A NRO article about Mitt Romney's declared admiration for him long, long ago.
Well, it is pretty hard to participate in interviews when you are dead.
The Eu And World Socialism
- Thread starter veteran
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
A NRO article about Mitt Romney's declared admiration for him long, long ago.
Well, it is pretty hard to participate in interviews when you are dead.
Interesting discussion on socialism and its compatibility (or there lack of) with Christianity.
Christianity has done an interesting dance with state collectivism. Liberation theology has been a major driving force for socialism in Latin American countries. Lutheranism has, supposedly, encouraged Welfare-statism in Sweden and other Scandinavian/Baltic nations.
In the United States Protestants have, on-and-off, been proponents of socialism of some kind. Usually not so much.
---------------
My opinion? We are trying to address a text largely explaining salvation history to modern economics, which can be done to a certain, safe, extent. But there is a point at which applying the specifics of religion to politics/activism and vice versa has adverse effects on society.
Ultimately, I think the task of politically inclined Christians is to do their work within the wider framework of the Christian worldview. Part of that worldview is the belief in the fallibility of man or, better yet, "Total Depravity" (as par Calvinism's 1st Point). We can take small steps to improve our world, but at the end of the day nothing will bring us paradise. Schemes that promise paradise essentially promise the same thing God promises.
This should make them much less likely to accept undiluted socialism in my estimation. But outright refutation of it belongs to historians and philosophers.
The trouble is the socialism v. capitalism debate today is muddled with false dichotomies, straw men, red herrings, and undue application of terms.
Christianity has done an interesting dance with state collectivism. Liberation theology has been a major driving force for socialism in Latin American countries. Lutheranism has, supposedly, encouraged Welfare-statism in Sweden and other Scandinavian/Baltic nations.
In the United States Protestants have, on-and-off, been proponents of socialism of some kind. Usually not so much.
---------------
My opinion? We are trying to address a text largely explaining salvation history to modern economics, which can be done to a certain, safe, extent. But there is a point at which applying the specifics of religion to politics/activism and vice versa has adverse effects on society.
Ultimately, I think the task of politically inclined Christians is to do their work within the wider framework of the Christian worldview. Part of that worldview is the belief in the fallibility of man or, better yet, "Total Depravity" (as par Calvinism's 1st Point). We can take small steps to improve our world, but at the end of the day nothing will bring us paradise. Schemes that promise paradise essentially promise the same thing God promises.
This should make them much less likely to accept undiluted socialism in my estimation. But outright refutation of it belongs to historians and philosophers.
The trouble is the socialism v. capitalism debate today is muddled with false dichotomies, straw men, red herrings, and undue application of terms.
Read what Georgetown history professor Carrol Quigley said in his book Tragedy And Hope about British and American Socialists working 'with' Communism, and having no problem doing so, and then get back with me. (PS: Quigley at Georgetown was Bill Clinton's history professor, and Clinton endorsed him).
You're being coy. Skousen wasn't dead when the media tried to get an interview with him; he was retired.
The 45 Soviet strategic points were entered into the Congressional Record by a U.S. Congressman. Guess some of our U.S. Congressmen thought it was important enough to note, unlike Communist propagandists who hate that he exposed those points. There's a thread here in the politics section where I listed each one of those strategic points. Some of them have come to pass only in today's generation.
Doesn't that line of thinking suggest that ONLY historians and philosophers are qualified to understand what Socialism is?
No, it's not that difficult to understand what Socialism is about, and who it is that is really pushing it upon God's people. But I can see how it would be difficult to grasp for a dumbed-down people who are endoctrinated in Socialism since grade school.
