the latter). He has argued the only right mentioned in the 2nd Amendment doesn't exist because that amendment was really about a state's "right" to have militias, so don't expect much logic from him.

[Mr. Harley]

Berzerker, I'll have to start reading your posts thoroughly again. I thought I was the only person arguing for the 9th and 10th amendments in the forums. Ben, you make Berzerker's point for him.

You're going to need more evidence. All we have right now is that Bork and Limbaugh stating that there is no explicit right to privacy enumerated within the constitution.

Once you start down that line of reasoning, you deny the individual rights portions of the 9th and 10th amendments. You can still push states rights, and I have argued that the new conservative judges are always trumping states rights over individual rights. It's why I voted against Bush Jr., I find Scalia and Thomas (his preferred Supreme Court justices) frightening.

Berzerker, there has always been a tension between the actual wording of the Bill of Rights and social pressures, often coming from the religious sector of our country. Victimless crimes (in the privacy of your home in certain cases, i.e. DUI should still be a crime) should be unconstitutional! They are attempts to impose morality, often a specific flavor of Chritian morality, on the populace as a whole. It's why I am opposed personally to abortion, but I support a woman's freedom to choose, even though I have been very badly harmed by that in the past. but I will still support it. One of the best social libetarian tracts I ever read was pro-abortion, pro-gun ownership.

[Berzerker]

Berzerker, there has always been a tension between the actual wording of the Bill of Rights and social pressures, often coming from the religious sector of our country.

True, even the framers were chastised for not mentioning God in the Constitution and it didn't take long for people to subvert the law of the land. The Constitution was barely 10 years old when John Adams and the federalists made it illegal to criticise them - the Alien & Sedition Act. Jefferson got elected and refused to enforce the A&S calling it unconstitutional... Of course he was right, but how on Earth could the Prez and Congress get away with passing such an abomination so shortly after ratifying the Constitution? Yes, there were and are many religious folk who can't stand the Constitution and combined with the liberal secularists of the past few decades, the Constitution has more in common with the Communist Manifesto than the Constitution written by the Framers.

[Ben Kenobi]

shawnmcc:

I'm trying quite hard to avoid the abortion threadjack, something I'm usually happy to participate in. If you want to start a thread, go ahead and I'll answer your points, but otherwise, it's probably best to stick to the topic.

Now I don't make Berz's point for him as I am quite careful in my terminology. The question is while there may be no explicit right to privacy in the constitution, there may be other routes to arrive in the same conclusion.

I certainly don't believe that just because there is not a specific right stated in the constitution, that the right cannot exist, but it's a more difficult and detailed argument, and I don't know how Bork goes about and makes his point. Unlike the rest of you, I'd like to hear him out before I make my judgment.

[Mr. Harley]

Sorry Ben, you have been better about not thread-jacking than I have. I only meant it to bring up that point, since it is so interrelated to the other portions. I will try to keep them seperate since you've extended the same courtesy.

However, I'll disagree with the rest of your post . If you've noticed I've consistantly talked about Supreme Court justices in my year at Apolyton, so I watched the Bork nomination when it came up. Berzerker's statements about him are true. He's not as bad as Scalia or Thomas, but his entire judicial world view was antithetical to the 9th and 10th amendments. Most right and left wing judges embody this.

I define the right and left wing as those who would use the legal process to coerce behavior (victimless type behavior - and I know abortion gets into a messy grey area, so I appreciate that Ben) they find acceptable, and forbid behavior they find unacceptable. So when one group or other cries foul when their opposites pull a legislative coup, I have no sympathy. They got beaten at their own game. A true libetarian (social) supports your ability to engage in behavior they disagree with.

Berzerker, remember that when you exaggerate your comparisons - the communist manifesto bit - you actually turn off those you might convince. The only people it won't turn off are those who already agree with you. So if you want to argue, your style is fine. If you really want to convince people, and convert them over, try to tone down the rhetoric. I know my writing is painfully boring at times (and may achieve the same result I am accusing you of, from the opposite direction ) but it has a chance of converting people. Rhetoric only fires up your allies, it doesn't create any new ones.

