Democracy is Robbery

[Luigi84289]

Ron Paul is the first candidate in a very long time that is uniting all parties because everyone loves the message of freedom and is beginning to see through the party masks. He is the only candidate anyone should vote for.

[Luigi84289]

What would help the South when we form our own Government would be to not advocate political parties. They set the stage for the self destructive size of the US. People blame the other part of the population and follow their party like a religion placing faith in a broken system instead of uniting to shrink Government and make everyone freer. Take Republicans people know that Bush grew the Government by leaps and bounds but still vote for that party with misplaced faith.

[cilantroification]

You are a fucking backward hick. I really wish you assholes would secede again.

[RedShirtArmy]

@cilantroification lol... There are a few things I wish to point out about your crude comment. First, you used a cultural slur against me. Then you made an unfounded assumption about the level of my education (in fact, I'm in grad school and have taught in both Europe and the States. Finally, I do agree with your sentiments about us being independent from the awful regime y'all have forced upon us. We wanted to be free and the US wouldn't let us. I believe will outlive the crumbling US Empire.

[parafleet]

Don't crack a smile who is this what reactionary preposterousness is this?

[RedShirtArmy]

@parafleet Reactionary? You speak the language of communists.

[RedShirtArmy]

@DCNatz101 I don't really care the exact form of the gov't so long as it is voluntary, meaning the right of secession at all levels of gov't is aknowledged and accepted. I think a very limited republic with extremely few functions would be fine. Really, any gov't that didn't live by theft (in other words where the people had the right to secede if they objected to its policies) would be fine.

[RedShirtArmy]

@DCNatz101 In a democracy, the bureaucracy is involuntary and lives by theft off a population. This is different than with a business. Also, certain businesses getting help from gov't is obviously not a free market economy - that's a mixed economy. No gov't intervention in the economy is a free market.

[RedShirtArmy]

@DCNatz101 "The good of the majority" is an excuse. There are estab. institutions, mainly the government itself and the bureaucrats who make their living off of tax money, that profit. There are also favoured businesses that use state powers to gain advantages over their competitors.

The best form of government would be where the right of secession at all levels was aknowledged. This would severely limit the power of any level of gov't & make it truly rest upon the consent of the governed.

[paul6j7o]

On another note,whats that flag behind you?..You must gave had it made because that flag does not exist in Ireland and the ULSTER flag looks fuck all like that!!!UP THE FUCKIN` REPUBLIC!!!...ps,stop talking shite n get a job!!

[RedShirtArmy]

@paul6j7o It's the Ulster Nationalist Flag. It's not as common as the NI flag, but it is seen throughout Ulster. I know because I've been there and seen it. It's flown primarily by folks in Ulster who want independence instead of being ruled over by either London or Dublin. It has the St Patrick's Cross, the Saltire and the traditional star and hand of Ulster.

Please refrain from using profanity. I don't care if you disagree with me but don't curse here.

[paul6j7o]

Your an idiot!!...The vote gets the result...its easy... unless yer a Fascist or a Communist...or an idiot like yerself,talking alode o piss!!

[RedShirtArmy]

@paul6j7o Actually, I'm not a fascist, a commie or a democrat. I believe in liberty, property rights and self-ownership. Democracy is just mob rule. It's one of the worst possible systems imaginable.

[RedShirtArmy]

@Rebeldragon90 Thank you very much.

[Southernjuggalo63]

“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.” Thomas Jefferson

A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” Thomas Jefferson

but no one ever listens to the man who constructed most of our founding documents

[Luigi84289]

Democracies don't last long. They are a stepping stone towards oligarchy. We had a republic then it shifted to a democracy thanks to Lincoln and I would go so far to say that it is an Oligarchy now.

[longfootbuddy]

2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch

[sivanadiyar]

Tax is theft. Insofar as democracy can be used to legitimate this theft, it is also unjust. These facts are incontestable. However, I wonder what sort of government the Palmetto Patriot advocates for South Carolina, if not a democratic one? Is he, perhaps, a libertarian? Some clarification of his views would be helpful. After all, one should never decry anything without suggesting a viable alternative to it. Cheers!

[WowyWowytheMapler]

Dumbass...