Coy, no not really. I just didn't have the information present.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/221780/romneys-radical-roots/mark-hemingway
I don't agree with everything in the next piece. The author clearly has an axe to grind against a modern movement giving cause for skepticism, but I still found it helpful enough:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/09/16/beck_skousen
I'm as anticommunist as the next man. Solzhenitsyn is probably my favorite novelist. Whitaker Chambers was right on the mark. I even think McCarthy underestimated the number of Communists in the United States. I'll look into his Cold War writings sometime before I die, but until then he looks like another well-intentioned conspiracy theorist.
No, if anything my line of reasoning was meant to be inclusive. The question of socialism cannot be resolved by slapping a few random Bible verses here and there like some, for it and against it, would like to believe.
For the record, I have little patience for today's intellectual elite thanks to Alan Bloom.
We have a winner, Johnny! This is the reason why the debate is filled with all those fun fallacies, misapplied terms, etc.
Example: Capitalism didn't exist until Marx said it existed. That term opened the door for all sorts of evils to be used against the Free-Market system.
If all you're relying on is evidence from 'newspeak' websites like Wikipedia, sources like National Review and Salon, then you've got a long ways to go in ever understanding this matter. Try Carrol Quigley's 1960's work Tragedy And Hope if you dare. Bill Clinton put his stamp of approval on him, as Quigley was Clinton's history professor at Georgetown University. Surely Georgetown University fits your type of thinking, seeing how you chose those type of website sources? (Do you think that reporter on National Review named Hemingway is any kin to Ernest Hemingway, an American writer and Communists who fought for the Communist Republican Army in Spain's 1938 Civil War?)
Yet it's obvious your line of reasoning is very 'exclusive', but not even your 'own', but the opinions of others from popular news sites. Those reporters probably only have a degree in journalism with views which that only 'fit' those editors opinions for their websites. What do you have as credentials?
YES, the issue of Socialism CAN be easily understood by comparing it with The Word of God. It's not a difficult issue to resolve per God's Word at all! The first settlers at Jamestown learned that (maybe National Review will have an article on that you can learn from? I suspect if one does exist, it'll still be slanted towards Obama's way of Socialist thinking.)
[font="arial]So once again, you let men's opinions decide matters for you. You're definitely a babe in Christ, that is, if you believe on Christ Jesus as your Saviour. If not, then why are you here?
[/font]
[/size][/font][font="Verdana"][font="arial][quote]We have a winner, Johnny! This is the reason why the debate is filled with all those fun fallacies, misapplied terms, etc.[/font]
[/size][/font][font="Verdana"][font="arial]
[/font]
[/size][/font][font="Verdana"]Example: Capitalism didn't exist until Marx said it existed. That term opened the door for all sorts of evils to be used against the Free-Market system.
[/quote]
And now you quote Karl Marx as a source for truth??? Thanks for revealing to us your political position in favor of Socialism and Communism. Best enjoy it while you still can, for it's soon going into the dumps with the rest of men's philosophy. Many on that boat are going to be like the Vichy French in WWII, who kept changing sides because they wanted to be on the side that wins. Yet they chose wrong and lost.
Does someone have a clear, specific accurate definition of socialism please?
It appears to be a very different thing in the UK than that in the USA.....
Working class people in UK breathe a sigh of relief when a labour socialist govt get in. This is because the Conservatives always make massive cutbacks which impact on the working class, who are the majority, whilst protecting the interests of the upper middle class and upper classes, particularly on taxes.
What tends to happen here is the 'Labour party' occasionlly get into power for a while, spend an awful lot of money, do improve the lives of the majority in terms of health care,
policing, funding etc, then there is a loss of faith in their competence, the conservatives come back in, make massive stringent cuts and the whole thing goes around again in a circle upon the next election!
Thus, socialism stands for helping the working class majority in the UK to have a better standard of living, whilst the wealthy (used to) get taxed a lot more until they lose the next election.
So you can see why I need a clear definition to understand your points....
It appears to be a very different thing in the UK than that in the USA.....
Working class people in UK breathe a sigh of relief when a labour socialist govt get in. This is because the Conservatives always make massive cutbacks which impact on the working class, who are the majority, whilst protecting the interests of the upper middle class and upper classes, particularly on taxes.