[Berzerker]

Now I don't make Berz's point for him as I am quite careful in my terminology. The question is while there may be no explicit right to privacy in the constitution, there may be other routes to arrive in the same conclusion.

Yes, and the route Bork would probably takes is that while we have a ~privacy right when it comes to unreasonable searches and seizures, it is invalid to create an umbrella-like right to privacy on other issues.

I certainly don't believe that just because there is not a specific right stated in the constitution, that the right cannot exist, but it's a more difficult and detailed argument, and I don't know how Bork goes about and makes his point. Unlike the rest of you, I'd like to hear him out before I make my judgment.

He isn't posting here. But that was Hamilton's warning about adding a BoR, once you enumerate a handfull of rights, it becomes harder to protect the other rights that may not have the same political support. He added that by enumerating certain rights, you also detract from the purpose of the Constitution as well - limiting government by specifying a few powers. He was right on both counts, now people like Bork and Limbaugh argue that if a right isn't enumerated, it cannot be protected and is therefore subject to government control. That conveniently ignores that Congress needs to be granted a power before it can act. It's irrelevant if the BoR makes no mention of a right to smoke pot, have an abortion, or burn the flag; what is relevant is whether or not Congress has the power to ban these activities with or without a BoR on the books.

Of course, the politicians and the courts they've created have simply re-defined those enumerated powers to expand their reach into our lives. For example, the Interstate Commerce Clause, that is, the power to regulate interstate commerce, has become a power to regulate or ban any activity the government claims "effects" commerce. There was a case in 1943 where a farmer was fined under the Agricultural Act of 1938 for using part of his own crop to feed his family. The rationale? While his family's consumption of part of his crop may not have a significant impact on interstate commerce, combined with other farmers doing the same thing, the impact is significant.

Imagine that, the power to regulate interstate commerce, a power designed to prevent the states from engaging in trade wars and to create a neutral arbiter for disputes between people in different states had become a power to dictate what farmers could grow, how much they could use for themselves, and how much they could sell even if they sold the entire crop within their state.

[Berzerker]

Berzerker, remember that when you exaggerate your comparisons - the communist manifesto bit - you actually turn off those you might convince.

It's no exaggeration, I've read and heard analysis comparing the Communist Manifesto with the current and original Constitution and it's amazing what has happened. There are, apparently 10 planks to the Communist Manifesto and 7 are already law in this country. Trust me, those who are turned off were already turned off...Those with open minds will investigate if they have doubts...

[Ben Kenobi]

Most right and left wing judges embody this.

(victimless type behavior - and I know abortion gets into a messy grey area, so I appreciate that Ben)

It's not so much your post, but how the posts get off track. Best to nip the jack in the bud.

Rather than left or right wing, most would call this judicial activism, in interpreting the constitution to intervention rather than concern over the intent of the framers. I know I sound like Scalia, but really the only way to avoid either the right or the left legislating positions, is to restrain them in this fashion.

As for your insistence that posts need to be restrained, I must disagree. A good writer will express his himself clearly, and should not be concerned so much about saying what people want to hear, but rather what he feels needs to be said.

[Berzerker]

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.

Americans do these with actions such as the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (1868), and various zoning, school & property taxes. Also the Bureau of Land Management (Zoning laws are the first step to government property ownership). We rent our property, we don't own it. Try not paying your property "taxes" and you'll find out who really owns your house.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Americans know this as misapplication of the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 1913, The Social Security Act of 1936.; Joint House Resolution 192 of 1933; and various State "income" taxes. We call it "paying your fair share".

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

Americans call it Federal & State estate Tax (1916); or reformed Probate Laws, and limited inheritance via arbitrary inheritance tax statutes. The fact we're allowed to keep some of our inheritance doesn't mean we have a right to inherit, it means the state has the power to decide how much it wants.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

Americans call it government seizures, tax liens, Public "law" 99-570 (1986); Executive order 11490, sections 1205, 2002 which gives private land to the Department of Urban Development; the imprisonment of "terrorists" and those who speak out or write against the "government" (1997 Crime/Terrorist Bill); or the IRS confiscation of property without due process. Asset forfeiture laws are used by DEA, IRS, ATF etc...).

