Whereas I may believe that most of your agenda is positive, I’m not happy about being herded into a three choice corner about drugs. As a libertarian (note the little “l”) I don’t support the prohibition from government of just about anything, giving some exception for totally foreign concepts which don’t find any room under the constitutional umbrella (Sharia, for example, or even Babylonian Talmud, FCS). I believe that the personal use of mind-deadening substances is foolish, perhaps even suicidal, but when power sources (government, e.g.) become involved it becomes a game of money and power, not morals. Every government intrusion into the personal is for the sake of power and money, not the “welfare” of the citizen. When will the numb nuts finally figure that out?
Were our government to dissolve all bureaucratic controls, dump all these worthless pencil pushing desk sitters, the government would be as the constitution ordered – small, efficient, benign, and doing what it should concerning the defense of our borders. AND, we’d need not have income tax, either, would we? (of course, it would also have to dump all those executive “Secretaries,” which the constitution never allowed. The “cabinet” has too much crap in it. Time for a yard sale, or a trip to the dump.
More than one person has suggested they don’t like the number of choices. But very interestingly, no one has, SIMULTANEOUSLY, suggested what should take it’s place WHILE adhering to the limited, single subject of drug prohibition. There is only one topic at stake here. It’s not, for example, constitutional government, Big Pharma drugs, or even other forms of prohibition. Other one topic surveys will be published VERY soon. The question here is, “I ___________ Drug Prohibition.” Do you support or oppose? We have kept ourselves open to suggestions.
Hi William. I want to add to Jim’s comment. It seems as if you agree that The State should not prohibit drug use, but that you also think that people should nevertheless refrain from using drugs. If so…
The deficiency you may see in our design is a place to state that second belief. We hope to provide this in the future by creating a comments section. This would allow you to use the slider to affirm that you do NOT think The State should prohibit drug use while then using the comment section to state that you yourself still believe drug use is bad, and should be argued against.
I hope I have understood your concern and that this new comment feature will meet that concern once we’re able to add it to our system.
Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts. We appreciate it.
Of course participation in “Social Security” should extend to everyone, tho I would prefer to call it a “citizens dividend.” It should NOT be funded by any tax on income earned by labor or use of capital goods. Rather, it should be funded by collection of rent for natural resources, such as the electromagnetic spectrum and offshore oil. The Alaska Permanent Fund is a small step in this direction for residents of that state.
Sounds attractive taxpayer. Alas, I doubt those revenue sources would be equal to the need.
I think you’re right. In my faith tradition, it is the responsibility of a parent to care for children when they are young, and the children’s responsibility to care for parents when they are old. If we did not have to pay in to the Ponzi scheme that is Social Security, that task would be made far easier. It would be far more sane to take taxpayer’s approach, and leave the care of most of the elderly to their children. The rest could be cared for by friends, other family, or the faith community. The statist system we have currently is a problem in two ways: it removes responsibility from those who should have it, (family, friends, faith community) and places it with those who should not. ( heartless, faceless state agencies)
Fortunately (unfortunately) social security, medicare, and all the other federal schemes to relocate wealth through confiscation are totally unconstitutional. They make our “Republic” into a dictatorship, in that there is a confiscatory tax required to be paid at threat of incarceration; all for the sake of reimbursing the less fortunate for subsidized health care and retirement. We live(d) in a nation where we are (were) subject only to our own resourcefulness, and ability. And then came the big influx of folks from central Europe, where socialization had become a way of life. You can figure out what happened next. Just remember – for every bureaucrat there is a salary, a retirement, and continued expense, beyond by far the worth of their work. If the government gets involved, the cost multiplies. Somebody must pay for this inefficiency, and you know who that is.
I want my money back (plus interest and inflation factor) to do with as I please. Dump the Ponzi, the bureaucracy, and the vote buying, and let us run our own lives. Were we to do this, we’d need very little in the taxation department. (Of course the biggest Ponzi is the Federal Reserve/IRS money laundering scam).
I have just signed up to receive the email blog from time to time. — I eagerly await the first one.
OPINION: – So far the ZAP Website has all the trappings of lots of layout thought and thoroughness. HOWEVER: I am still searching for ‘intellectual Content”.
In the mold of Tom Wood, Lew, Ron Paul, Hans Hermann Hoppe, and all the thinkers, I was hoping to find a two way street here where Libertarianism is constantly argued and debated and all its ideas thrashed out.
I am not sure Libertarians comprehend that they have not come close to presenting a coherent Political, Ethical or Moral “operations Manual”.for its followers. They also seem to have failed in their evangelism. I have not yet meet a single outsider who has even rudimentary understanding of what Libertarianism is. I get lots of totally incoherent opinions.
I am not sure Libertarians themselves know of any doctrine other than NAP and the Golden Rule. These two alone are insufficient to conduct a life, and far short for a meaningful discussion on the standard Sex, Religion, and Politics,
Tom Woods tries hard to present views which he implies are Libertarian. Fortunately for the cause, he is a brilliant intellectual and is credible.
