Conference back40::soapbox

    
    	Lemmee guess....Mr. Bill isn't going to vote for Harry Brown.
    
    

    Browne.  i get a nano point.

    Doubtful.
    
    But perhaps we will be treated to the merits of Harry Browne.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    Harry Browne
    [email protected]
    
    Phone: 703-222-9189 
    Fax: 703-222-0929 
    Mail: 4094 Majestic Lane,
    Suite 240, Fairfax, VA 22033 
    
    

Harry Browne

Biographical Information

       Harry Browne is a financial advisor, the author of ten books, a
       newsletter writer, and a public speaker.

He was born in New York City in 1933 and grew up in Los Angeles. He
graduated from high school, but attended college for only two weeks.
Thereafter, he educated himself in economics, finance, music, and political
science. He has lived in Vancouver, Canada; Zurich, Switzerland; and
Northern California. He now resides in Tennessee.

He was unknown to the investment world when his first book, How You Can
Profit from the Coming Devaluation, was published in 1970. The book warned
that the dollar would be devalued; inflation would become severe; and gold,
silver, and foreign currencies would skyrocket in value. The book's message
clashed with the prevailing wisdom, but it was in tune with the concerns of
hundreds of thousands of Americans, and the book made the New York Times
best-seller list. His warnings proved to be well-founded when the dollar was
devalued twice and the recommended investments rose many times over.

       His 1974 book, You Can Profit from a Monetary Crisis, was a greater
       success yet -- staying on the New York Times best-seller list for 39
weeks and reaching #1. Its message amplified the themes in his 1970 book,
and allowed thousands of investors to profit from the turmoil of the late
1970s. He followed this book with six more big-selling investment books --
including another Times best-seller.

Meanwhile, in 1973, he had published How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World.
The book describes an individualist way of life, and continues to be in
demand today.

In all, his first nine books sold over two million copies.

Since 1974, he has been writing Harry Browne's Special Reports, a newsletter
providing opinions on the economy, politics, and investments. He is widely
respected for his honest, down-to-earth investment advice.

       Over the years he has become one of America's better-known investment
       advisors. He has been a popular public speaker since the early 1960s.
He has made appearances on the Today show, Wall $treet Week, the Cable News
Network (CNN), the Larry King show, the Financial News Network (FNN) and
other national and local radio & TV shows.

Since 1985 he has been married to the former Pamela Lanier Wolfe. He has a
grown daughter, Autumn Browne Wilson. His main non-professional interests
are classical music, opera, good food and wine, sports, drama, old movies,
and fiction.

                           Jo Jorgensen Biography

                  An Educated and Experienced Businesswoman

Jo Jorgensen is President and part owner of DigiTech, Inc., a successful
software duplication company.

Ms. Jorgensen holds an M.B.A from Southern Methodist University. She
graduated cum Laude with a degree in Psychology from Baylor University.
After earning her M.B.A., Jo worked three years as a Marketing
Representative for IBM. She left IBM to found her own company - Professional
Software, Inc., a firm that provided computer accounting systems to public
accountants.

                           An Excellent Campaigner

As the 1992 candidate for U.S. Congress in South Carolina, Jo established a
reputation as a polished campaigner, able to appeal to the young generation
of voters and political activists. "Everyone on my campaign staff for US
Congress was GenX," says Jo. "I even had high school kids out putting up
signs in remote parts of my district."

                        An Exceptional Party Activist

Jo has a long track record of Libertarian Party activism. She has served as
Vice Chair of the South Carolina LP and as a Marketing Director of the
National LP. Jo has also done petitioning for candidates in several states,
and is a popular speaker at Libertarian Party conventions.

                  An Exemplary Vice Presidential Candidate

As the LP Vice presidential candidate, Jo will be a team player, supporting
the party's presidential candidate in every way possible.

                                  Personal

Jo makes her home in Greenville, South Carolina and when she is not
campaigning she keeps in top form playing rollerhockey and flying her
private plane.

   644 wasn't good enough?

    
    I believe there may be Libertarians who are still trying to decide if
    644 is good enough.
    
    								-mr. bill

>    <<< Note 752.8 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>
>                                    -< HTH >-

	Er, sorry, but it doesn't.  Could be a vitamin deficiency
	on my part.
  

    bill, u r a trip...
    [shaking head, shrugging shoulders, and next unseening!]

| <<< Note 752.10 by USAT05::HALLR >>>

| [shaking head, shrugging shoulders, and next unseening!]

	Ron, I tried that, but I couldn't enter a note that way. How did you do
it???? :-)

    
    
    	re: .7
    
    	sorry dear. Didn't realise the duplication.
    
    

    
    
        mere loonies
    
       bb

    re: Note 752.13 by GAAS::BRAUCHER "Welcome to Paradise"
    } the "L" party is beneath contempt...
    
    How so?
    