[Live414]

White Folks are heavily taxed, and the fruit of our Labor is given to non-whites, enemy nations, and criminal alien invaders; all of that against the Will of the People.

The Federal Government's Tax System and Redistribution of Wealth is nothing more than White Slavery!

[crazyfool91cl]

The U.S. doesn't even have a democracy, it has a republic, which protects citizens and minorities from mob rule. Any direct democracy would surely end with horrible crimes.

[hardlinemonarchist]

We don't need a fucking democracy,we need absolute monarchy.

[hardlinemonarchist]

We don't need a fucking democracy,we need absolute monarchy.

[oldhacks]

democracy is majority rule.

If the majority of Americans want peace then majority rule would generate peace.

[Clyaton]

What ARE your views??? I agree with you btw in this video, I just want to know if your actual views mirror my own.

[KhmerD0g]

wall street is robbing ordinary citizens.

[J1NX1337]

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."

- Thomas Jefferson

[J1NX1337]

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."

- Thomas Jefferson

[barrywinehousexp]

Ochlocracy, with its strings pulled by international banking oligarchs and corporate plutocrats is a massive evil.

"Democracy The God That Failed" -by Hans Hermann-Hoppe. Highly recommended.

[CrosslegLuke]

I dont like Democracy, or Republic, not on a large scale atleast, for local Govt's it works great. but for national Govt's not so much

[Clyaton]

That's the beauty of our republic, we are states that can secede if the citizens deem necessary, and we are seemingly approaching that mark.... It will likely reset the system if enough states actually do or get near to secession. Parting as friends is better than being united as enemies no? It's really just up to the people.

[Charonveritas]

It is Constitutionally illegal for states to secede from the Union since the end of the War for States Rights. I believe only Texas maintains the ability to legally secede. Please correct me if I'm wrong...

[RedShirtArmy]

There is nothing about secession in the Constitution. I think what you are referring to was after the Federal Gov't won the War, the Federal courts ruled that secession was illegal. The Founding Fathers believed secession was legal and possible. It was men like Abraham Lincoln and others who dreamed of powerful, centralised imperial America who opposed secession. Anyone who believes in liberty has to support it at least in theory. Texas, btw, has reserved the right to split up into 5 States.

[Clyaton]

Doesn't mean it can't happen.... This was like 5 months ago at least though, it was more of a political statement, no one was truly considering it. If states really wanted to secede they could... Law or no law. It's federally illegal everywhere in the USA as far as marijuana goes, but how many clinics are in Cali??? Furthermore, the USA is more united now as we travel long distances all the time not feasible back in the day, no one would allow the fed to start a war on a seceded state.

[Clyaton]

Oh, and yea, it's not in the constitution.. It was just a supreme court case vs. Texas... So no texas maintains no ability to legally secede, but it doesn't mean they absolutely couldn't.

[longfootbuddy]

@Charonveritas your wrong

[NewHeathen78]

@Charonveritas To add to Redshirtarmy, the Treaty of Paris was the treaty that ended the Revolutionary War. That Treaty was not signed by two countries. It was signed by 14 countries..Great Britain and each of the 13 states. later, the states decided to band together for strength in numbers. However, each one is a sovereign nation with the ability to break away if wished with the precidence set at the Treaty of Paris. Continued

[NewHeathen78]

@NewHeathen78 The only reason the issue was "settled" in 1865 is because the union had larger numbers than the south. However, if you look at where all of the military bases are today, you will find that military strength isn't an issue at all. The vast majority of the large military bases are in the south. Just a thought.

[Charonveritas]

@NewHeathen78 Absolutely, Sovereignty was with EACH State, not a centralized gov't as we have today. The Fed'l Gov't was never meant to be more than an arbitor between those States. That was the TRUE reason for the War for States Rights, wresting power away from the States, and vesting it in a centralized gov't...

[Luigi84289]

@Charonveritas It is outside the Federal Government's jurisdiction. The Federal Government is never going to say "it's okay go ahead and take our taxes away". This is never going to happen. The states as sovereign entities who voluntarily joined the union of their own accord retain the right to leave just like if I join a chess club and pay dues I retain the right to leave and stop paying the club for services.