What tends to happen here is the 'Labour party' occasionlly get into power for a while, spend an awful lot of money, do improve the lives of the majority in terms of health care,
policing, funding etc, then there is a loss of faith in their competence, the conservatives come back in, make massive stringent cuts and the whole thing goes around again in a circle upon the next election!
Thus, socialism stands for helping the working class majority in the UK to have a better standard of living, whilst the wealthy (used to) get taxed a lot more until they lose the next election.
So you can see why I need a clear definition to understand your points....
It's the same thing in both countries. The Democrats (representing Socialist principles) get in power and redistribute wealth by fiat. They spend, spend, spend, like there's no end to money, which essentially creates a hidden tax burden upon everyone later, especially upon the economy and the poor class. The Democrat leaders try to appear they're out for the people's best interest, but they often become rich in offering their pet corporations breaks in return for favors. They often abuse the powers of their office by lavish misuse of public funds for non-government related enterprises (like flying groups of friends to Europe on vacation). They have little intention of balancing the budget or paying off the interest on the national debt, but only raising the debt ceiling to keep business as usual.
The Republicans get in power and they begin cuts on the outlandish spending caused by the Democrats; they try to balance the economy, create a stronger dollar, and give business AND citizens tax breaks to spurn new jobs and economic growth. This is seen in ignorance as redistribution of wealth to the rich by Democrats. Republicans also abuse their power of office, funding their own pet projects and corporations like the Democrats do, also allowing the creation of debt to continue, but while trying to pay off the interest on that debt. They have no intention of changing the debt-based dollar system, but want it to keep going so they can use it for their pet projects too, for re-election. Thus Republicans are also responsible for the national debt problems in the U.S.
The lesser of two evils? The Republican side. Why?
Simple little words. They are for the working man and private property rights to protect what one earns. The Democrat-Socialist way of thinking is that even if you earned it, that doesn't mean you have the right to keep it.
If I had power to change things...
1. I would end the vicious cycle of fiat paper debt money, currency not backed by any gold or silver, but based solely on Treasury bills made out of thin air with the promise to pay by taxing citizens. Every issue of U.S. Treasury Bills is a loan taken out by the U.S. Government against its people through bankers that make money on the interest. Bankers love it, because more bills issued and printed more interest owed. Democrat overspending supports the bankers greediness. Not many Americans realize that up to 1971-73 the U.S. currency system was on a fractional reserves currency system partly backed by gold and silver. Our U.S. currency never got into the national debt trouble problem it has today until it left that system. Under that system, the politicians and bankers were limited with their power to create debt upon U.S. citizens. This is why we have the kind of problem today with our national debt and huge interest due. Raising the debt ceiling simply means issuing more Treasury Bills (creates debt).
2. Establish the Biblical principle that if you don't work, you don't eat. Greatest economy is where there are lots of opportunities for its citizens to make their own way. It's one of the reasons why so many people of other nations have sought to come to the United States. I'm still a believer that if one is willing to work hard, they will be successful. That should not be taken away by Socialist principles of redistributing wealth. The redistribution of wealth creates citizens that have no incentive to be productive. It degrades their character and treats them like animals in a cage waiting for their master to throw them their next meal. Socialism promotes control over the people by those in power. And there will always be those in power to control the rest of the people under that system.
3. Strong review of government subsidies. Many businesses receive subsidies just to keep their doors open, while being unproductive. It is a welfare program for those who are unproductive, a method of redistributing citizen's wealth.
4. End of lobbyists offering concessions and benefits to politicians to vote a certain way. This is how minority groups have gained more power than they should be allowed, while the majority of Americans are left out of the say. End trade unions misuse of its members funds to pay politicians for favors also.
5. End GATT and NAFTA and associated legislation which penalizes American companies for staying on American soil to be productive.