    } mere loonies
    
    As opposed to the current batch of crooks, liars and scoundrels.
    
    MadMike

Sure, the L party is beneath contempt.

The elephants and donkies are beneath the L party.

There's lots of room under contempt.

    > There's lots of room under contempt
    
    Even for donkey haut eh?

    Presidential Nominees in order of delegate votes
    
    Harry Browne
    Rick Tompkins
    None Of The Above
    Irwin Schiff
    Pat ??
    I can't remember the last one.
    
    Vice Presidential Nominees in order of delegate votes
    
    Jo Jorgensen
    None Of The Above

    TTWA: If a Republican goes beneath contempt, 
          would you call it a rash limbo?

    I remembered one more -- Doug Ohmen
    
    The Pres and VP candidates for the LP are:
    
    Harry Browne and Jo Jorgensen.
    
    I haven't been in here in months but immediately I see that Bill
    Licea-Kane is still foaming at the mouth and in spite of reason and
    logic is still a rabid clinton supporter.
    
    --Geoff

    
    
    
    They are truly an alternative choice.
    
    I like their battle cry it draws a line in the ground that makes
    it easy to decide if your a libertarian or not.
    
    "Would you give up your favorite federal program for zero
     federal income tax?"
    
    No, I wouldn't so I'm not a libertarian.
    
    

    Geoff Keller is closest to earning the nano-points.    
    
    For the missing candidate, it's not Pat.
    
    * The missing candidate is from Georgia.
    * You might send him an FYI memo that had the line "CC: CC".  (I probably
      wouldn't.)
    * He calls himself a "rancher" but some others in the Libertarian Party
      might call him a welfare king.
    * I don't know how many would call him a Libertarian.  (Then again, there
      are more than a few Libertarians who believe that Harry Browne is not
      a Libertarian - go figure.)
    * Perhaps you can explain the Party rules that "qualified" him as a
      candidate for the Libertarian nomination.  (I can't.)
    
    								-mr. bill

    
>    I like their battle cry it draws a line in the ground that makes
>    it easy to decide if your a libertarian or not.
>    
>    "Would you give up your favorite federal program for zero
>     federal income tax?"
    
    
    That battle cry doesn't fit with my inderstanding of liberatians.  It
    certainly works for welfare, medicare, social security, farm subsidies,
    etc ... programs I would think most libertarians are against.  
    
    However, the national defense is something I believe
    libertarians, in general, believe is a proper function of the federal
    government. How is this supposed to be paid for?
    
    Inquiring minds,
    Greg
    

    The Libertarian Party has a lot of ideas that appeal greatly to me, but
    they also have some really radical ideas that are guaranteed to prevent
    anyone from taking them seriously.  Too bad both for them and for all
    of us.  A little libertarian thinking could be a real good thing for
    the country, but not if they are going to go off the deep end.

    .22
    
    That was their battle cry this weekend, but to clarify their position 
    anything defined in the constitution as the role of the federal government 
    would still stay.
    
    The Defense would be paid for by existing tarriff, tolls and taxes.
    Not by income tax.
    
    Gone is, Nasa, EPA, National Parks, FDA, Education..etc etc etc.
    
    Their position is that Republican downsizing is merging existing
    programs together with the responsibilities never going away and
    the cost staying the same. They want to remove everything not defined
    by the constitution. 
    

If the Libertarians got their way on everything they say they stand for,
it'd scare the bejeebers out of me.  Then again, I can say exactly the same
thing for the repubs and dems.  To me, getting more concerned about the
Libertarians' crazy policies than I get concerned about repub or dem crazy
policies would be holding the Libs to a different standard.

Yes, there are some crazy things on the Liber platform.  So what?  Unlike
the competition, they do have a consistent message of trying to undo the
mess, rather than building more.  I don't know that I'd want the gummit
totally stripped the way the Libers want it stripped, but it might not be
any worse than having it implemented poorly, as the repubs and dems keep
trying to do.

I think I'll vote for Lamm...

    That's a good point.  They won't be allowed to go too far with
    anything, but if they at least get to move things in the right
    direction for a change, then it'll be a Very Good Thing.
    
    Think I might vote for 'em too, depending on what the candidate looks
    like by election time...
    
    

    
    
    Oh Ya, They are strong believers in personal responsibility.
    
    No Gun control 
    Repeal of drug laws that create crimminals and squash liberties
    Legalization of prostitution
    
    

    Yup, the libbers want everyone to smoke dope and go whoring.
    NOT.
    They'll junk nasa, er, nasa probably belongs under the defense 
    dept. anyway.
    The national park system, hmmm, The Constitution allows for
    federal control of it's territory and possessions.  I suppose
    a federal park is a federal possession.  Now the question is should
    the federal government be in the business of collecting stuff like
    that?  Maybe, maybe not.
    