[Luigi84289]

@Charonveritas And if the Union can dictate to the states if they can leave or not it is no longer a union, it boils down to nothing more than a nation forcing another nation to exist under their heel.

[nbenicewicz]

RedShirtArmy

Do you ever get any comments, hate mail or anything else from someone who goes by xMoonWillowx on YouTube?

[ThisIsWar14]

As Ben Franklin said "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding on what's for dinner"!

[Jesse8501]

So, I take it you won't vote for a secession party?

[RedShirtArmy]

Sure I would. I'm not necessarily against voting. In a limited republic there is a degree of voting. I'm against the government having the power to steal as in an unlimited democracy.

[clintstonedare1]

Demon-acracy is a soft form of Communism. Hands down you cannot argue against the truth.

[RedShirtArmy]

Agreed. That is the way it was always understood until very recently. Too bad more people don't get that today. I guess public mis-education has much to do with it.

[Rodney5516]

Your 100% wrong on this one! True Democracy and freedom, set-up by our U.S. Constitution is a Great thing! Please dont confuse Democracy and freedom with the Sorry people that are running our Government at this time.

We need more people like Ron Paul, to get back to True Democracy and freedom.

[RedShirtArmy]

Democracy has nothing to do with the original US Constitution. In fact, our ancestors warned very strongly against tendencies towards democracy. Thomas Jefferson and the Anti-Federalists (the good guys) in particular were strongly against it. Freedom is incompatible with democracy because nothing you have is safe (including your life) in a democracy. A mere majority can take anything away from you - including your life - and it is all very democratic. There's nothing good about that.

[Joseph565112]

Um, RedShirt, friend, I am not sure what has been going on here or what context you mean; but at point blank face value....this scares me a bit. I mean again, at face value, of course the U.S. Constitution deals with democracy, that is the type of government it set up. It established a representative democracy in particular. There was even democracy in the colonies prior to the eighteenth century, like the Quakers...

[RedShirtArmy]

Joseph, democracy is quite different from republic. Using the phrase 'represenative democracy' sort of clouds the issue. If the rule of law is supreme government force is restricted then there really isn't a democracy in the classical sense. I am for restricting the government as much as possible, just as our ancestors like Henry, Jefferson, Calhoun & Davis. Look up their views on democracy. Some folks have been posting good quotes by them here. They made clear distinctions on this point

[Joseph565112]

Well, okay because when you say the constitution has nothing to do with it, at face value, it sounds like you're denying the form we have. A republic is just a body that is wholly elected. So you're not against democracy like in a republic; you are just against it being as you deem "unlimited" in power.

[RedShirtArmy]

Well I distinguish between democracy and republics in general. Specifically, a very limited constitutional republic is what I would accept. One where people can not vote themselves others peoples' money or strip away the natural rights of other people. My property and my rights are mine alone. Anyone who steal them from me is a thief - it doesn't matter to me if a majority want to steal it or not, they are still thieves.

[Joseph565112]

Well yeah I agree. Would you consent then to have (I don't really want to say tax) but to have an amount taken out for the purpose of at least sustaining a military force for our new nation? I am sure you would want to leave the public works and such to the private sector but what about the military?

[RedShirtArmy]

I personally prefer the sort of arrangement that our Founders created - voluntary militias. We are a heavily armed people. No one would invade us even without a miltiary because they couldn't successfully occupy us with all our guns. With voluntary militias & private defense contractors we could easily defend ourselves & not risk imperialism. Our militias beat the British Empire. Today rag tag militias in parts of the Middle East are doing well against the Feds, showing the power of militias.

[Joseph565112]

Well, to be fair, the Patriot militias had a lot of help. From the general tactics of the British that prohibited them from really being able to engage the militias to a lot of foreign intervention aiding them. I mean our Southland and the Middle-East are a testament to that fact that they can cause damage and indeed even obtain some objectives. However, the FEDs still occupied Dixie and they do occupy the Middle-East. I just don't feel comfortable leaving Dixie in the hands of a bunch of kids.

[RedShirtArmy]

The defense of our land will fall to our people no matter what sort of system we employ. We can either employ one where money is stolen from everyone & then used to build a single force OR we can defend our own land as free people without depending on theft - the way I prefer & what I consider a much more moral way.