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

Americans call it the Federal Reserve which is a privately-owned credit/debt system allowed by the Federal Reserve act of 1913. All local banks are members of the Fed system, and are regulated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) another privately-owned corporation. The Federal Reserve Banks issue Fiat Paper Money and practice economically destructive fractional reserve banking.

6. Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State.

Americans call it the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Department of Transportation (DOT) mandated through the ICC act of 1887, the Commissions Act of 1934, The Interstate Commerce Commission established in 1938, The Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Communications Commission, and Executive orders 11490, 10999, as well as State mandated driver's licenses and Department of Transportation regulations.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

Americans call it corporate capacity, The Desert Entry Act and The Department of Agriculture… Thus read "controlled or subsidized" rather than "owned"… This is easily seen in these as well as the Department of Commerce and Labor, Department of Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Mines, National Park Service, and the IRS control of business through corporate regulations.

8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

Americans call it Minimum Wage and slave labor like dealing with our Most Favored Nation trade partner; i.e. Communist China. We see it in practice via the Social Security Administration and The Department of Labor. The National debt and inflation caused by the communal bank has caused the need for a two "income" family. Woman in the workplace since the 1920's, the 19th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, assorted Socialist Unions, affirmative action, the Federal Public Works Program and of course Executive order 11000.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country.

Americans call it the Planning Reorganization act of 1949 , zoning (Title 17 1910-1990) and Super Corporate Farms, as well as Executive orders 11647, 11731 (ten regions) and Public "law" 89-136. These provide for forced relocations and forced sterilization programs, like in China.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.

Americans are being taxed to support what we call 'public' schools, but are actually "government force-tax-funded schools " Even private schools are government regulated. The purpose is to train the young to work for the communal debt system. We also call it the Department of Education, the NEA and Outcome Based "Education" . These are used so that all children can be indoctrinated and inculcated with the government propaganda, like "majority rules", and "pay your fair share". WHERE are the words "fair share" in the Constitution, Bill of Rights or the Internal Revenue Code (Title 26)?? NO WHERE is "fair share" even suggested !! The philosophical concept of "fair share" comes from the Communist maxim, "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need! This concept is pure socialism. ... America was made the greatest society by its private initiative WORK ETHIC ... Teaching ourselves and others how to "fish" to be self sufficient and produce plenty of EXTRA commodities to if so desired could be shared with others who might be "needy"... Americans have always voluntarily been the MOST generous and charitable society on the planet.

Here is a link showing the difference between communism and the republican form of government we should have had under the Constitution:

http://www.americancivilrightsreview...communism.html

[Mr. Harley]

Berzerker, you're making my point for me concerning exaggerating and turning off those you wish to convince. Only the tenth item, concerning not only public eduction but it's combination with industrial production can convincingly (we are discussing convincing others versus rhetoric) be argued to have come about. Part of the others have - but almost without fail not the entire planks, only a portion at best. Let's start a thread on it, after this one whimpers out. I let you have the honors, though of course I plan to refute a large portion - seven out of ten!!!

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Berz:

You're going to need more evidence.

This is coming from someone who takes everything in the Bible by its word.

[Ben Kenobi]

The National debt and inflation caused by the communal bank has caused the need for a two "income" family.

What about daycare? Daycare expenses often turn out to negate the second income.

[KrazyHorse]

The National debt and inflation caused by the communal bank has caused the need for a two "income" family.

The loss of union power has caused the need for a two income family.

The last time I checked interest paid on the national debt amounts to <5% of GDP and inflation comes to ~2%

So losing 7% of your income causes the need to double it?

[Ben Kenobi]

This is coming from someone who takes everything in the Bible by its word.

So? Are you saying Berz is the bible?