6. The U.S. has the highest corporate tax rate in the world. Bring it down, way down, at least to equal the rate of other nations.
7. Reverse the environmentalist's over-legislation that only causes U.S. corporations to move overseas to be profitable. Fighting pollution is good. Doing it to the degree of forcing American corporations to move overseas so they can pollute at will there is bad.
8. Stop the unbalanced foreign trade of countries like Red China into the U.S. The idea of Free Trade should not mean U.S. dependence upon other nation's exports. Tell the World Trade Organization to take a hike.
9. Chop economic aid to Communist countries and their affiliated countries. Barter solely on the basis of those country's verified actions of non-subversive activities towards the U.S. and the free nations.
10. End the 1930's progressive income tax upon American citizens. Create a 10% flat tax for all, with concessions only for the poor. That's how you stick it to bankers and the filthy rich, if that's what you wanted to do.
11. End politicians ability to dip into U.S. Social Security funds when it runs a surplus. Bet not many knew about that. If the politicians paid back every penny they've dipped out of it since its inception, there would be no problem at all with keeping it funded.
12. Move the United Nations headquarters in NY to Moscow, where it belongs. Make it more difficult for American Socialists who support the U.N. to get to the new moved U.N. headquarters in Moscow.
13. End Russia being allowed to setup spy antennas on their embassy in Washington, D.C. pointing to the White House. Put their embassy in the lowest ground level pit in the area, far away from electronic surveillance of the White House and Pentagon.
aspen
“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
Yep! Those Republics sure are looking out for the downtrodden....
Matthew
The 8 beatitudes in Matthew 5:3-12 during the Sermon on the Mount are stated as Blessed are:[sup][3][/sup][sup][2][/sup]
- the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (5:3)
- they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. (5:4)
- the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. (5:5)
- they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. (5:6)
- the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. (5:7)
- the pure in heart: for they shall see God. (5:8)
- the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. (5:9)
- they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (5:10)
Oh yeah, one more...
14. Bring back the House Committee on Un-American Activities. The U.S. Congress and Senate need to keep track of Communists and Socialists that are here on U.S. soil taking orders directly from Moscow and Beijing.
14. Bring back the House Committee on Un-American Activities. The U.S. Congress and Senate need to keep track of Communists and Socialists that are here on U.S. soil taking orders directly from Moscow and Beijing.
Wow that is one fantastic pile of crap, I feel poorer for having googled that. :lol:
aspen
“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
revturmoil
New Member
Canada has weathered and is dealing with the economic crisis much better than the U.S. because they are more socialist and didn't take care of the big guy when the defication hit the rotating oscillator. They took care of the common people more than banks and big buisness. They gave money back to the people rather than the banks and rich and powerful to keep things afloat and balanced. The crisis we are in today was caused by unscrupulous Americam Capitalism. It is capitalism run amuck. The SEC and the stock market was out of control with people legally stealling millions upon millions from one another. Capitalism is usury and the root to all evil second only to Islam. I'd rather be a socialist any day.
Then you really are a fool. Canada is far from socialism my boy. I live in Socialist country and Canada is more like the US in all aspects except healthcare, and medical tourism is HUGE in USA from Canadians. And the Canadian government is Conservative since 2006 , Stephen Harper is the head of government and has "weathered" the economic crisis. So your entire argument is based on ignorance. But I'm not surprised since your statement "I'd rather be a socialist any day" just proves your economic, scientific and historic illiteracy. The superiority of Capitalism to provide economic growth to the poorer classes is empirical data, but I guess these terms and facts escape your comprehension. Sorry for my tone, but you really tick me off.
aspen
“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
The funny thing is,,,,,,we all live in societies with mixed economies anyway. There is no such thing as a country today with pure socialism or pure capitalism - they have all simply tried to perfect the mix. However Tullius - can you at least recognize that Kaoticprofit may know more than you do about the pitfalls of of a country that is more on the capitalist side of the equation than your country.......if, in fact, you accept the idea that you know more about the pitfalls of a country more committed to socialism?