[Joseph565112]

Militias are one thing, I mean there are different types of militias. Like the militias that Jefferson Davis took to and supported was the traditional Home Guard. Dixie's Home Guard units were very successfull, especially in North Carolina and Georgia. However, it wasn't a complusory militia thrown together either, of just boys and their .22s and shotguns. The Home Guards were government i.e. tax payer supported too. Some of the greatest arms dealers are based in Iran and Saudi Arabia.

[Joseph565112]

I mean the mindset is just so different now a days than it was for us in the 1860s and 1770s etc. The youth of today are not as interested nor as (I hate to say it) but brave. That coupled with the advanced military technologies FEDs and others have at their disposal makes me very nervous indeed about sustaining our independence with only raw militias. Best case scenario we could hope that they behave like the German's Volkstrumm and Hitler Youth (very skilled) it still wasn't enough though...

[RedShirtArmy]

MIndsets change all the time. Secession is far more popular today than it was 10 years ago, for exmple. Technology is not an obstacle either. A band of deermined patriots in defense of their homes & family can nearly always defeat a group of mercenaries, even ones better equipped. At any rate, this is all hypothetical. I hope we never have to fight anyone. Having a well-armed populace with no arms control will certainly discourage anyone from messing with us.

[Joseph565112]

When I was in Iraq, it was common place for almost everyone to have a small arsenal in their homes. To either fight U.S. troops, or the roaming bands of Al-Qaeda "death squads" etc. I guess I would prefer at least a Home Guard style force that can successfully act preemptively and keep invaders out; not having to then worry about driving them out.

[RedShirtArmy]

These are the type of things we can certainly work out. I think we could agree to elminate the vast majority of government agencies and taxation though - and that's a good start.

[Joseph565112]

Lol, in that case everyone in the U.S. will be complaining about us taking their jobs, not China and Mexico. All types of businesses will want to flock here with a system of almost total private sector control and little regulation. If it was just little 'ol South Carolina we may be inundated with new comers. We could be like mini India.

[J1NX1337]

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."

- George Washington

[3rdRevolutionSoldier]

Very nice example of a democracy.

"To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." -Thomas Jefferson

[circlecityrabbit2004]

Great video man, like Benjamin Franklin said, "Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner, a Constitutional republic is a well armed sheep contesting the vote."

[WhyMeWhySilver]

Democracy is, "Two Wolves arguing with a Lamb over whats for lunch".

[RebelGuy95]

I like how you speak poorly of me but refuse to post it directly to me. You wouldn't be an intellectually dishonest coward now would you?

[porcupine07]

I smell a Hamiltonian in these comment pages, and it stinks to high heaven

[MaxZagar]

I'm for Swiss democracy, as there there the people can really react to issues that are not for the benefit of the local community. Read more about Swiss democracy. Link don't work here I noticed ...

[MaxZagar]

I guess peeps didn't like this comment:) However, Switzerland is a republic with totally independent cantons, including defense, tax, languages etc. Also, if peeps don't like some laws they can gather 50k peeps to have a general vote on the issue. This means that really small groups like the secessionists would really have a chance ....

[RebelGuy95]

redshirt is doing it right here. He is tying to get people motivated to join a particular movement to change the actual system.

[Luigi84289]

The feds have just taken our liberties at every turn. Ending slavery good, equality and allowing everyone to vote good, centralizing the government bad.

[axishans]

This is supposed to be a Republic: operation under Rule of Law. Even the CSA was founded as a Republic and, in fact, to ensure an American Republic might remain on this Land. They today try to parrot this "Democracy" which is just what you say it is, and is a lie! We must ensure a Republic in which individual Civil and Property rights are the ideal, not post Reconstruction Oligarchy which threatens to devolve into true Mob Rule (democracy) only to be replaced by a ready and waiting Fascist State

[Luigi84289]

the truth is by spreading democracy rather than republican ideals (not the sorry excuse for a party) it gives them the right to do whatever they. Alter the law in whatever way they want, kill people, steal from them, engage wars of conquest, as long as they get a congressional majority and can fool the people. In my honest opinion bush should be rotting in prison for life. Democracy has destroyed our once great country, madison and the other founding fathers argued ardently against it.