    How are we going to pay for all this?  User fees, tarrifs etc...
    the stuff nafta & gatt junked.  Hey, let me guess, maybe now that
    you're not giving the IRS $10,000/year in your sweat, you won't bitch
    when you gotta pay $7 to get into a park.  Or $15.  If you don't
    want to pay that money, don't use the park.  Your choice.  The
    problem with this is liberal crap will fail.  You won't be able
    to fund crap like watching baluka whales hump.  A university or
    eco group would have to keep something like that alive.  But if
    your a treehugger with an extra $10,000 in your pocket, maybe you'd
    be able to send $500 to keep your favorate charity afloat.
    
    We're getting to a point where we need to look at who does what.
    Washington DC is a top heavy mess.  The power and responsibility
    should come from the people locally and flow up.  But alas, we're all to
    lazy to pay attention.  Too much stuff is getting federalized, the
    states are starting to push back.  The people in DC don't get it.
    
    MadMike   

    
    	Here's my prediction on how this note is going to go:
    
    
    	This is a Mr. Bill initiated note. Therefore, Mr. Bill MUST have
    some tidbit of info tucked away somewhere that he is saving to spring
    upon us when we least expect it. An unsuspecting noter, not aware of
    Mr. Bill's hidden tidbit, will post something contrary to the tidbit.
    Mr. Bill will leap from the shadows, using the tidbit to bash in the
    skull of the misinformed noter.
    
    	Mr. Bill's a smart guy, but his style is a little less than gentle.
    
    
    jim

    
    My "hidden agenda" is to award nano-points to the first person
    who identifies someone with the initials "C.C." who is from Georgia
    who identifies himself as a Rancher and who was a candidate for
    President at the Libertarian Party convention in Washington DC this
    weekend.
    
    FWIW, according to the Libertarians, I am.
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    
>                -< \john probably can't believe it either.... >-
    
    	Well color me pleasantly surprised. :)
    
>    FWIW, according to the Libertarians, I am.
    
    	Took the "worlds shortest political quiz" eh? 
    
    jim

  Shoot.  He always gives these little pop-quiz things 
  when I've been staring out the window.

>    Yup, the libbers want everyone to smoke dope and go whoring.
>   NOT.
    
    
    	I think I stated their positions correctly at least what I observed
    	during their convention.
    
    	Are you saying they are not for legalization of drugs?
    
    I like them better than the republican party. They are a party of
    tolerance.
    

    
    
    
    .28 Others gone, FCC, PBS, Post office, Meat Inspection ...well thats
    	the FDA isn't it? I mentioned that already I guess, CDC, NPR,
        etc.... 
    
    	Come on you must have a federal program that isn't the military.
    	
    	VMSNET::M_MACIOLEK The question is would you give up your favorite
    	Federal program for no Federal Income Tax?
    
    	Yes, Your a Libertarian.
    	No and your not.

    
|    	Took the "worlds shortest political quiz" eh? 
    
    Yup.  Besides, I got the look.
    
    								-mr. bill

    Mr. Bill:
    Charles Collins.
    
    re: Wilbur_d
    
    The post office?  Is Constitutionally chartered.  
    FCC?  Drastically scaled back I'm sure.  Airwaves cross state
    lines.  
    
    Lots of things would be privatized, like meat inspections.
    Ya, that might sound like the fox guarding the chicken coop, but
    there'd be INCENTIVES in making sure you ain't selling bad food.
    Like getting sued a few times by a grocery store chain or something.
    
    PBS:  I'd send them $10/year.  I don't send them anything right
    now because congress figured out how much of my money to give them.
    Just because the gov't doesn't subsidize PBS doesn't mean it'll
    fold.  Look at the large companies that sponsor shows, along with
    the "private corparation funded by the american taxpayer"
    
    Re "Legalizing" dope and whores, I think the word is
    DECRIMINALIZING these crimes.  Not condoning it, or promoting it,
    but not intentially going out with vice squads and filling up 
    your jails with a bunch of potheads.  Trafficing would still be
    a "crime" I'm sure.  The fellow who gets fingered with a key of coke
    or a bail of pot will be in trouble.
    
    I think we need to drastically cut the federal government.  What do
    I need from them?  My favorite pork?  Nothing.  They have clearly
    defined duties/jurisdiction.  I'm not saying freak out and slash
    everything.  For example, the FAA is still needed, just what is
    it's role?  Commercial airline Safety.  We don't need 60 or so
    state/territorial aviation administrations.
    
    Regards,
    MadMike

    
    The nano-points go to Mad Mike.
    
    								-mr. bill

    Let me expand on that deal with the FAA and the states not needing
    it's own FAA equivalent.
    
    You're in Georgia, and I'm sure you're familiar with the 
    Georgia Transportation Dept, Dept of Motor Vehicles, and Department
    of Safety.... anyway...    
                                
