arnold exposed! learn all about your future (if not your next) president!

oh i agree its definatly not feasible just musing . im not an anarcist but it sounded pretty good a long time ago

Government of any kind is tyranny. If your against tyranny, then your against government. If you claim a little tyranny is ok, then your opening the door for more and more tyranny which eventualy leads to a dictatorship of some kind. You can't put a little tyranny in a glass case and say that's it, that's all we will allow. That is why all forms of government eventualy slip into becoming some sort of tyrannical beast. Once the people give them the power of force, or they take it, then laws are made. Laws are the promise of force if not followed. It's not so much the people as it is the flawed systems that lets people abuse them. People will allways be human. With that comes all the good things, but it also brings the bad things with it to. If the system doesn't consider the bad nature of humans in the limits set on it, then it will be abused by humans. If you can't block people from abusing something because you can't foresee all the ways it can be abused, then maybe it's best not to have that something at all.

"anarchy though...what's to stop your neighbor from stealing your car? or killing you?"

A shot gun!!! What's to stop him from doing those things now? Would you suddenly feel like killing and stealing if there was no law? Granted some would. Some do it now though, and the laws do nothing to stop it. The cops are there later only to pick up the pieces after it's over anyway. If someone is bent on killing, no law will stop them.

Toker

that's the most ridiculous thing i've ever read.

THE HOBGOBLINS OF ANARCHY AND DISSENSIONS AMONG THE STATES
The evils of anarchy have been portrayed with all the imagery of language in the growing colors of eloquence; the affrighted mind is thence led to clasp the new Constitution as the instrument of deliverance, as the only avenue to safety and happiness. To avoid the possible and transitory evils of one extreme, it is seduced into the certain and permanent misery necessarily attendant on the other. A state of anarchy from its very nature can never be of long continuance; the greater its violence the shorter the duration. Order and security are immediately sought by the distracted people beneath the shelter of equal laws and the salutary restraints of regular government; and if this be not attainable, absolute power is assumed by the one, or a few, who shall be the most enterprising and successful. If anarchy, therefore, were the inevitable consequence of rejecting the new Constitution, it would be infinitely better to incur it, for even then there would be at least the chance of a good government rising out of licentiousness. But to rush at once into despotism because there is a bare possibility of anarchy ensuing from the rejection, or from what is yet more visionary, the small delay that would be occasioned by a revision and correction of the proposed system of government is so superlatively weak, so fatally blind, that it is astonishing any person of common understanding should suffer such an imposition to have the least influence on his judgment; still more astonishing that so flimsy and deceptive a doctrine should make converts among the enlightened freemen of America, who have so long enjoyed the blessings of liberty. But when I view among such converts men otherwise pre-eminent it raises a blush for the weakness of humanity that these, her brightest ornaments, should be so dimsighted to what is self-evident to most men, that such imbecility of judgment should appear where so much perfection was looked for. This ought to teach us to depend more on our own judgment and the nature of the case than upon the opinions of the greatest and best of men, who, from constitutional infirmities or particular situations, may sometimes view an object through a delusive medium; but the opinions of great men are more frequently the dictates of ambition or private interest. The source of the apprehensions of this so much dreaded anarchy would upon investigation be found to arise from the artful suggestions of designing men, and not from a rational probability grounded on the actual state of affairs. The least reflection is sufficient to detect the fallacy to show that there is no one circumstance to justify the prediction of such an event. On the contrary a short time will evince, to the utter dismay and confusion of the conspirators, that a perseverance in cramming down their scheme of power upon the freemen of this State [Pennsylvania] will inevitably produce an anarchy destructive of their darling domination, and may kindle a flame prejudicial to their safety. They should be cautious not to trespass too far on the forbearance of freemen when wresting their dearest concerns, but prudently retreat from the gathering storm. The other specter that has been raised to terrify and alarm the people out of the exercise of their judgment on this great occasion, is the dread of our splitting into separate confederacies or republics, that might become rival powers and consequently liable to mutual wars from the usual motives of contention. This is an event still more improbable than the foregoing. It is a presumption unwarranted, either by the situation of affairs, or the sentiments of the people; no disposition leading to it exists; the advocates of the new constitution seem to view such a separation with horror, and its opponents are strenuously contending for a confederation that shall embrace all America under its comprehensive and salutary protection. This hobgoblin appears to have sprung from the deranged brain of Publius, [The Federalist] a New York writer, who, mistaking sound for argument, has with Herculean labor accumulated myriads of unmeaning sentences, and mechanically endeavored to force conviction by a torrent of misplaced words. He might have spared his readers the fatigue of wading through his long-winded disquisitions on the direful effects of the contentions of inimical states, as totally inapplicable to the subject he was professedly treating; this writer has devoted much time, and wasted more paper in combating chimeras of his own creation. However, for the sake of argument, I will admit that the necessary consequence of rejecting or delaying the establishment of the new constitution would be the dissolution of the union, and the institution of even rival and inimical republics; yet ought such an apprehension, if well founded, to drive us into the fangs of despotism? Infinitely preferable would be occasional wars to such an event. The former, although a severe scourge, is transient in its continuance, and in its operation partial, but a small proportion of the community are exposed to its greatest horrors, and yet fewer experience its greatest evils; the latter is permanent and universal misery, without remission or exemption. As passing clouds obscure for a time the splendor of the sun, so do wars interrupt the welfare of mankind; but despotism is a settled gloom that totally extinguishes happiness. Not a ray of comfort can penetrate to cheer the dejected mind; the goad of power with unabating rigor insists upon the utmost exaction; like a merciless taskmaster, [it] is continually inflicting the lash, and is never satiated with the feast of unfeeling domination, or the most abject servility. The celebrated Lord Kaims, whose disquisitions of human nature evidence extraordinary strength of judgment and depth of investigation, says that a continual civil war, which is the most destructive and horrible scene of human discord, is preferable to the uniformity of wretchedness and misery attendant upon despotism; of all possible evils, as I observed in my first number, this is the worst and the most to be dreaded. I congratulate my fellow citizens that a good government, the greatest earthly blessing, may be so easily obtained, that our circumstances are so favorable, that nothing but the folly of the conspirators can produce anarchy or civil war, which would presently terminate in their destruction and the permanent harmony of the state, alone interrupted by their ambitious machinations.