[Mr. Harley]

Okay Berz, I cannot help myself (we cross posted before, I hadn't seen your analysis) - thread hijack. All others please skip.

1. We still have private property. The governement just because it collects property taxes cannot just take you off your property, unlike what is happening in the PRC, for example. Yes, we do not have untrammeled and unrestricted property rights, and I too am concerned with the use of eminent domain for industrial and business expansion. I repeat, we still have private property. It is no longer private property when you don't even have the right to pay the taxes, the government removes you any time it sees fit.

2. The income tax is one of the least progressive we have had in a long time, and considered so by many economists both in the USA and outside. A flat taxer may hate it, but how long has it been since the income tax has been more flat than it is now?

3. We have a right to inherit. The state cannot prevent me from taking possession of what I inherit, as long as I can pay those taxes. You are mixing up abolition with limitations and/or taxes. They CAN lead to that, I will not disagree. However, they are not that excessive, and the large estates that were subject to the inheritance tax had numerous legal ways to avoid it. The only people who got nailed with it were curmedgeons who were control freaks and refused to start to divest control of the business to family members who worked in it, or those who got caught before they had done proper estate planning.

4. Again, you are right but wrong (though I agree that the asset forfeiture laws are a grave threat to due process, whose loss erodes liberty). The plank say ALL, not some, not certain, etc. We are nowhere near ALL year.

5. Berzerker, you twice make the point that these quasi-government entities (Federal Reserve and FDIC) are privately owned. They aren't "in the hands of the state". There are times that these privately owned quasi-government entities, whose existance is protected by laws enforced by the state, are a threat to the economic health of the country. It actually makes the case for the corporate state types versus the communist manifesto alarmists.

6. Berserker, I just have one reply. Rupert Murdoch.

7. Berserker, concerning corporations/factories that's just silly. Concerning famrs, you have some validity.

8. Berzerker, my wife's not working, and nobody can make her. We chose to maintain a reduced lifestyle for our little girl.

9. The first part of nine is arguable, but the second? Come off it, we are urbanizing, not seeing " by a more equitable distribution of population over the country" Berzerker, that's silly.

10. The one I said that I have to grant.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


So? Are you saying Berz is the bible?

No, I'm saying that the Bible is not a source for factual evidence. But here you are, talking about evidence when you take even something like the Bible for factual evidence.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
If it's an inherent right, then whomever makes people made these rights. It cannot be society because then society could take these rights away. It cannot be government, for government could do the same.

Au contraire, but it is society. "Rights" are an abstract concept created by man. Any given society determines by a basic, often unspoken consensus as to what constitutes a right. The government, while it protects rights, does not indeed determine them. The body social does so. That we as a society believe there are certain rights that exist no matter what a government says is certainly a social value. Were it not such a value, we'd see every society accepting the same basic rights. Clearly, this is not the case.

Our rights are "inalienable" insofar as society accepts there are basic rights in excess of what the government enumerates, simple as that.

Also, if there are inherent rights associated with personhood, then it also means society does not get to decide who ought to be a person, for this would be the equivalent of stripping away unalienable rights.

This is contradictory nonsense, because if the society recognizes rights based on personhood, it will certainly need its own definition of what constitutes personhood. Otherwise, rocks and frogs and molecules could be construed as having personhood, n'est-ce pas? The social concept of personhood is precisely where we determine where rights begin. And yes, it is susceptable to change should social consciousness change.

[Berzerker]

shawn -

1. We still have private property. The governement just because it collects property taxes cannot just take you off your property, unlike what is happening in the PRC, for example.

There isn't much point in debating this if you think we own property in this country. We rent and if you don't pay the rent the state removes you from the property you allegedly own.

I repeat, we still have private property. It is no longer private property when you don't even have the right to pay the taxes, the government removes you any time it sees fit.

Property taxes are not a relationship between a property owner and state, that's the relationship between a renter and landlord.

2. The income tax is one of the least progressive we have had in a long time, and considered so by many economists both in the USA and outside. A flat taxer may hate it, but how long has it been since the income tax has been more flat than it is now?