[GaGirlie777]

Bombshell news.... Gov. Sanford was really in Russia trying to get them to help South Carolina to secede from the nation. The Argentina things was a huge lie!!

[RedShirtArmy]

I read the article but tend to think this is sensationalism.

[803honda]

lol. i wish! but we dont need Russias help!

[Alucard1121171]

Very interesting. Though I'm divided in agreement. Yes, in a democratic system, you will always have those that lost and as a result, have no say in the matter. But, it is small minority who lose, for example voting for a tax hike on the super rich. Of course 5% is against it and going to lose out, but 95% will benefit from it. And speaking as one of the 95%, democracy is really the only way we can survive in a materialistic, capitalist society, short of bondage or servitude. So what is moral?

[RedShirtArmy]

I disagree. A very limited constitutional republic for instance where there is absolute respect for the original compact that creates the government in the first place would be compatible with a relatively free, capitalist society.

[Alucard1121171]

You raise a good point. But remember the iron law of oligarchy. There will always be a few that lead or control all the rest. My concern in said government, is that money, (correct me if I'm wrong), seems to be the only political power citizens would have. Now, is there anything to stop, (short of armed conflict rather than votes), a well funded extreme few from seizing complete control by force or bribery ? Also, how does this system adapt to the needs of the people?

[RebelGuy95]

In a representative democracy the people do have total control. Who makes up the military and police....the people. We are the electors and whether we like it or not if we want true change, not in reps but in government, we have to do it. We have to force a new constitutional convention or band together to support amendments etc. There are only 537 congressmen and hundreds of millions of us.

[DissidentDescendant]

As a Florida Cracker and an anarchist, I'm enjoying your videos more and more. Keep 'em coming. :)

There is order in anarchy. One just has to look back to our ancestors the Celts and the Native Americans.

I'm curious what your stance on anarchy is, RedShirtArmy.

Take care, Deo Vindice.

[RebelGuy95]

Well, he doesn't believe in democracy and I am sure he doesn't believe in a monarch or any other dictatorship; therefore, I believe he must be one of your fellow anarchists. How is the old People's Society of Arcos doing anyway?

[DissidentDescendant]

Hmm, I couldn't tell you, RebelGuy95. As the son of a farmer I've learned to value living independently. Socialism was never my thing and so I'm an individualist anarchist.

[RebelGuy95]

Ah, I was just kidding anyway. That group died out during WW2 and especially in the McCarthyism era of the 1950's.

[RedShirtArmy]

Depends on how you define that term. There are different sorts and lots of definitions. I like the system of our Appalachian ancestors. And I could compromise on a system like the original Articles of Confederaton. But anything more than that I just couldn't support really. Government is at best a necessary evil I think. And normally it's just thievery. I like the quote from Thomas Jefferson 'Government is best which governs least.' That sums up my feelings on it.

[DissidentDescendant]

The anarchy I have in mind is simply self-determination. Rights and liberties, not given, but held by the people.

"'That government is best which governs not at all'; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have." - Henry David Thoreau, Civil Disobediance

Thank you for your time.

[RebelGuy95]

I understand those feelings very well; even under the Articles it was a complete democracy. I am not even talking about the rather weak central government they created, absent of an executive. Even at the State level there is democracy. Any form of government costs money, obviously. Even the State legislature (i.e. a democractic body) can, does and always will vote to "steal [your] wealth"...at least some portion of it. It will do this to operate and doll out money for public works etc etc.

[RebelGuy95]

So, what I am getting now is that you are indeed okay with a democracy (like the Articles established) seeing as again, any republic is a democracy because the leaders (whoever they are) have to be elected by a popular vote. Also, that you are okay with it, so long as, they spend the money they take from you on things that you agree with....correct?

[RedShirtArmy]

No I am against taxation. I see it as nothing but theft. I do not consent to have my wealth stolen from me. If someone takes money from me they are a thief. Having an extremely limited compact of the people of an area does not mean that you agree to someone stealing from you. I don't agree that a republic is a democracy. The compact that formed Nashville is a good example of what I mean. Or the compacts in old Iceland or the Appalachian frontier.