    Most of the crap from DC is "justified" via the
    "general welfare" clause.  That's a catch-all.  Justify everything,
    and if it can't be justified, cut it.

I voted libertarian for Prez (and local officials) for about a decade. 
More than a decade.  Not that I'm terribly in love with them, but I still
believe that doing nothing is marginally preferable to shooting one's self
in the foot.

I had always been led to believe that a cornerstone of the libertarian
philosophy is that it is the individual's responsibility to select and fund
charities, rather than have the gov't do it on our behalf.  My
understanding of libertarianism was that each individual has a moral
responsibility to help those who are in need of help, and to provide that
help in that individual's own way (and to help those people who the
individual feels most needs help).

That was until I saw the NH Libertarian party try to put on a charity drive
within their ranks, to push this point home to everyone else.  They saw
almost none of their constituency donating anything at all.

My actual experience with real life libertarians is that they're generally
the stingiest group of people I could ever find, none of whom have any
serious intention of fulfilling this moral obligation.  That crosses the
line, for me, from libertarianism to social/economic Darwinism.  That's
about where I quit voting libertarian.

Still, I find doing nothing to be somewhat preferable to shooting myself in
the foot, so maybe I'll keep voting that way.

    
    
    
    .36 10 a year...pbs should get at least as much as the disney channel
    	right?
    
    	But I think we agree on the definition of a libertarian.
    	I don't know why you disagree with my wording about drug
        legalization because they believe in personal responsibility.
    
    	I will accept your definition though. Decrimminalization of
    	drug, prostitution and such. 
    
    	They stand out as a different choice and exposed clear weaknesses
    	I thought of the other parties.
    
    	Not a choice I'm willing to pick though but I liked them alot.
    
    	>    The post office?  Is Constitutionally chartered.
    
    	Oops, My mistake.
    
    

    
    
    
    .36 I doubt trafficing in drugs would be a crime. THAT was the whole
        point of legalizing drugs that the presidential nominee was 
    	making this weekend in his interview.
    	
    	Making it illegal inflates the price of drugs. Addicts have to
        steal and mug. Dealers have turf wars and murder. DEA has to be
        funded.
    
    	

    I disagree with your wording because it conjures up visions of
    libertarians promoting pot smoking.  They don't.  I am very carefull
    with WORDS (usually), especially when dealing with the government
    or whatnot.  People like mr.bill jump from behind a bush and
    lynch people who are not carefull with words.
    
    Think about it this way:
    The media probably mentions the libertarian party wants to
    LEGALIZE drugs.  For our couch potatoE illiterate fellow citizens,
    this probably gets them to thinking "wow... far out man...".
    
    If you say "DECRIMINALIZE" drugs, that's different.  Take the
    crime out of it.  Stop the "war on drugs" which is a war on US.
    Just think, if I didn't like "you" I could toss a bag of dope
    in your car, call the fuzz anonomyously and drop a dime on you
    and you can kiss your house/car... goodbye.  Without a trial even.
    It's seized and you got problems.  
    
    The gov't & media is good at playing with words.  Say what you mean.
    
    MadMike

    
    
    
    .36 Actually you make a better republican by libertarian definition.
    	You want to keep your favorite programs but consolidate them,
    	nasa into military. FAA realigned etc etc.
    
    	                              
    
    	

|   People like mr.bill jump from behind a bush and lynch people who are
|   not carefull with words.
    
    Uh huh.  You sure are careful with words.
    
    								-mr. bill

    re: Making it illegal inflates the price of drugs.
    
    I can't distill spirits on my land and then sell them for
    general consumption.  That's not allowing the state/fed to TAX the
    hell out of liquor.  You have to go to the beer store and get your
    vice in a controlled manner.  Same with cigarettes.  Same with guns.
    Unless you machine your own firearms, or grow your own tobbacky or
    pot, you have to deal with the gov't, either the revenuers and/or
    the BATF.
    
    Maybe you'll have to get your joints at a drug store.  Maybe it'll
    be perscription only.  I don't know.  I do know people won't be
    killing each other over who's selling on a street corner, and you
    probably won't OD on bad smack.  What the hell, the federal government
    is already the largest drug importer in the country, they might as
    well tax the stuff.
    
    MadMike

    
    
    
    .45 and I thought the NE weather changed quickly.

    The Libertarians want one thing, that is government out of the lives of
    the citizens, unless the constitution specifically states it is the job
    of government.
    
    Personally I think the libs are to soft. My personal opinion of
    government is as quoted by Ayn Rand in her novel "Atlas Shrugged"
    
    "We have no demands to present to you, no bargains to strike, no
    compromise to reach. You have nothing to offer us. We do not need you."
    
    I don't see even one aspect of government that wouldn't be better
    served by the competitive nature of private, free enterprise business. 
    Government and those who run it are nothing but worthless, useless 
    parasites. Without them the world would thrive. With them we are slowly 
    being exterminated. I can't name one political animal that the world can't 
    do without.
    

