BREAKING: French protests getting more violent

Things are getting pretty serious in France. It will be interesting to see when/if the government decides it has had enough and cracks down.
These French may wish they weren’t so progressive and actually had guns...

Aggressive Riots in Paris

A discussion

Here is part of a discussion I am having. Well, aren't we all having this discussion in some fashion or another?

It is in response to this:

If you are going to put your faith in government for anything, including protecting your “rights” you will ultimately

be disappointed and a lot poorer.

James Madison, the so-called Father of the Constitution, said (from his reading of John Locke, the father of “property Rights”) that good government's only function is to protect property, and that was to be the end of good government. That’s it. He called any other function of the State unjust. Even here we have a problem, in that the State must first expropriate (Steal) a portion of that same property to provide the protection. The individual has no choice whether or not he wants or needs that protection.

Even small government conservatives offer the same thing as the big government liberals, the State.

Having local control of tax money further obfuscates the real question, are taxes moral, or are they just theft, whether a huge government forces you to pay them, or a tiny local government? It still comes down to theft, a minority stealing from one to spend the way they want for the “good of all.”

That’s what I say is crap.  

We should not want state control of our public schools, we should abolish them.  Limited government is a fallacy.

Government is force and violence that the individual would be locked up for if he tried the same things government does.

Government = Force/violence/theft

Limited government = limited force/violence/theft?

So that is the better option? Are we as individuals able to “opt out”? No matter how close to home a local government is, it will still spend money in ways that some find immoral. So who decides how the tax(theft) money is spent? A majority? Who decides if that allocation of the theft is moral? The majority?

Then you are back to square one, majority, mob rule, where the rights of the minority are crushed.

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits  drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law',  because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the  individual."  Thomas Jefferson

How many “Constitutional conservatives” do you know actually believe that? Even small government advocates have plenty of duties they think the government needs to perform.

And none of these things answers the first problem. If the Founders of this Country said that government's only role in society was to protect property, (John Locke said the only reason people come to form society is for the protection of property) then how can we defend any other role the State has decided in its wisdom to control?

The State is not your friend, it is your enemy, whether large, small, limited or otherwise. It should be abolished at every level.

This idea is not un-American, as the government is not America.

It is the essence of Liberty.

End the Empire

What if D.C. IS the world government Christians say that they're afraid of?

By Michael Rozeff

The empire has put in place the pseudo-legal "laws" that it needs to repress dissidents within America. It will use these "laws" and executive orders in order to quell restiveness and resistance among Americans. The reason for the domestic suppression is because the empire cannot expand overseas if its domestic population is not under firm control. The driving force in domestic suppression is the goal of world empire. This is why lovers and supporters of liberty should strongly condemn all of the many U.S. actions to expand empire.
The idea that I've just expressed is not widely known, much less accepted. So I'll repeat it again. The U.S. wants a world empire and is actively trying to achieve that aim. That's its number one priority. In order to achieve that, it needs a cooperative, compliant, and productive population and one that does not resist that aim. That is why the government has been putting measures in place that are repressive and destroy judicial rights.

According to an Iranian analyst who specializes in Russia, the Russians now understand what the U.S. is after. It has taken them a while for this to penetrate. He writes of the Russians
"Russian analysts maintain that the current foreign policy of the United States is based on two theories: 'ultimate realism,' and 'new liberalism.' As a result, the Americans actually believe that world countries are simply divided into the United States’ friends and enemies. Hostile countries, therefore, should be weakened and their presence in global and regional strategic arenas should be limited and even suppressed in political, economic and cultural terms.
"The new liberalism also claims that all wars break out between non-democratic states. Therefore, all countries should go through an American style democratization process and if needed, military means such as preventive war, can be used to achieve that purpose.
"As a result of the above arguments, Russia believes that the current political developments in the Middle East and North Africa are steered by the United States. Moscow firmly believes that a new wave of the world order has been initiated by the United States in order to create a new version of the past unipolar world system. The main targets of this wave, Moscow maintains, include North Africa, the Middle East, Iran, Eurasia, and finally China and Russia."
The U.S. supports radical Muslims and al-Qaeda operations when they stir up trouble in Muslim populations in regions near and in Russia so as to weaken Russia.
Readers will recognize that the doctrines described as applicable to the U.S. foreign policy are the Bush Doctrine and associated Bush and neoconservative ideas. The Obama administration has continued these policies. It has expanded them, innovated within them, and intensified them.
9/11 was a first class disaster for America's future due to the political forces it has unleashed and facilitated. Bin Laden is dead but he is getting his revenge as the U.S. government destroys American values in the name of those very values. I cannot think of a more insidious subversion.
The current election offers no choice on this central issue, which is not even seen as a central issue.
End the Empire.

Marriage

I got an email the other day about Obama coming out saying he was for same sex marriage.

I cannot understand why people get all upset about this. Who cares? The real question is, why do we allow the government to be a 3rd party to marriage in the first place. Isn't marriage a contract between 2 people? Why is the state allowed to be a 3rd party? Christians, above all, should hold that marriage should be only between the 2 people and God.
No state needed.
Anyway, here is my email response back to the one I got.

If we would quit playing their political game, and just push the idea that the state has no authority nor does it have any business regulating marriage at all in the first place( it’s a private contract between two individuals, no need for a third party) this issue would be gone. But as long as we bow the knee and get the state's permission to get married (marriage license) then this can be expected.

A license is a piece of paper giving you permission to do that which would otherwise be illegal or “wrong.”  A marriage license is just a permission slip with some legal benefits granted by the state. If we took this monopoly “benefit” from the state, then homosexuals wouldn’t want a marriage license anyway. No state monopolized benefit? Issue gone.

 In the early British/American colonies a “marriage tax” was issued (i.e. marriage license) and the colonists took up arms in resistance to the tax.  They said the King had no right to regulate their marriages. It was dropped, because none would pay the tax. Nullified. Later the marriage license was re-introduced to prevent blacks from marrying whites.

So why have we regressed to protect the state on this issue that our forefathers fought against?

IF you want to get married, take some advice, don’t get a marriage license. My wife and I didn’t, and we have been married for 19 years.

Then all these trivial nonsensical things about marriage rights, man and woman only, and defense of marriage acts are just that.

 Trivial nonsense.