CENTINEL

http://www.cnsnews.com/Library/antifederalist/af06.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pisshead

that's because you're a product of government training camps. you're a good global citizen now, and have been dumbed down.

you've probably never even read the , in its entirety.

and i hope you enjoy socialism, because you're about to pay out the ass for it.

and you should check out hilary's voting record. she likes george bush's big government tyranny policies more than you realize.

---

Lol i have been dumbed down? You are a jesus lover from texas and one of those fat red faced morons who jumps up and down about socialism. What socialist nations have you visited bubba? Since you are from texas i will take a wild guess and say none. You are white trash, you know that right?
I dont care how much you jerk off to the constitution, its garbage, and all you constitution lovers are morons. Embrace socialism little hick boy, try goint to university and getting educated. Alex Jone isnt teaching you anything except you cant win, left and right are all the same. Sounds defeatest to me.

i'm a jesuslover? really? actually, i'm not a christian, and don't affiliate myself with any religion really...

socialism, yeah...what a wonderful history of socialism. you want to be ruled is basically what you're saying.

defeatist? both sides are for the police state. you can't even see past 2 sides, left and right. you can't even comprehend the notion of 3rd and 4th and 5th party candidates, anything that isn't left or right.

if anything, the founders told us that gridlock is good in government, you need it. but our government, left and right have just greased the wheels, they all vote for the war and the patriot act. i look at actions and voting records, not the rhetoric of our 'officials', not this false left/right delusion that media has obviously sold you. it's why there were the anti-federalist papers...it stops anything major from happening if there's a bombardment of open discussion about things...not just rubberstamping the erosion of the constitution, which comes along with your lovely socialism. you also get some fascism thrown in there too, because they work hand in hand to screw you.

you're crying for the socialism, and others are crying for the fascism, and you're both getting your wish, while the rest of us weirdo 'other party' people suffer right along.

limiting yourself to two sides, up and down, left or right, call it what you want, is defeatist.

i did graduate college, and i got a pretty decent job in the field i went to school for. so i'm content, thanks.

"socialism, yeah...what a wonderful history of socialism. you want to be ruled is basically what you're saying. "

So what is it your saying when you say you like a constitutional republic? I'll tell ya what your saying, your saying you want to be ruled.

"defeatist? both sides are for the police state."

Where did that police state start PH? Where did the original power extend from?

"if anything, the founders told us that gridlock is good in government, you need it. but our government, left and right have just greased the wheels, they all vote for the war and the patriot act."

A long time ago a bunch of guys voted on a similer piece of paper that greased the wheels of federal tyranny. Can you guess which one it was?

"i look at actions and voting records, not the rhetoric of our 'officials', not this false left/right delusion that media has obviously sold you."

I see! So it's the system that's the problem. How do you plan to fix it PH?

"i did graduate college, and i got a pretty decent job in the field i went to school for. so i'm content, thanks."

You work for Alex Jones!!!!

Toker

yes, you're right! it's the constitution that's the problem. that's why the government has to destroy it to become the dictatorship, not follow its laws.

if you're saying we'd be in the same position with an honest government that stayed in its boundaries, i think that's not true.

not even close.

Show me a spot in history where humans have been honest? Utopia doesn't exist. Hell, all governments would work if the people running them were honest. If the system has to rely on honest humas to work, then it is a flawed system doomed to be abused.

Toker

The link in the first post is a total crock...a fabric of twisted reports and out and out falisehoods.
Arnold is actually looking like one of the best governors yet, He is NOT a lockstep Republican by any means, opposes them on articles like birth control and...importantly...drug laws. He's a smart guy who can weild power. Above all he isn't an asshole lawyer dirtied by years of politics. He's more like Eastwood...a guy who steps into government to right wrongs and content to step back out when it's over. Republicans are nervous about him because he isn't completely with their program...yet he is actually dragging the party on his coat tails rather than vice versa. As politicos go, he's pretty cool. Don't let a bunch of psychos twist your panties up on this one.