    
    
    
    .47 and I always thought you were republican.
    
    

    >I always thought you were republican.
    
    
    No no no no no no no no no no no no! 

    I'm not a republican because I have no wish to boss other folks
    around.  What you do is your bizness, not mine.  Unless it affects
    me.    
    
    I say the federal government has a VALID role.  We can't just junk
    things like NASA.  Stuff like that needs to be pursued, it obviously
    has a military application.  Individual states can't fund satelites
    and stuff or build and maintain ICBM's.
    
    The FAA, FCC - planes and radio waves don't stop at state borders.
    The FBI is necessary, but they don't need to be rushing off
    to Russia to poke around.  That's what the CIA is supposed to be 
    doing.  They should be out there killing dangerous foreigners not 
    American citizens.  :^)
    
    Doing business with this country was considered priviledge.  You pay
    a fee to sell your stuff here.  That fee funds the gov't.  It
    also gives you an "incentive" to "Buy American".  If the Americans
    make trash cars for example, spend the extra money and buy a toyota
    corroda.  Everything is all bass ackwards now.
    
    MadMike

    re: .45 and I thought the NE weather changed quickly.
    
    You sound confused.  Maybe because I'm dancing around with the
    issue of COMMERCE.  Commerce is a regulatable activity, and can
    be taxed.  Business can be taxed.
    
    If I am a manufacturer of firearms, booze or whatever, it's a
    taxable activity.  In georgia, I deal with the Dept, of Revenue.
    If I sell my booze in Tennessee, now I got to deal with the BATF
    too.
    
    Now, the trick is "what is doing business", or engaging in commerce?
    As an American I have the unlimited right to contract, to earn a
    living, to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,
    which "working for a living" is considered.  I don't have to
    deal with the government unless I ask for priviledge by incorparating,
    or trying to obtain gov't contracts, or cross a state line (maybe).
    
    Say what you mean.  The details are important.  As a real person
    I can't be taxed.  As an "Employee" I can be - maybe.
    
    MadMike

      mr. bill,
    
        I don't understand why it is you would prefer the two parties
        that dominate Congress.  Congress being the Federal body
        responsible for printing our currency and also disallowed by
        the Constitution to pass any responsibilities off to any other
        body or individual.  Congress being the body which allowed a
        foreign owned corporation to print all of our currency, a
        corporation to which it owes over 4 trillion dollars and a debt
        which it is our responsibility to pay.  And if I understand it
        right, it is theoretically impossible to fully pay it.
    
        Go right ahead and support the parties which dominate the 
        Congress which allowed a foreign corporation to literally be
        owed trillions of dollars by us.
    
        Thats some kind of mind you got there, mr. bill!!!
    
    							Tony

    
       Post office is constitutionally chartered, Article 1, section 8,
     paragraph 7 :  "[The Congress shall have power]...7. To establish
     post-offices and post-roads;"  Ben Franklin, I bleieve, was first
     postmaster general.  This was considered a significant failure of
     the Confederation.  Private industry DID NOT provide adequate
     postal service.  Nor would it today.
    
      bb

    depending on what happens at the republican convention with the
    republican vp nominee and certain platform issues, i may end up voting
    libertarian

    I most likely will also...considering Dole will lose Massachusetts.
    
    

The answer is Charles Collins.

>The answer is Charles Collins.

	Still?

I didn't see that.  I've been next-unseening most of this because I have no
use for librarians.

re: Ron,

Just out of curiosity, which GOP platform issue outcomes would cause you
to lean toward the Libertarians?

    i like them cuz they're quiet and they read a lot.

    
    
    
    .49 Now doesn't that make you an Anarchist?
    
    

>    The FAA, FCC - planes and radio waves don't stop at state borders.
    
     But so does rivers,lakes,streams,air so the EPA would stay also?
    
     

    to be honest, Jack, since i'm in a learning mode on libertarians, i
    don't know ALL their platforms yet, but I am checking it out...on the
    repub side, what stances they take on abortion, affirmative action, gun
    control, welfare reform, etc. are the ones i m most concerned about...
    [
    
    the little i know about the libertarians stance, at this point in time,
    make them more attractive to me than Dole...that's why who he picks as
    veep will go a long way in determining my final choice...i consider the
    veep selection MORE important than the platform.

I could be wrong on this, but I think you'll find that the Libertarian
stands on those issues are all those which allow for the least amount of 
government intervention, i.e. keep choice legal, eliminate AA, reduce gun 
control, and overhaul or eliminate welfare. As I've often said, I agree
quite strongly with the Libertarian philosophies. I just find their
choice of candidates somewhat whimsical.

re .60:

But they're busybodies, always telling you to be quiet.  I don't know where
people get the idea that librarians are into personal freedom.