So you want to cite economists from outside the country? Like economists from socialist democracies? When 1 person pays almost %50 in income taxes while another pays %0-5, that is a heavily graduated income tax. Well, it's actually legalised theft but that's another debate. But your argument seems to be that since it varies and was more in the past, we are closer to the Constitution than Marxism. I don't even see an income tax in the original Constitution and when the income tax was passed, proponents told people it would only apply to "the rich" and never go as high as %10.

3. We have a right to inherit. The state cannot prevent me from taking possession of what I inherit, as long as I can pay those taxes.

Shawn, you have to pay the ******* taxes! Do you have to pay a tax everytime you pray to God? What's the difference? You have a right to pray but you don't have a right to inherit.

You are mixing up abolition with limitations and/or taxes.

No, you're mixing up rights with mandates from the state. You don't have a right to inherit when the state gets to decide how much if anything you get to keep. That isn't a right, it's the state choosing how much of your inheritance it wants.

They CAN lead to that, I will not disagree. However, they are not that excessive, and the large estates that were subject to the inheritance tax had numerous legal ways to avoid it. The only people who got nailed with it were curmedgeons who were control freaks and refused to start to divest control of the business to family members who worked in it, or those who got caught before they had done proper estate planning.

You don't understand estate tax laws and blaming the victims is insulting, %50 (above ~600,000) is not excessive on wealth that has already been taxed several times? Many family businesses and farms were sold out from under the feet of the surving children because of estate taxes.

4. Again, you are right but wrong (though I agree that the asset forfeiture laws are a grave threat to due process, whose loss erodes liberty). The plank say ALL, not some, not certain, etc. We are nowhere near ALL year.

What happened to the property of Japanese-Americans seized during WWII? What happens to "your property" if you can't afford a tax? Again, you are arguing that because the state doesn't seize everything, we are closer to the Constitution than the Communist Manifesto. That's a false argument, I never said all 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto were enacted completely, I said we were closer to the Communist Manifesto than the Constitution.

5. Berzerker, you twice make the point that these quasi-government entities (Federal Reserve and FDIC) are privately owned. They aren't "in the hands of the state". There are times that these privately owned quasi-government entities, whose existance is protected by laws enforced by the state, are a threat to the economic health of the country. It actually makes the case for the corporate state types versus the communist manifesto alarmists.

No Shawn, I didn't twice make the point, I'm quoting the 10 planks and someone else's analysis, but this notion that the Fed is private is ridiculous. It was created by the state and it can be abolished or changed by the state. That is not what the Constitution authorised so it's illogical to argue we are closer to the Constitutional requirements for a money supply than a state controlled system.

6. Berserker, I just have one reply. Rupert Murdoch.

Does he need a license from the state? Um...yes... Why would he need permission from the state if the state did not control the means of communication wrt television? I see you just skipped transportation too...

7. Berserker, concerning corporations/factories that's just silly. Concerning famrs, you have some validity

Your "rebuttals" contain no substance.

8. Berzerker, my wife's not working, and nobody can make her. We chose to maintain a reduced lifestyle for our little girl.

Your specific situation refutes what is fact for millions of people? Back to the money supply issue, 150 years ago a $20 gold piece would buy a nice suit. Today a $20 gold piece would still but a nice suit. Is that true for a $20 bill? That's called inflation and it's a result of the state monopoly and issuing fiat money.

9. The first part of nine is arguable, but the second? Come off it, we are urbanizing, not seeing " by a more equitable distribution of population over the country" Berzerker, that's silly.

Those are not my words and I'm not obliged to defend every aspect of the post and link, but you ignored the actual laws on the books cited by the person who did author this list. How do you explain the laws?

10. The one I said that I have to grant.

By my count, that's 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 10 with the others fulfilled
to lesser, varying levels which long term trends show are only increasing. There are two kinds of socialism, the revolutionaries who can't wait and the Fabians who seek incrementalism.