Comments on: More Evidence Honesty Is the Best Policy

By: MichaelBoldin

MichaelBoldin — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 20:51:32 +0000

Our system sometimes auto-deletes things incorrectly. It is set to deal with thousands of spammers every day. so it make errors. you should email info@tenthamendmentcenter.com with the content of your comment to see if we can dig it up in the archives and make it live agai.

By: christopher

christopher — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 20:30:42 +0000

I am sitting here trying to figure out why my previous reply was deleted despite the fact that it was, in my opinion, an honest question that contained no uncharitable or rancorous remarks, was not off topic, nor did it contain any foul lanquage. (With regards to grammatical errors or misspelled words, I plead guilty.) Admittedly, Although I claim an above average vocabulary, I do not have a formal education and, with regards to political history and philosophy, I have only what could be considered an "informed ignorance". Perhaps it showed in my comment making it unworthy of space on this site?

By: irondutch

irondutch — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 19:57:42 +0000

Question: Who would be easier to convert? The misguided, confused, rank and file, and right wing neo-con that desires small government in theory but does not desire it in practice or the leftist who does not desire it in neither theory nor practice? Doesn't the drive toward social, economic and cultural hegemony, through a centralized leveler of scores, come primarily from the left? Isn't that, in fact, what is means to be a leftist? You may be opposed to some things the centralized state may be presently doing, like waging unjust & unnecessary war, spying on people, or keeping you from drinking raw milk, but you still believe in the centralized state. The rightful remedy, of course, being voting in your socialists and kicking out the other guys fascists.(Are not both nationalists of a sort?) I don't know , I'm just asking.

By: Philosopherking

Philosopherking — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 22:52:56 +0000

Its pretty obvious that free-trade eliminated such estates by definition since laws barring people from engaging in trade is the opposite of free-trade. Eliminating those laws should allow people to trade freely with each other.

By: Philosopherking

Philosopherking — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 22:50:27 +0000

I'm assuming that if they had some kind of inclination to do something they could do it such as speak as they wish without anyone saying that they couldn't otherwise. I'm trying to figure out how they could form a government which requires the power to write which assumes the power to speak and communicate if they had no ability, as you seem to think, to do so. They could not speak freely so how did they find the will to communicate enough with each other that they could form a government?

By: Philosopherking

Philosopherking — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 22:46:12 +0000

And who are the biggest defendents of government regulation or laws that restrain free-trade? That seems to be coming from the left the last time I checked so it makes me wonder why does the left so interested in protecting the wealthy business elite?

Unregulated free-trade society as in the one that existed a long time in this country before the progressive socialist era came along. That is what a lot of advocates of free-trade argued for. Don't tell me that that never existed in American history when the commerce clause was always interpreted to mean that it could not regulate commercial activity among private individuals.

By: Jeff Matthews

Jeff Matthews — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 19:43:19 +0000

There you go again with theory. Can you identify a single, free-trade society? There never, ever, has been one. People with wealth have always lobbied and passed laws that act as restraints on free trade. So, when they do that, what does that make them? Use your favorite labels, like "thieves," "corrupt," or whatever.

So, when people acquire their holdings through such improper means, why should society consider their holdings as venerated articles that deserve to remain with the culprits, despite how they acquired them?

Welcome to reality! It's not so easy to lump it into a theory.

By: Jeff Matthews

Jeff Matthews — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 19:39:13 +0000

How does that say they DID have them? It's like saying that they have a pot of gold that they can't see, touch, smell or feel.

By: Philosopherking

Philosopherking — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 16:11:53 +0000

I'm not into wealth redistribution or at least not forced wealth redistribution so I don't see it as a problem but having laws that forbid property from being sold to anyone other than a certain family definately does concentrate wealth unfairly in the hands of a few politically connected families. Free-trade eliminates that since individuals can buy anything any other individual wants to sell. There has always been more wealth distribution in free-trade societies than societies that ban free-trade. Just look at the extreme of communism or feudal societies.

By: Philosopherking

Philosopherking — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 16:07:49 +0000

How does that say that they didn't have them? It is like saying that they don't have bacteria in there stomach because they never saw them.