.65
> I don't know where
> people get the idea that librarians are into personal freedom.

  I don't either.  Some of them are the Marian kind.

    What is the current Libertarian stance on immigration (both kinds,
    legal and illegal)?
    
    Chris

    RE: .67
    
    The libertarian stance is that if the government dole is taken away the
    only immigrants who will wnat to come to this country are those who are
    willing to work to make their way and have a "better" life.
    
    IOTW Once the government stops taking care of immigrants
    (legal/illegal), monetarily and with subsidized healthcare the problem
    will take care of itself.
    
    --Geoff 

Am I correct in assuming that Libertarians are opposed to public education,
making the question of public education for illegal immigrants moot?

    >Am I correct in assuming that Libertarians are opposed to public
    >education,
    
    They are opposed to forced public education.

But isn't all public education forced on those who pay taxes to support it?

    re: .68
    
    > The libertarian stance is that if the government dole is taken away the
    > only immigrants who will wnat to come to this country are those who are
    > willing to work to make their way and have a "better" life.
    
    Okay, but that seems like an indirect approach... I should have been
    more specific; what's their stance on enforcement of the current
    immigration laws, quotas, and so on?
    
    
    > IOTW Once the government stops taking care of immigrants
    > (legal/illegal), monetarily and with subsidized healthcare the problem
    > will take care of itself.
    
    I dunno... the "transition period" would certainly be difficult, at
    best.  And while this looks good on paper, for this to work in practice
    it would also require that the potential illegal immigrants understand
    this tidy exercise in logic.  In other words, you realize it and I realize
    it, but do *they* realize it?  If they don't, they'll keep coming, and
    then what do we do?
    
    Do we think they'll just look around, say "Oh, well then, never mind",
    and turn around and go back?  What will they then do to survive?  My
    guess is that it probably won't be pleasant.
    
    The problem with some of the Libertarian philosophies is that some of
    them are very nice theories when you draw a box around the problem at
    hand, and may not take into account many of the real-world practical
    issues.
    
    Many of the philosophies also make the liberal's common mistake of
    making the assumption that most people are honorable and/or intelligent,
    and will "do the right thing" when left to their own devices.  Sure,
    most of us are like that, but what about the x% who screw it up for
    the rest of us?
    
    Now don't get me wrong; of all the prevalent political philosophies,
    I find myself in agreement with the Libertarians more often than the
    other groups.  But some of their plans need more thinking through, and
    need to consider that "real people" with all their failings have to
    be factored into the equation.
    
    Chris

    I think the libs are opposed to the NEA and federal control of
    education.  I don't know if they want to junk public education
    all together.  I suppose if Dawson county wanted to continue with
    it's public school system the libs would leave us alone.  I also
    assume they would support a families choice to homeschool children
    if that's our choice.
    
    MadMike

    Gridlock defined:
    
    Libertarian president
    Dem/repub congress.
    
    A libertarian would spend more time blocking new crap, than undoing
    stuff.  Which is fine because you can't slam the brakes on the whole
    bloated mess overnight without expecting massive carnage.
    
    When the fedgov goes belly up again, that'll be worse than slamming
    on the brakes.  Now it's just a matter of when this'll happen and
    who'll be driving at the time.

    >But isn't all public education forced on those who pay taxes to support
    >it?
    
    And that is the problem. The Lib. position is if you use it you pay for
    it. However, if you don't want to use it you shouldn't be forced to.
    The Public School system is typical of government forcing everyone to
    attend and everyone to pay. Then we get an inferior education as
    payment. 

    Tom, you're insensitive.  How else is Mrs. Swartz going to be
    unproductive and get paid at the same time? 

    >Tom, you're insensitive.
    
    I know, and I love it!!   :)

> If they don't, they'll keep coming, and then what do we do?

Some will choose not to come when they know that there's no free lunch.
For those who come anyway with the intention of stealing lunch, we have
a judicial system which is capable of dealing with them if it sets its
mind to it. My personal preference would be to send them packing back home
with a reduction in appendages, but we all know how popular my opinions are.

I like the Libertarian approach far better than the concept of sitting
around with our thumbs firmly lodged in our rectums as we've been for the
past 30 years or so while the dregs of the third world laugh in our collective
faces as they ignore our immigration laws and come here to set up camp at
our expense.

We've got all manner of people in this country who've entered legally, who
put forth the effort to obey the INS laws, who get their green cards and
follow the rules. Isn't it about time we consider the illegals by wiping
off the crap that they've left on our faces and giving it back to them?

    Yabbut isn't it easier and more effective to simply prevent the
    illegals from getting in here in the first place?  If we just
    enforced the current illegal immigration laws, I think we'd be
    okay.  I'm not sure that the Libertarian policy involves any kind
    of prevention (i.e., enforcing the existing laws); instead they
    seem to be appealing to reason and logic, which in my experience
    is lacking in most people.
    