I don't really want to answer that question, but I guess you are right when it comes to first hand practical experience in the different systems then Kaoticprofit does indeed know more than me about the pitfalls in a more capitalist system and vice versa...
Though I still maintain that his strawmen arguments that he continually comes up with are just ostentatious and tedious. It's not nice but when faced with bombardment of strawmen arguments intended to confuse and shock the other party into not knowing which argument to pick apart first, then I usually go straight for destroying that persons intellectual integrity. It is not nice, but neither is using strawmen arguments.
And yeah you are right about mixed economies, the battle today is not of absolute ideologies, but on how far the extenstion of public services and taxation should go to help the poor and what mechanisms does indeed help the poor. Welfare vs. Opportunity.
aspen
“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
I am glad you are interested in the USA. I am interested in Norway. Unfortunately, one of the draw backs of living so far away from Europe is that we are really isolated.
revturmoil
New Member
I can tell you have an attitude problem. But be of good cheer. They make a pill for everything these days. Even for cases of arrogance as bad as yours!
Arguments that try to label today's American economy as capitalist really is a joke today. It's no longer based on capitalism, and hasn't been for quite a while.
The failures in today's U.S. economy come from Socialist principles, not Capitalist principles. So how far back in American history would we have to go to find when capitalism was its economic basis? Farther back than any here were born.
In 1913 the Federal Reserve Act gave internationalist bankers a foot in the door inside the U.S. economy, by creating the Federal Reserve system, a PRIVATE bank that is NOT part of the U.S. Government (go check that out if you don't believe me). The Federal Reserve PAYS taxes! Since its inception, it began slowly moving the U.S. monetary system off the gold standard, with complete removal in the early 1970's under the Nixon administration. The gold standard backing of the U.S. dollar kept the power and value of currency more in the people's hands, instead of in the bankers and politician's hands.
In the 1930's, as part of the Socialist principles that President Franklin D. Roosevelt allowed with the New Deal legislation, the U.S. federal system became a tool for Socialism with several federal departments created to help get the U.S. economy back on its feet, but in reality it created a systems of socialist controls over many areas in the lives of American citizens. In 1933 politicians passed progressive taxation upon the people, an idea that Karl Marx postulated in his Communist Manifesto using Socialist principles.
Progressive taxation served the goals of the internationalist bankers behind the Federal Reserve system. Since its inception in 1913, the Federal Reserve system slowly removed the U.S. dollar from gold backing it. They did it fractionally, little by little, until in the early 1970's they completely removed all gold backing the U.S. dollar. Those dollars before that were called Silver Certificates, and were redeemable for real silver coin, until the 1970's. Then the U.S. dollar became a Federal Reserve Note, not backed by any gold or silver. The idea of it being a NOTE is important, because it means a financial type Note, a 'Promise To Pay' type Note per banking (promisary note).
A Federal Reserve Note is literally a 'Promise To Pay Note' by getting its backing funds from where? A U.S. Treasury Note. And what is a U.S. Treasury Note? Another 'Promise To Pay Note'. So finally, where does the U.S. Treasury Note get its backing? FROM THE AMERICAN TAXPAYERS. That's the reason for the Progressive Taxation system in the U.S. that only began in 1933. In order to ENFORCE that progressive taxation system upon American citizens, they then created the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), a branch of U.S. government that can sieze all your bank assets and property even BEFORE it has proven you've done anything wrong!!!