[RebelGuy95]

Whoa, then you are going far beyond the Articles. The Articles allowed for taxation, just not be the federal government, only the States. All that is needed for a republic is a democratic system of government, where those enjoying power are elected by the populace; that is all the criteria that is needed. Now how powerful they are overall and or the subdivisional parts are is up to the Constitution or whatever guiding dicument established said republic.

[RedShirtArmy]

The Articles allowed for only a minimal tariff - which was expanded by the Republican Party and was the ultimate cause of Southern secession. A minimal tariff with a cap of say 1% I could live with. It would still be theft and immoral (and unncessary), but I could hold my nose and stand it if the people wanted it. Anything more than something extremely minimalistic like that I would have to oppose on moral grounds. Ultimately, theft is wrong and immoral and I can not support it.

[RebelGuy95]

Our current system of federal representative democracy was influenced heavily by Madison, as you well know. He was outspoken against the Southern State's wishes for such a powerful central government in the summer 1787. He argued for the bicameral system we have now so that the crucial "separation of powers" would be at least viable. As he said, "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition." This holds true in regards to government and private regulation, of any kind.

[Luigi84289]

He and other southrons like Jefferson wanted the states as the guardians of the constitution. New England wanted the feds to be their own boss and convince people to agree to concede power, once this is done though it's near impossible to get it back. The more private things are the more free. We are stuck with a government founded on 19th century self destructive principles, thanks to Lincoln's Coup.

[Luigi84289]

The more private things are the more free. We are stuck with a government founded on 19th century self destructive principles, thanks to Lincoln's Coup.

[RebelGuy95]

As I was talking with RedShirt about, and he also never really disagreed, we need some government regulation in the way of consumer safety....at least. This of course will have to be tax aka consumer supported. What's the problem?

[RedShirtArmy]

In the old days roads, schools, the militia - basically everything - was private. I am for that as much as possible. If you want to build a government road first you have to steal money from people. Then award a contract to somone to build it. So it necessarily involves theft and then favouritism. I can not support that. I realise that is a radical position and we may have to get there in steps. But our ultimate goal should be not to be molested by government.

[RebelGuy95]

So who would (if anyone) regulate private business, at least to a degree? I mean people in general make up governments, business leaders etc and people are greedy and put profit before safety, as seen in the late 19th century with meat packing plants. Independent regulatory commissions are needed to keep products safe for consumers, these things are tax supported. Are you saying that we don't need these safeguards?

[RedShirtArmy]

People in general don't make up governements. Cliches of the powerful do. Business leaders are not any more 'greedy' than anyone else. Markets are self-regulating. I totally disagree with your sentiments here. I am indeed saying that we don't need coerced violence and thievery. I recommend reading Ludwig Von Mises as well as Henry Hazzlit's wonderful book 'Economics in One Lesson' for answers to your questions here.

[RebelGuy95]

The private sector and governments are made of humans though. Both are utterly corrupted when given to much clout. We can not afford the risks of allowing one total market control, especially in regards to consumer safety and heavily used public works, like transportation. The national government, State government, local governments etc, it does not matter who but someone has to check the private sector and through State initiatives and referendums we the People must check the government/s.

[RedShirtArmy]

I disagree. We can not afford to afford the risk of allowing a monopoly of violence and taxation (government) to be given such clout. Voluntary, private commerce and relations is far more moral and less dangerous that government decree.

[RebelGuy95]

I am just so confused now. I am trying to understand what mean here because I like hearing fellow Southerners point of view on the reforms that we do indeed need (regardless of how extreme or light). So far (to my understanding) you haven't denied the need for at least some government regulation on products, in particular, foods and medicines at tax payer aka consumer expense. So are these regulatory commissions the only things that the small tax you would consent to should be spent on or not?

[RedShirtArmy]

I'm sorry if I have been confusing. This is probably because I am against taxation and regulation on moral grounds but would consent to a tiny degree of it if we were independent - until the people could be convinced it is unncessary. The small tax I would consent to would probably pay for judges not for regulators, a standing military, roads, etc. That said, on moral grounds I totally object to taxation as theft. So I am willing to compromise a tiny bit, but consider it horrid on principle.

