Politicians love divorcing actions from consequences–destroying checks and balances.

The recent eccontalk podcast with Collier would confirm your beliefs.

The current administrations reactions to events in Honduras makes me believe that they agree with you and Collier re: destroying checks and balances.

"Obscurants like Krugman may be the shining stars of the blogosphere to the Wall Street Journal, but to those of us outside the maintream, and way ahead of it, the guiding lights are two scholars and gentlemen named Roberts and Boudreaux at Cafe Hayek."

Control without ownership and enough funding for all sorts of social engineering.

A nice scam, isn't it?

Of course the soft drink companies get the blame for using high fructose corn syrup and "making America fat". No one ever talks about the subsidies and regulations that benefit American sugar farmers by keeping prices here artificially higher than outside our borders, making real sugar a less feasible choice. This is, however, one of the reasons you can still get naturally sweetened Coca-Cola in Mexico en masse.

Again, somehow the guilty party goes free.

Don'tcha just love politicians?

You can look in the scrap barrels of the nation's busiest slaughterhouse on its busiest day, and not find as many assholes as there are in this administration, specifically this congress, and presidency.

See the exchange between Methinks and myself at the end of the previous LIARS thread. "Those that make the law do not have to live by the law." Think how Michael Milken must feel reading the news about that insider trading.

Do we seriously think that congress or the Presidency is going to give up power?

It is no longer a question of more. They already have it all.

The element of democracy in the US political system, along with lack of infringement of at least some of the rights recognized by the first amendment, leaves open a possible peaceful legal means to remove the kleptocracy and restore constitutional rule. That fact, I think, is a testament to the wisdom of the Founders. However, there is no guarantee that the US will not become a more common state, where such peaceful means are obliterated.

It isn't the ballot box for sure. As long as that flaw sits at Art 1, Sec 5, para 2, "Each house may determine the Rules of its proceedings," then the only way to regain control is to write an amendment canceling that and make them present their plans and subject them to approval of the citizens. You might take note that those Rules of Proceedings are not exposed to examination or approval by you and I? Yet, we pretend that they work for us? Bwa ha ha ha ha! What a fu.king joke!

Yes, the founding fathers left us guidance to fixing government. I believe it was along the lines of "The tree of liberty has to be refreshed frequently with blood."

And, it is the right of the people to form a new government when this one no longer represents them, and the 2nd amendment was to give us means.

I lost my misty eyed view of this thing in D.C. once I got close enough to it to actually see how it works.

There is no actual democracy in our government, there is tyranny with populism.

Yep Congresscritters can create the committee system that allows the party in majority to deny equal representation to other than citizens of their own party. You can trace that directly back to the precise place in the Constitution I quoted above.

Yep Congresscritters can partake of the benefit of insider trading, but you and I go to jail if we try, how sweet is that? You can trace that directly to the precise place in the Constitution I quoted above.

Yep, congresscritters can retire with full salary after just one term in office. You can trace that directly…etc.

Yep congresscritters can get pay raises now by not voting. You can trace that directly to….etc..

Yep, congresscritters can campaign at the public's cost, it's called the Franking Privilege. you can trace that directly to….etc..

Need I go on? I don't think so, even though I have not even began to cover all the abuses of power allowed by that one little flaw.

Two ways to do it.

First is dangerous and it consists of simply refusing. Refusing to give them a dime no matter what threats they bring or what actions they bring. go to court, go to jail, let them take productive people off the street and then have to feed, house and clothe them. That kind of stupidity isn't cheap. Enough people denying them money will bring it to a halt and no one has to form armies, prepare to die in mass numbers, or have to fire upon kids you helped raise who happen to be in uniform.

I think the first needs to be tried. I do not expect it to ever happen, there are simply too many gutless people in America, but it should be tried, so that it can be shown that "the people" exhausted every peaceful means.

The second I believe I don't have to voice.

While I agree with your disillusionment of our current federal government I just want to add a word of caution. Revolution is not a pretty thing. It will be (if it every truly happens) VERY ugly and VERY deadly. Most of the Founders lost everything because of the their stance and they knew this going in. That is why they pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor.

While I am not opposed to the idea of such an undertaking – it can become necessary as our Founding Fathers recognized – I think many entertain romantic visions of revolution. Think of it this way, when things are so bad that you are willing to die to institute real change, or more importantly you are willing to risk the future of your children for the sake of your grandchildren (if they ever come about) then revolution is the answer. Until then, we must labor under the slower but peaceful methods provided within the US Constitution.

Don't take this as nasty or snarky, just plain talk.

I think that neither Crusader or I were ignorant of our founding history. I can't speak for Crusader but I know that I am well aware of what an actual armed revolution would be like.

I have seen my share up close, thank you very much.

Now to the meat, could you point me to the particular Article, Sec, and paragraph where this peaceful method is in the constitution? Give us a quote of the precise Constitutional wording, please.

Gil has it right. I mean that until life becomes so abhorrent or that encroachments on our liberties so severe we should strive to use education, persuasion, and the amendment process to fix our system. I like amendments that would eliminate "safe" districts by using shortest-line districting (existing municipal boundaries), removing the regulations that give incumbents such a huge advantage, limiting the growth of the federal gov't, rediscovering the limits of the commerce clause, and repealing the 16th and 17th amendments. All of these things are ways we can create change without the death necessary for a revolution.

Not intending to play one-ups-manship here but I too have lived war. I waged war as an infantryman for this country for over 2 years combined combat duty. I have no regrets about what I did and sleep soundly. The thing that gives me pause about a revolution here is not that I might die but that I might have to kill another American, particularly a soldier or police officer, who will be following orders from the statists. That would haunt me.

All of this aside, our problem right now is that a majority of the American people simply don't care. They would oppose any attempts at revolution (because that might interrupt the next episode of whatever) and they simply cannot be bothered with amendments or the like. Political apathy is our greatest obstacle right now in the United States of Entertainment. I'm afraid things must get much worse before they can get any better.

There are real people who desire and vote for the policies that this blog spot argues against, and these people outnumber you. My advice is not to get yourself thrown in jail by doing foolish things.

Contrary to what most here might think, our parents grew up in a much more authoritarian society than we are now, and the same was true for their parents before them, and so on. The devices of authority in the past were mainly cultural rather than political. These have dwindled away leaving people freer than ever. Some of the authority has been replaced by leviathan government, and it is mainly money (property) that the great political tug of war is about.

The wise method of revolt is to devise ways of hiding money.

"There is just one slight problem with the liberal-socialist-conservative position.

It very largely depends on the assumption that taking from the rich to give to the poor reduces income inequality, and, it doesn't, it increases it."

That's how to revolt.

Those people sure are liberals, like Hitler and Stalin were liberals.