In the process of this, these internationalist bankers joined with their political halves, have taken a whole lot of that taxpayer money to feed their own aims, and even allow TAX EXEMPT FOUNDATIONS to use funds that would normally be taxed to prop up more of their Socialist agenda for America! (see Renee Wormser's book Foundation: Their Power And Influence, a work that came out of the 1950's Reese Committee investigation on tax-exempt foundations). That kind of working is what Socialism is about, not Capitalism. We're already 60 years PAST that Reese Committee investigation that found tax-exempt foundations like the Ford Foundation, Carnegie Foundation, and many others, propping up Socialist ideals in virtually every walk of American life, some of those foundations were even found supporting Communists by the 1950's Reese Committee investigation.
And now, many of YOU have bought into their lie against Capitalism, and have become Socialists, which is exactly what they have taught you to become!
The failures in today's U.S. economy come from Socialist principles, not Capitalist principles. So how far back in American history would we have to go to find when capitalism was its economic basis? Farther back than any here were born.
In 1913 the Federal Reserve Act gave internationalist bankers a foot in the door inside the U.S. economy, by creating the Federal Reserve system, a PRIVATE bank that is NOT part of the U.S. Government (go check that out if you don't believe me). The Federal Reserve PAYS taxes! Since its inception, it began slowly moving the U.S. monetary system off the gold standard, with complete removal in the early 1970's under the Nixon administration. The gold standard backing of the U.S. dollar kept the power and value of currency more in the people's hands, instead of in the bankers and politician's hands.
In the 1930's, as part of the Socialist principles that President Franklin D. Roosevelt allowed with the New Deal legislation, the U.S. federal system became a tool for Socialism with several federal departments created to help get the U.S. economy back on its feet, but in reality it created a systems of socialist controls over many areas in the lives of American citizens. In 1933 politicians passed progressive taxation upon the people, an idea that Karl Marx postulated in his Communist Manifesto using Socialist principles.
Progressive taxation served the goals of the internationalist bankers behind the Federal Reserve system. Since its inception in 1913, the Federal Reserve system slowly removed the U.S. dollar from gold backing it. They did it fractionally, little by little, until in the early 1970's they completely removed all gold backing the U.S. dollar. Those dollars before that were called Silver Certificates, and were redeemable for real silver coin, until the 1970's. Then the U.S. dollar became a Federal Reserve Note, not backed by any gold or silver. The idea of it being a NOTE is important, because it means a financial type Note, a 'Promise To Pay' type Note per banking (promisary note).
A Federal Reserve Note is literally a 'Promise To Pay Note' by getting its backing funds from where? A U.S. Treasury Note. And what is a U.S. Treasury Note? Another 'Promise To Pay Note'. So finally, where does the U.S. Treasury Note get its backing? FROM THE AMERICAN TAXPAYERS. That's the reason for the Progressive Taxation system in the U.S. that only began in 1933. In order to ENFORCE that progressive taxation system upon American citizens, they then created the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), a branch of U.S. government that can sieze all your bank assets and property even BEFORE it has proven you've done anything wrong!!!
In the process of this, these internationalist bankers joined with their political halves, have taken a whole lot of that taxpayer money to feed their own aims, and even allow TAX EXEMPT FOUNDATIONS to use funds that would normally be taxed to prop up more of their Socialist agenda for America! (see Renee Wormser's book Foundation: Their Power And Influence, a work that came out of the 1950's Reese Committee investigation on tax-exempt foundations). That kind of working is what Socialism is about, not Capitalism. We're already 60 years PAST that Reese Committee investigation that found tax-exempt foundations like the Ford Foundation, Carnegie Foundation, and many others, propping up Socialist ideals in virtually every walk of American life, some of those foundations were even found supporting Communists by the 1950's Reese Committee investigation.
And now, many of YOU have bought into their lie against Capitalism, and have become Socialists, which is exactly what they have taught you to become!
After watching the documentary "Commanding Heights" I think it was, you see a Ford Factory where the management hired a widely known communist artist from some banana republic to make artwork for the factory. I always found that really strange, why would a "capitalist" firm promote communist propaganda at their own factories? :/ I guess it makes more sense now.