[RebelGuy95]

Well, judges are in essence part of the regulating process. Reviewing laws and rules etc to determine if they are indeed lawful. Also, to hand down a sentence to those in need of punishment, like that company in Georgia that knowingly sold rancid peanut butter that actually killed people. I don't know about some things but I know I would consent to some taxation in exchange for some safety, even if it has to come in the form of regulation. I mean, it was immoral to sell tainted food goods.

[RedShirtArmy]

I'm speaking of judges simply to decide property rights (which includes criminal acts), not to interprate (hopefully non-existant) restrictions on Natural Rights. You may be willing to give up your money for government-provided security. I am not. So, the question comes down to this - are you willing to imprison or do violence against me simply because I am unwilling to give up my funds? If so, that's not the sort of society I want to live in. Stealing is immoral - no matter who does it.

[RedShirtArmy]

Your example of 'tainted food' is fraud. That is a form of stealing - a violation of property rights. A judge could decide that and private groups could 'regulate' resturants and grocery stores as they do in many cases right now on a voluntary basis. It would take forever to explain every detail of this sort of voluntary regulation to you. I recommend reading Hans Hoppe, Von Mises, Hazzlit and Bastiat for more info. I used to think much like you until I studied these folks. Check them out.

[RebelGuy95]

Well, I will do that indeed. No, I wouldn't hurt you. However, in a system that does already utilize such a process, I would hardly think it or see fair for you to reap the rewards of whatever safety is provided by my and others tax dollars supporting these agencies. Therefore, I do not know what you will do about food or medicine; because every store and pharmacy is supposed to concede with outlined safety regulations. So you may have to be totally self sufficient here, although that's not bad

[Luigi84289]

I agree, the problem here is that most people don't realize that power is blind and deaf. It is raw. Your security is another mans insecurity. When a new involuntary tax is implemented you are saying that it's okay for the feds to shoot somebody at the extreme if they don't pay. People don't realize that we don't need the feds to be happy, we did fine for thousands of years before centralized regimes were even instituted.

[Luigi84289]

exactly people will buy what people need and sell what they need to sell. The government has fooled everybody into thinking we need some all powerful rightous hand (as if they were god) or the farmers are going to somehow forget how to go to market and sell and buyers are going to lose all common sense and forget how to hand the farmer money. Survival is mans most primary instinct.

[RebelGuy95]

No, republic means a government where the populace chooses representative leaders through voting. Also, a government that is made up of an elected body etc. What? Lol. The Articles were too a democracy. At the State level, which is all that is relevant because the central government is established was weak beyond belief; it was more or less just there for show. Nobody said that people wouldn't simply exchange a good for a service etc. However, things have changed. We don't grow all of our food.

[Luigi84289]

I said that it had democratic principles. It has to. My point was that the foundation of the government is supposed to be concrete. Not like today were anybody can change it or ingore it at the drop of a hat. From 1789 - 1860 there were only 2 articles added both were clarifications on the constitutions original intent. Look how many we've had from 1860-1960. One banned booze, how is it the feds right to choose what we can drink? and don't even get me started on the war on drugs.

[RebelGuy95]

A republic is a democracy. Anyone of us can get elected to the senate or house. Anyone of us, even right now, can draw up an amendment; we just need a member of congress to introduce it. Therefore, it would be easier to get one passed if we were the representative or senator but still. Yes, and it was a blunder so they passed another to do away with prohibition. As per drugs, I don't know about that one. Meth for example, it has caused horrific crimes and I fine with DC saying NO to using it.

[Luigi84289]

The articles werent a democracy. In a republic you go by the law. The founding document is the essence of the society. We are all deceived in this aspect by the school system. There are democratic principles yes like voting and whatnot, but these arent supposed to have an impact on the law of the land. Republic literally means the law.

[ExecutorJoe]

very well said

[TheSouthernGentleman]

So we should have a republic right?

[RebelGuy95]

A republic is a democracy. It is a "representative democracy" typically governed by constitution or some other so-called "supreme law of the land" There are several forms of democracy, we currently utilize "representative democracy" as per our founders wishes. There are even several forms of representative democracy, when you break down the types of federalism you can use. RedShirt is against all of it, I guess. Like I said before, the kinda blew me over; I did not know he was against it all.