    I'd rather cut the problem off at the source rather than wait for
    our wonderful "everyone who passes through these portals is a victim"
    judicial system to tsk-tsk and offer the usual wrist slap after the
    crimes have been committed.
    
    Chris

>    And that is the problem. The Lib. position is if you use it you pay for
>    it. However, if you don't want to use it you shouldn't be forced to.
>    The Public School system is typical of government forcing everyone to
>    attend and everyone to pay. Then we get an inferior education as
>    payment. 

So what happens to kids whose families can't afford to pay for an education?

    >our thumbs firmly lodged in our rectums
    
    Would that be "recta"?
    
    How many do you have, anyway?
    
    I suppose it doesn't matter as long as you keep 'em all behind you.
    
     - Jamoke
    

 ZZ    Would that be "recta"?
    
    Wouldn't that be "recta"?  NNTTM.
    
    :-)

>    Yabbut isn't it easier and more effective to simply prevent the
>    illegals from getting in here in the first place?

Apparently not.

>							 If we just
>    enforced the current illegal immigration laws, I think we'd be
>    okay. 

A mighty big "if".

From my understanding of Libertarian philosophy, we're better off if we
don't have a lot of laws which need to be enforced at our collective expense.
I see the point in this, but I share with you the skepticism as to its
realistic application.

    
    >So what happens to kids whose families can't afford to pay for an
    >education?
    
    Homeschool?
    
    Don't have kids if you (generic) can't afford them.
    

    >Homeschool?  Don't have kids if you (generic) can't afford them.
    
    Only problem is, there are plenty of parents who would not bother to
    send their kids to school or teach them anything at home if they
    weren't required to do so.
    
    I think it is in the best interests of all of us to have all kids
    educated to some level, which is why we have public education in the
    first place.  It isn't there just as a form of welfare.

>    Homeschool?

Suppose you have to work for a living.
    
>    Don't have kids if you (generic) can't afford them.
    
Suppose you already have them when the Libertarians take over?  Will public
education be phased out?

What happens if you have children you can't afford?  Certainly the Libertarians
wouldn't advocate forcing people to not have children or forcing those who have
them to give them up.

    
    
    
>What happens if you have children you can't afford?  
    
    	You're SOL. Ain't life a bugger?
    
    

>>What happens if you have children you can't afford?  
>    
>    	You're SOL. Ain't life a bugger?
    
I wasn't only thinking of the effect on the parents and the children.
What happens to society if there's a large pool of uneducated children?

    there will just be more to fry!  that's all!

    
    
    	"Warm up the chair charlie!"
    
    :)

    
    Why is it that people thump the table about personal responsibility
    when it comes to one's taxes paying for welfare, but not when one's
    taxes pay for education?  The parent is expecting something for nothing 
    in either case.
    

Because public education is older and it's available to every child.
It's the ultimate entitlement.

    1 million seniors graduated from high school this year technically
    illiterate {heard on the drive-in a couple weeks ago}
    
    what did our tax dollars get us here?

Let's see.  Public education isn't so hot.  Therefore, society won't be harmed
it lots of kids get no education at all.  Are you a product of one of those
not-great public schools by any chance?

    I attended the Framingham public school system.  I am somewhat
    concerned about two issues...
    
    -The onus of education being foisted on Joe taxpayer.  I see this as
    inequitable.
    
    -The NEA and special interest groups using the school as propoganda
    tools for brainwashing mores into children.  
    
    -Jack  

    Gerald, we would use that pool of cheap American labor to undercut
    the wages of the itinerant farm workers.  As these itinerant workforces
    are mostly made up of illegal immigrants, this will drastically
    reduce the number of illegals - providing a double benefit of less
    taxation and even cheaper Californian veggies.

    
    Since when are itinerant farm workers illegal immigrants?

    >Why is it that people thump the table about personal responsibility
    >when it comes to one's taxes paying for welfare, but not when one's
    >taxes pay for education?  The parent is expecting something for nothing 
    >in either case.
    
     Untrue. Most parents pay taxes, specifically those earmarked for
    education. Moreover, it is unquestionably in society's best interest to
    ensure some level of education in every citizen for which this level is
    achievable. Uneducated citizens are a drain on a society due both to
    their lack of productivity and their propensity to engage in
    anti-social behaviors. So there is a clear and tangible benefit to
    education. Welfare payments, on the other hand, are not so
    categorically beneficial to society as a whole. It is perfectly
    reasonable to be in favor of one but not the other. Indeed, with enough
    education available, there is minimal need for welfare.

Mz_Debra has a valid point, though. Property owners, whether or not they
currently, or ever, for that matter, contributed to the load on the
education system, are frequently disproportionately burdened to support
that system.

