In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
God has given to men all that is necessary for them to accomplish their destinies. He has provided a social form as well as a human form. And these social organs of persons are so constituted that they will develop themselves harmoniously in the clean air of liberty. Away, then, with quacks and organizers! Away with their rings, chains, hooks, and pincers! Away with their artificial systems! Away with the whims of governmental administrators, their socialized projects, their centralization, their tariffs, their government schools, their state religions, their free credit, their bank monopolies, their regulations, their restrictions, their equalization by taxation, and their pious moralizations!
And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.
The writing of Frederic Bastiat seems to be generally acceptable to me and consistent with much of what the Decelaration of Independence and the Constitution establish.
It is an intellectual pursuit working to oppose socialism so must be verbose.
I have a saying that can be used to expose an underlying fact of the purpose of law as well as its origin, which may be useful in re-applying some of Frederic Bastiat's thinking.
"In the beginning those that knew the most about behaviors got together and decided that certain behaviors would help no one ever. When they had shared that with the people, and the people understood and accepted the determinations, the first laws were made."
I would surmise that time is before Hammerabi.
In examination of the origins of our Constitution there is a little known fact. American historical position places the Magna Carta in the chain of social contract leading to the Constitution. I've come to understand that history completely misrepresents the Magna Carta and why it was signed and who concieved of it and forced its signing.
The word "force", I notice, is touched upon by Frederic Bastiat. Herein is where history completely removed the facts of the "force" that is responsible for the creation of the Charter. Now comes the sticky part. The facts of the origin are left out of history because the church controls written history.
The church has removed all understanding of HOW history was kept before it developed the written word, and they did not write down why.
Another thing. In your signature I notice you have the "Oathkeepers".
I need you to know that I was permanently banned from their forums a few months back for suggesting that discussion of Constitutional principles be used to inspire the public to conduct outreach to people who have taken the oath.
Take this fact and work it with the fact that "Oathkeepers" does not promote equally the oath itself. Or, the "support and defend" part is left out and all that is put forth is that oath keepers not violate key Constitutional rights.
I don't have both sides of your 'Oathkeeper' experience, nor do I need the details.
I do know that Oathkeepers was founded for 'one' specific purpose and 'one' specific outreach, to active and retired police, military and firefighters; those who would be called up/called upon by government to enforce unconstitutional directives or orders.
It is not a 'public outreach' organization and is not intended to be one.
I also know that this specific mission is being kept clean and separate from co-mingling with other entities organizational and individual goals and missions.
I knew that when I joined and I understood and accepted what Oathkeepers was trying to specifically accomplish and why.
Their mission is not the sum total of what 'I' am trying to accomplish, but based on their stated mission, goals and target membership, it is clear what and why they proceed as they do.
As to the Bastiat posting, I put it up for its face value, for those who have not been exposed to his writings before.
A good read lt, and worth the small amount of time it takes. Anyone should be able to cover it rather quickly. Reveived a copy from aunt, which is a mere 2 feet from where I sit right now.
quote:Originally posted by freedomfighter
quote:Originally posted by lt496
I don't have both sides of your 'Oathkeeper' experience, nor do I need the details.
It is not a 'public outreach' organization and is not intended to be one.
If you need your Constitution, you need some details . . . or to get them correct.
I did not say that oathkeepers is a "public outreach" organization. I said that they would not support the public who are members in using Constitutional principles on the message board to increase the membership that was willing to communicate to oathed individual concerning their oaths.
In order to create motivation for the public to join in the purpose, the public needs to have a reason. The desire to support and defend the Constitution can be immensely increased by people understanding the principles of it fully. That includes increasing the desire to approach soldiers and emergency personel to focus on their oath.
In no way was I suggesting that Constitutional principles be used in general out reach.
It is not credible that they would ban me for trying to impliment discussion on Constitutional principles IF they truly stand for the oath. The oath has the words, support and defend.
How in the hell can you do that if you cannot talk about it?
Another member was banned at the same time, because I supported him. He had dozens of photos of Americans with guns. Redleg's profile is GONE now.
Great read #496. They should teach this in school before our own history. Then of course, they wouldn't have time for our own history. On a noteable mark, the U.S. is in talks with an historic museum to get the original Alamo flag back. Gonna keep up with it. steve
quote:Originally posted by steveaustin
Great read #496. They should teach this in school before our own history. Then of course, they wouldn't have time for our own history. On a noteable mark, the U.S. is in talks with an historic museum to get the original Alamo flag back. Gonna keep up with it. steve
I agree, Bastiat should be taught. I would also say that an international effort should be made to recover the truth, for histories sake, of the Magna Carta.
After all, 53 nations on the planet base their social contract upon it. It was a major victory for "free men", and the force of common law was established through it. The truth is hugely empowering to Americans.
The founders must have had a difficult time with what they were doing because the truth of the Magna Carta supported in every way their actions, but that truth was already buried. Accordingly, as they were trying to separate from England they could not use that truth which was misreprsented in support of elite power. They simply, and not improperly, relied on "self evident truths", in order to reassert what the Magna Carta established.