[RebelGuy95]

Huh, I guess I didn't have you pegged correctly, I didn't know you were an anarchist. Glad to see you're feeling better by the way.

[RedShirtArmy]

I wouldn't use the word 'anarchy' to describe my views. I could compromise with a very, very limited constitutional republic for instance like the Articles of Confederation (the 1st US constitution).

Thanks, I'm feeling much better.

[DissidentDescendant]

Many people tend to think that anarchy is completely chaotic. However, anarchy simply means "No Kings", which I'm sure you know.

As Southrons and human beings we are very capable of running ourselves and defending a code like the Articles of Confederation to defend our freedoms without a state doing so for us.

As you said, anarchy is a broad term with countless interpretations.

[nbenicewicz]

I think I get what you are saying, I guess a Democratic form of government isn't the answer and a Republican form of government is the answer. Right?

[RedShirtArmy]

Well, an extremely limited republic is what our ancestors had in mind when they got independence from the British. The smaller the government and the less power it has to steal our wealth and kill people the better, I would say. As Thomas Jefferson said 'Government is best which governs least.'

[Moonshiner41]

awesome commentary PP, most Southerners are brainwashed to think that democracy is a symbol of freedom and liberty, you have a hell of a way with words, we need more Southern Patriots like you, man.

[RedShirtArmy]

Thanks Moonshiner. There's nothing free about democracy. Preciate it, man. Take it easy.

[Moonshiner41]

no problem my friend, im talking to you from Myrtle Beach in your home state, i know the SC coastline is full of yankee invaders, but at least you know there is one Southron Patriot enjoying your wonderful state. i love it almost as much as my mountains in KY.

[ThaNorthFace]

I'm in C-way ;]

and yeah horry county is mostly yankees now it seems.

[sparkywundermutt1]

Many, MANY people in this country of ours are afraid to speak or even THINK these truths to which you just referred. I applaud your fortitude and appreciate the time you expend making videos (among other things) about what is TRULY right and not what is shamelessly promoted as right.

Yet ANOTHER 5 star video......you sir are on a roll.

[RedShirtArmy]

Thanks mostly kindly, Sparky. I certainly appreciate it. Stay strong

[RiverBirch1967]

Btw, I think we are "best friends" with China. We owe them HOW much? And why won't other countries import our grains? Because we are poisoning ourselves, that is why. For what? Money, that is what.

[RedShirtArmy]

Money is not the problem. We don't even have real money. We have Federal scraps of green paper that is completely worthless as a commodity. The problem is not hte Chinese - it's the Federal Reserve.

[RiverBirch1967]

So what are the Chinese banking on? That we actually HAVE money in the Federal Reserve?

[RedShirtArmy]

Well we are their biggest customers - although that is less and less true every year. Their internal and foreign markets will soon make us not all that necessary. Then they'll have to decide if they should continue to buy up our debt and give us all the things they build for our worthless scraps of green paper. I think they'll shortly decide to stop that.

[RiverBirch1967]

Good shirt example. (btw, little brother, keep that beard, the girls will love it). But you are right about the shirt..... I would be arrested if I shot you for that shirt!

[RedShirtArmy]

Thanks, River. Hope all is well in your part of the world. Take care.

[RiverBirch1967]

Sorry, it's not my duty in life to embarrass you. LOL. I know this is a serious forum.

[RedShirtArmy]

Good quote. Very true.

[edAVP1138]

Democracy = Slavery/Tyranny.

[RedShirtArmy]

Yep. That's the truth.

[jahaja666]

True, one of the dangers of democracy is that it can lead to the 'tyranny of the majority.' Which is why some rights should be inalienable regardless of the democratic process. Democracy is far from perfect and has been romanticized, probably because it is a western concept and is supposed to be a foundation of our society.

[RedShirtArmy]

'Far from perfect' indeed. It's criminal.

[RedShirtArmy]

Thanks man.

[RedShirtArmy]

Well this should be highly controversial! lol Hope it gets some folks thinking. I had fun making it. Y'all take care.