Mike, I think you are making a distinction between forced altruism and voluntary charity.  As indispensable as morality is, it cannot be legislated.  An immoral people will always end up enslaved, no matter the statutes passed — it is an inevitable consequence of natural law.

In a free society, I can say 'this is mine.'  In statist societies, the State lays claim to what is mine — it is theirs first, then they will decide what I may keep.  Socialism/Communism lays claim to everything as 'theirs' and distributes it according to what they say you need.

It is the property-less that most clamor for socialism, even though in America, all can own property.  But those roped in by welfare schemes and easy 'credit' (debt) remain perpetually indentured, and rather than breaking free, they want everyone else to be indentured, too — after all, it is only 'fair.'

Ice Ages are marked for their low CO2 levels.  The climate has been 'warming' for the last 20,000+ years.  CO2 levels have been 4x higher and life flourished.  Let's not confuse CO2 with pollution, nor discount the fact that CO2 has a tiny contribution to the 'greenhouse effect' — water vapor and cloud formations affect global temperatures magnitudes higher that CO2. 

All we need do is look to the proposed solutions to see the con — higher taxes, carbon credits, reduced American production levels, economic losses, more money-printing, and increased power for governments — all furthering authoritarian socialist outcomes while the politburo gets rich.  Anyone with eyes can see it.

Thanks, Ken, for an insider's honest perspective of what many of us on the outside have noticed.  The claims of 'experts' most often go unchallenged, and the counter arguments of others in the field are usually censored or ignored to keep the gravy train rolling and the State's usurpation marching on.

This didn't age well...

Never has this been made more clear than today!

The juggling match is easily resolved when we put things in their proper context.  For example, the 1st amendment is a limitation on what the government can legislate regarding religion, the press and speech. 

There actually is no 'freedom of speech' — no one is free from the consequences of what they think, say, or do, only that the government has not been given the 'power' to regulate speech.  However, if words or actions violate another's rights like causing harm or injury, the act can be adjudicated in a court of common law.

Yes, we are 'free' but not free from consequences of violations of the laws of nature — and the 'common law' is an attempt to adjudicate according to our best understanding of the laws of nature and of nature's God (Mike says it better than I do 😎).

The principle intent of a republican form of government is to protect the liberty and property of the people from a government playing God.

The 'truth' is not broadcast — it must be sought for earnestly, starting with being honest with oneself.  That is what leads to true awakening.  'Know the truth, and the truth will make you free.'

Apparently our diversion from the ideals of Independence began a long time ago — how far we have diverted from the freedom and independence bequeathed to us by the Founders. 

Yet, I've travelled the world, and I have not witnessed within any other country the degree of freedom and diversity of opinion as there is in America.  We haven't lost it yet, and it appears that this is a perpetual process that each generation must take upon itself to further.

Mike's distinction not withstanding, our 'rights' are inherent, and our 'powers' are limited only by our abilities.  Rightful power would be power exercised in accord with our rights.

When chartering a republican form of government, the 'powers' of the government come from the rights of the people who have chartered it.  Since power is prone to abuse when the ability to exercise power contrary to the 'rights' to it is left unopposed, a system of checks and balances is incorporated so that power is distributed across categories and classes.  Without that, the possession of power becomes centralized and unchecked; thus the maxim, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The Constitution is no more a 'living' document than is any other contract.  The Constitution is a 'charter' agreed upon by the signatories to it.  It is the rule book for the government's existence — only powers granted to it are 'lawful.' 

The Bill of Rights are amendments to that charter that clarify even further the restrictions imposed upon the government.  The Bill of Rights grants no rights but explicitly limits what the government may do.  Changes to the Constitution must adhere to the amendment process.

As Einstein has stated, the strength of the Constitution is dependent upon the 'living' to defend it.

This makes the distinction between Common Law and Commercial Law.  In common law, cases are adjudicated on the basis of a violation of one's rights by another.  In commercial law (colorable law or equity law), cases are adjudicated on the basis of the rules (regulations) that apply to contracts or agreements and any violation of those terms.  I am bound to keep the promises I have made in a commercial agreement, but I cannot be forced into a contract without my consent.

The coopting of the common law jurisdiction by the commercial law jurisdiction binds the common man to its reams and reams of regulations by treating humans as commercial entities thus subject to those rules. 

This is why I often say 'Americans don't know who they are.'  The false premise that we are born into subservience to the State (i.e. collective) is at the very heart of the transformation of a free nation into a statist tyranny.

I do not refute being born into a group — like an 'American.'  My argument is against the notion that being an 'American' imposes any responsibilities upon me against my will.  My responsibilities as an American are the same as my responsibilities as a freeman — imposed upon me only by the Laws of Nature, not the fact that I belong to a group.  I am free to act in opposition to the laws of nature but not without consequences self-enforced by nature itself.

When a group or collective create their own rules that everyone in the group must follow (like in a corporation or a club), I am bound only by my own agreement to follow them as a condition of membership.  If I am Shanghaied into the group without my consent, like a slave chained to a ship or born into a communist country like China, my 'duty' to be a slave is imposed upon me — and that is tyrannical.