The weight of the Magna Carta is seen in US law when examining reconstruction era civil rights laws. The entire world was in awe of what America asserted there. Unfortunately the supreme court effectively, secretly, reversed the Constitution and the reconstruction era civil rights laws with Title 42 A?1988.
Now civil rights violations can only be "personal injury claims" and completely subject to states statuate of limimtations.
Comments
God has given to men all that is necessary for them to accomplish their destinies. He has provided a social form as well as a human form. And these social organs of persons are so constituted that they will develop themselves harmoniously in the clean air of liberty. Away, then, with quacks and organizers! Away with their rings, chains, hooks, and pincers! Away with their artificial systems! Away with the whims of governmental administrators, their socialized projects, their centralization, their tariffs, their government schools, their state religions, their free credit, their bank monopolies, their regulations, their restrictions, their equalization by taxation, and their pious moralizations!
And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.
Enjoy.[:)]
It is an intellectual pursuit working to oppose socialism so must be verbose.
I have a saying that can be used to expose an underlying fact of the purpose of law as well as its origin, which may be useful in re-applying some of Frederic Bastiat's thinking.
"In the beginning those that knew the most about behaviors got together and decided that certain behaviors would help no one ever. When they had shared that with the people, and the people understood and accepted the determinations, the first laws were made."
I would surmise that time is before Hammerabi.
In examination of the origins of our Constitution there is a little known fact. American historical position places the Magna Carta in the chain of social contract leading to the Constitution. I've come to understand that history completely misrepresents the Magna Carta and why it was signed and who concieved of it and forced its signing.
The word "force", I notice, is touched upon by Frederic Bastiat. Herein is where history completely removed the facts of the "force" that is responsible for the creation of the Charter. Now comes the sticky part. The facts of the origin are left out of history because the church controls written history.
The church has removed all understanding of HOW history was kept before it developed the written word, and they did not write down why.
Another thing. In your signature I notice you have the "Oathkeepers".
I need you to know that I was permanently banned from their forums a few months back for suggesting that discussion of Constitutional principles be used to inspire the public to conduct outreach to people who have taken the oath.
Take this fact and work it with the fact that "Oathkeepers" does not promote equally the oath itself. Or, the "support and defend" part is left out and all that is put forth is that oath keepers not violate key Constitutional rights.
I do know that Oathkeepers was founded for 'one' specific purpose and 'one' specific outreach, to active and retired police, military and firefighters; those who would be called up/called upon by government to enforce unconstitutional directives or orders.
It is not a 'public outreach' organization and is not intended to be one.
I also know that this specific mission is being kept clean and separate from co-mingling with other entities organizational and individual goals and missions.
I knew that when I joined and I understood and accepted what Oathkeepers was trying to specifically accomplish and why.
Their mission is not the sum total of what 'I' am trying to accomplish, but based on their stated mission, goals and target membership, it is clear what and why they proceed as they do.
As to the Bastiat posting, I put it up for its face value, for those who have not been exposed to his writings before.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Well done.
quote:Originally posted by lt496
I don't have both sides of your 'Oathkeeper' experience, nor do I need the details.
It is not a 'public outreach' organization and is not intended to be one.
If you need your Constitution, you need some details . . . or to get them correct.
I did not say that oathkeepers is a "public outreach" organization. I said that they would not support the public who are members in using Constitutional principles on the message board to increase the membership that was willing to communicate to oathed individual concerning their oaths.
In order to create motivation for the public to join in the purpose, the public needs to have a reason. The desire to support and defend the Constitution can be immensely increased by people understanding the principles of it fully. That includes increasing the desire to approach soldiers and emergency personel to focus on their oath.
In no way was I suggesting that Constitutional principles be used in general out reach.
It is not credible that they would ban me for trying to impliment discussion on Constitutional principles IF they truly stand for the oath. The oath has the words, support and defend.
How in the hell can you do that if you cannot talk about it?
Another member was banned at the same time, because I supported him. He had dozens of photos of Americans with guns. Redleg's profile is GONE now.
http://oathkeepers.ning.com/photo/photo/listForContributor?screenName=2jn6smulfg8cx&page=2
Great read #496. They should teach this in school before our own history. Then of course, they wouldn't have time for our own history. On a noteable mark, the U.S. is in talks with an historic museum to get the original Alamo flag back. Gonna keep up with it. steve
I agree, Bastiat should be taught. I would also say that an international effort should be made to recover the truth, for histories sake, of the Magna Carta.
After all, 53 nations on the planet base their social contract upon it. It was a major victory for "free men", and the force of common law was established through it. The truth is hugely empowering to Americans.
The founders must have had a difficult time with what they were doing because the truth of the Magna Carta supported in every way their actions, but that truth was already buried. Accordingly, as they were trying to separate from England they could not use that truth which was misreprsented in support of elite power. They simply, and not improperly, relied on "self evident truths", in order to reassert what the Magna Carta established.
The weight of the Magna Carta is seen in US law when examining reconstruction era civil rights laws. The entire world was in awe of what America asserted there. Unfortunately the supreme court effectively, secretly, reversed the Constitution and the reconstruction era civil rights laws with Title 42 A?1988.
Now civil rights violations can only be "personal injury claims" and completely subject to states statuate of limimtations.