Its very dangerous in a polyarchic democracy which is a democracy based on interest groups controlling the political process and the representatives in the regime to have all these powerfull organizations when the majority of the population is busy and rightly so with their own character development and helping their local communities instead of being politically active in interest groups such as Unions or Foundations like the ones you described. The assumption is that the constitution will prevent tyranny leaving the Citizens to go about their life in freedom, but this assumption is wrong as the constitution is just a paper document as the leftist proclaim.
USA was meant to be a constitutional republic. In Europe, the power of the parliaments grew out from the power of the Monarchs. A gradual peacefull process giving the Parliament monarchial absolute powers, so in Europe Citizens are still serfs of the State, but in USA the opposite happened. Power was changed violently from the Parliament to the Citizens, and then Citizens made the government the serf of the nation and not vice versa.
Veteran, about your statement concerning the Federal Reserve, as a student of Milton Friedman I'm pro the federal reserve, but not as it exist today. But the original mechanism the fed provided was very essential which was originally to provide a stable currency that would reflect economic growth with a general increase of 2% a year if the economy was doing good, in short it was meant to be a technocracy instead of a policy making bureaucracy. And in order for Banks to be able to loan out money in suffiecient quantities for healthy economic growth, its good to have a reserve bank that will lend banks money in a bank run, and then have the banks pay back the money when the run is over. Would you support the fed if it was fixed back to its original intent?
Today though I clearly agree with you that the federal reserve is a harmfull keynsian institution thats only responsible to the international banking industry and not congress.
Another problem with the foundations that promote communism is that they use mass demonstrations to destroy the "democratic" process when it doesnt suit them. Like what happened in that state where the Governor tried to fight the unions a few months back.
Mass demonstrations that block traffic, destroy property, prevent people from going to work and threatens peoples security like all anti true liberty demonstrations do is anti representative government mechanism. It is totalitarianism under the guise of democratic participation. Its really disgusting.
(sorry for the bad grammar and spelling)
Its very dangerous in a polyarchic democracy which is a democracy based on interest groups controlling the political process and the representatives in the regime to have all these powerfull organizations when the majority of the population is busy and rightly so with their own character development and helping their local communities instead of being politically active in interest groups such as Unions or Foundations like the ones you described. The assumption is that the constitution will prevent tyranny leaving the Citizens to go about their life in freedom, but this assumption is wrong as the constitution is just a paper document as the leftist proclaim.
USA was meant to be a constitutional republic. In Europe, the power of the parliaments grew out from the power of the Monarchs. A gradual peacefull process giving the Parliament monarchial absolute powers, so in Europe Citizens are still serfs of the State, but in USA the opposite happened. Power was changed violently from the Parliament to the Citizens, and then Citizens made the government the serf of the nation and not vice versa.
Veteran, about your statement concerning the Federal Reserve, as a student of Milton Friedman I'm pro the federal reserve, but not as it exist today. But the original mechanism the fed provided was very essential which was originally to provide a stable currency that would reflect economic growth with a general increase of 2% a year if the economy was doing good, in short it was meant to be a technocracy instead of a policy making bureaucracy. And in order for Banks to be able to loan out money in suffiecient quantities for healthy economic growth, its good to have a reserve bank that will lend banks money in a bank run, and then have the banks pay back the money when the run is over. Would you support the fed if it was fixed back to its original intent?
Today though I clearly agree with you that the federal reserve is a harmfull keynsian institution thats only responsible to the international banking industry and not congress.
Another problem with the foundations that promote communism is that they use mass demonstrations to destroy the "democratic" process when it doesnt suit them. Like what happened in that state where the Governor tried to fight the unions a few months back.
Mass demonstrations that block traffic, destroy property, prevent people from going to work and threatens peoples security like all anti true liberty demonstrations do is anti representative government mechanism. It is totalitarianism under the guise of democratic participation. Its really disgusting.
(sorry for the bad grammar and spelling)
Similar threads