If the "bad news" is that I have been born a slave and thus duty-bound to the collective, you are making the argument that Americans have already lost their freedom, so get with the bloody program, I reject that outright as 'Hogwash.'

OK, so 'groupthink' is no different than collectivist thought.  A cooperative unit or organization is again a voluntary association — if it has been 'imposed' upon me, it's not cooperative but communistic (i.e. authoritarian). 

The point is that an act of conscience is an act of the individual.  Sure, each of us have been impressed upon by others, but in the end, my conscience is min,e and I am responsible for any forms of its expression — I do not have responsibilities imposed upon me by the collective.  The Laws of Nature still apply, which are not a product of the collective, and they are immutable by a group or an individual.

That is quite the 'take' on a quote you agree with... I don't think that is what Hesse is talking about.

Let us remember that a minority can control a majority to crush the weaker opposition.  Democracy inevitably becomes the rule of an elite minority over all using the subservient masses to crush dissent from individuals acting in their own sovereign capacity.  Collectivism is the herd that crushes out the individual.

The choices have been rigged for a long time.  But since Trump, the democrats don't even bother to let the people decide the nominees.  What the hell is a 'superdelegate'? Hillary, Kamala, and even dem candidates for Senate were hand-picked without anyone voting for them in primaries.  The Democrats are the most undemocratic of all!  One-party rule forever is the goal.

Trump turned the political establishment on its head.  He was picked to lose against Hillary, but the establishment got complacent and didn't cover all their bases with a few counties they were sure would vote the party line.

When Trump got elected, all hell broke loose!  And the establishment made sure the election was rigged in 2020 to kick Trump out.  The fact that Trump was able to win in 2024 against all odds just goes to show that the corrupt Deep State is on the ropes.  They so desperately need to go back to their rigged game they will do anything.  

It all proves the point: it's the COUNTING and cheating has been the way for a LONG time.

'Democracy' is the slippery slope of socialism into communism. 

There is a profound difference between a republican form of government and a 'democracy' which is but another form of statism, i.e. the supremacy of the state.  That is the real distinction, republican vs. statist government.  A republican form of government is practically illegal now, and is certainly moot if it is not enforced as per the Constitution. 

Statism is truly unlawful and unconstitutional in any of its forms from 'democratic' socialism to fascism to communism to monarchy/dictatorship.  This is why a communist can make a statement like Emma Goldman's. 

One-party rule is the end result until finally a dictatorship is established — see most recently Nicaragua for the playbook, which has just outlawed elections.  Socialism is always pointed in that direction.

Look also to 'blue' cities and states which have no republican candidates, these jurisdictions become increasingly communist — which is the strategy.  Look at NYC, LA, Seattle where communists are more popular than republicans.  This is the way of 'democracy.'

🤣 John, in your wildest dreams did you think that 16 years after your comment liberal teachers would be promoting sex changes for kids, boys dominating in girls sports, communists mayors of major cities, rampant voter fraud, 50 million more illegal immigrants — all promoted and defended by the Departments of Education everywhere?  Not to mention the in your face racism BY colored people (ahem, I mean people of color).  I shudder to think what the next 16 years will bring...

I don't think there is such a thing as 'independent monitoring' — from what I have seen, the monitors are blocked at every turn, and anyone who reports cheating is punished and ridiculed.

Well, we have seen how the 2020 election played out ... a well-coordinated coup d'etat in plain sight!  Followed by four years of a shadow government supported by a complicit media and the Deep State. 

Looking back, it's hard to believe the whole thing happened, but the entire world showed what a bunch of subservient sheep the people are, ripe for the culling.  It's the alternate ending of the Emperor Wears No Clothes — that little kid that called him out was sent to federal prison without trial for years, while the rest of the adults cheered it on.

Has enough changed to prevent the next elections from being stolen?  I seriously doubt it...

Socialism is a con, nothing but empty promises that have done nothing but centralize power into the hands of the most depraved, deluded, self-absorbed people, hand-picked by those that quietly maneuver the pieces on the board to funnel rivers of wealth and power into their secret coffers, all the while reducing a free people into servitude.  See USSR, Cuba, North Korea, China, Venezuela, Nicaragua, and now infiltrating Europe, Canada, UK, Australia, NZ, etc.. 

It's interesting that the American socialists in government became filthy rich as public servants.  Useful idiots living in a utopian bubble who haven't been to a grocery store in years, living in multimillion dollar enclaves, secure from the rabble they con out of their freedom.  Disgusting!

Reminds me of a story of a man accused of stealing a horse.  The jury wouldn't convict him because he was so well-liked.  Upon acquittal he asked the judge, "Does that mean I can keep the horse?"

The Greek city of Tyre demonstrated one of the first examples of the shortcomings of democracy — hence the word 'tyranny' from which it gets its root. 

The study of ancient Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Sumerian, etc. civilizations is indeed valuable — especially if we can glean from them what worked and what did not work. 

John Adams' Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1787 is one of the best studies on the subject.