This site is going to have to do some serious thinking if it wants to become what it is trying to purport
Thank you for joining us. FWIW, our site is not a debaters playground or movement quality-control center. We leave that to others. We are trying to reground and popularize a philosophy on governance. And our bailiwick is almost confined to governance-related matters. We don’t see libertarianism as a philosophy that has much to offer on “how to conduct life.” It’s about one thing you’re NOT supposed to do. The aesthetic variances from there are wonderfully wide. Pornographers and pastors can be libertarians, and everyone in-between or without. YOU ARE FREE!
I just contributed answers to questions on my comment with regard to voting. I made two errors. How do I edit?
I’m trying to figure out how you, as a user, edit a comment.
Here’s a minor whine, one that I actually have with many websites. When I attempt to print the receipt for a donation, the top of the page is all that is important, but invariably a second, nearly blank page is printed. A page which has no value in relation to the receipt I’m printing out. Have your website manager ensure that printing the receipt page prints ONLY one sheet of paper.
I like the mental levers: they are wise, concise and understandable.
I wish I could present a solution to my problem, but I’m not really the creative type. I have several times posted your ‘Mental Levers” to my facebook, but no one ever likes them or comments on them so I’m guessing no one reads them even though many of my friends are liberty minded (although I’d really like to get the non-liberty minded to read them). My guess is that neither the picture nor the title grabs anyone’s attention. I understand the picture of the head with the gears in it, but I don’t think its going to interest anyone enough to read the mini-article.
A case for or against Vaccine Mandates
Can McDonalds, IBM, or Google mandate you not get sick, or inject chemicals in to your body? No. Can McDonalds require that to be employed or continue employment you must report to work healthy? Yes. These are private Corporations. Joe Biden appeared on TV to announce that “employers” with 100 or more “employees” can require that they get vaccinated (injected) as a condition of employment, he may be right as we look at the legal definitions of “employer/employee” as defined in law as it only apllies to federal privileged employment. see 26USC3401(c) read carefully to see if you are an employee? If not, you do not have an employer. 80-90 % of US Co. are not employers by federal definition.
Mandatory as defined in Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Edition states: ‘A mandatory provision in a statute is one the omission to follow which renders the proceeding to which related void. It is also said that when the provision is the essence of the thing required to be done, it is mandatory’. KAVANAUGH V. FASH, C.C.A. Okla., F.2d 435, 437.
Notice that the definition does NOT require or demand anyone to do anything. The legal definition tells us that if there is a mandatory provision in a statute (the govt must follow) and the government omits to follow that required mandate, then the proceeding of the government, whether administrative,judicial or otherwise is void. It also goes on to define that the essence of the thing required to be done, is mandatory upon the government.
What does this have to do with the first paragraph? The Federal govt can mandate that G.I. (government issued property, real or personal-think person)can be required to be vaccinated as a term or condition of employment, such as, military personnel in privileged employment. Why the term “privileged”? Because working for the federal government is considered a privilege and not a right, hence, the reason it is government privileged “employment” that is required to pay income tax, as opposed to private company workers (read the IRS Codes). So, Mandatory means the govt is mandated to have legislative authority ( in statute) to perform or prohibit performance) or they do not possess such authority and are not required to be obeyed. The federal government does not possess the jurisdiction to require mandating injections. WHY? The United States incorporated in 1879 when the southern states walked out of Congress without setting a future date to reconvene, they went sine die. CORPORATIONS, BEING FICTIONS FROM WHICH NO LAW MAY ORIGINATE. “When government becomes a corporation, it ceases to be government” see Clearfield Doctrine. “Public officers are merely agents of the public, whose powers and authority are defined and limited by law. Any act without the scope of the authority so defined does not bind the principal (you), and all persons dealing with such agents are charged with knowledge of the extent of their authority” Continental Casualty Co. v. United States, 113 F.2d 284, 286(5th Circuit 1940). Ignorance of the law excuses no one…officials and judges are deemed to know the law and sworn to uphold the law, they certainly cannot plead ignorance of the law, the courts have ruled that there is no such thing as ignorance of the law, it is ludicrous for learned officials and judges of the law therefore there is no immunity, judicial or otherwise in matters of rights secured by the Constitution for the Unites States of America. See Owen v. City if Independence, 100 S Ct. 1398; Maine v Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502; and Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S.; Title 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. Federal law & Supreme Court cases apply to state court cases. Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356 (1990).
In as much as the Federal government, (the U.S. Incorporated) lacks authority or power to mandate anyone, do anything, other than possibly government employees involved in a trade or business, there would be no statute (or law) to mandate nor adequate remedy in law and the courts must look to equitable estoppel to provide immediate, effective, and permanent relief as remedy. In trust, g. everett
IF SOMEONE MORE PROLIFIC THAN ME WISHES TO TURN THIS INTO AMICUS BRIEF…PLEASE DO SO….YOU MAY CHECK AGAINST SUP. CRT. OPINIONS AND HOLDINGS, AS THEY ARE THE LAW OF THE LAND (ORECEDENT OVER STATUTES)
use this line: “the President has no authority or competence to practice medicine except on himself and his family.”
Fields marked with * are required