We can talk about the benefits to society of having a well-educated next-
generation all we like, however the fact of the matter is that the parents
of the young who use the public schools are getting a break from those who've 
already paid their debt to society, as well as those who weren't looking for 
it to begin with (not to mention those who "opt-out" of the public system
at their own personal expense).

It becomes even more insidious when the tax-paying property owner is past
retirement age.  It was never a fair system to begin with, and it remains
that way.

     .98
    
    What do you think that the illegal immigrants to CA are
    working as?  Computer programmers?  Much of the debate over SOS and
    the Guest Worker legislation centred on this issue.  Both sides
    agree that the majority of itinerant Californian crop pickers are
    illegals.

>Mz_Debra has a valid point, though. Property owners, whether or not they
>currently, or ever, for that matter, contributed to the load on the
>education system, are frequently disproportionately burdened to support
>that system.
    
    True. A broad based tax is certainly fairer. At least by some measures.
    It's difficult to think of a perfectly fair tax.

Shouldn't men be taxed too?

    and yet another comedian in our midst.  hohoho.

    
    <---- I don't care much for your p_name, sir.

    
    	They are ... they're taxed based on the "rating" [from 1-10]
    	of their broads.
    
    	No broad?  Rating defaults to 11.  Believe me, the extra is
    	well worth the price.
    

    
    me thinks shawn is going to be smaqed shortly.

    >So what happens to kids whose families can't afford to pay for an
    >education?
    
    So why should others be forced to pay for the education of someone
    elses children? Can't afford it, don't have them.

    .108
    
    Now that is about as moral as an atheist can get, I suppose.
    
    [grimace]
    
    

In general, I try my best to ignore your contributions altogether, but I fail
to see how Tom's statement ("Can't afford 'em, don't have 'em") has much to do 
with his theism or lack thereof, muchless his morality. It is, however, a pretty
clear statement regarding personal responsibility, which is quite obviously
sorely lacking in our society.

    Hey, what happened to .110? I wanna see.
    

         I think that bible-thumper lit it up. It must have been a personal
    insult. 

There.

Better?

I just fixed a typo and hadn't yet bothered to reposition it.

<This space intentionally left blank.>

    ...but now it's not blank

>    ...but now it's not blank

Profound!



Anyone is free to place a note in a "blank" spot, by WRITEing or REPLYing,
and then issuing the SET NOTE/NOTE=number_of_blank_hole_in_topic_dot_reply_form
command while they have their own note (same node::account in the note as their
current login) on the screen.

There.

I've revealed one of the innermost secrets.

         What's an anti- dis - libertarian anyway? I leave for a week, and
    the topics go crazy. 

What? You found William's basenote obscure?

Inconceivable.

    mr bill, seems like a real trippy dood

    I figured that it was a bit of word play on
    "antidisestablishmentarianism" (which triggered a line feed because it
    was so long), substituting "libert" for "establishment" or something
    like that.  Either that, or "supercalifragilisticexpialidocious" (sp?).
    
    This kind of interpretation is what happens when you do the "Jumble"
    puzzle in the Herald every day.
    
    Chris

    Jack, Jack, Jack,
    
    I know you are more intelligent than the simple response of an exact
    opposite response to my note.
    
    Christian morals are to clothe the poor and to feed the hungry.  If
    each person who could, gave to charitable organization that had
    integrity, the issue of education would not be a "taxing" one.
    
    Tom touts his atheistic moralism rather explicitly here in the box.  I
    find his response to be incongruent with these writings.
    

>    Christian morals are to clothe the poor and to feed the hungry.  If
>    each person who could, gave to charitable organization that had
>    integrity, the issue of education would not be a "taxing" one.
>    Tom touts his atheistic moralism rather explicitly here in the box.  I
>    find his response to be incongruent with these writings.

Huh? The morals of human nature are to act responsibly, which is what Tom's
posting recommended - responsible action. Responsibility begins with the 
individual. The value of acting responsibly by failing to pop out more bebbes
than are affordable by the parental unit(s) is of much higher worth to
society in general than any organizational morals implied by a religious code.
If more people acted responsibly in their reproductive activities, there
would be lesser need for both charities and other taxing issues. There was
absolutely nothing incongruous regarding his response. It is the false
reassignment of responsibility, and the excuse for irresponsibility so
granted by organized religion, which is incongruous with the "love thy
neighbor" front cover.

    
    	So, you agree with yourself, then ?
    
    

>    >So what happens to kids whose families can't afford to pay for an
>    >education?
>    
>    So why should others be forced to pay for the education of someone
>    elses children? Can't afford it, don't have them.

See .89.  Can you answer that one?

    
>    	So, you agree with yourself, then ?

    aagagagag.  DOH.  i go fix...
    
    

   .122  Amen.

    
    	I liked it better the other way.
    

My wife and I (no kids so far) bitch about this one all the time. Have a kid,
get a tax break, send the kid to public school. Have no kid, get no tax
break, use no public resources.

    If most of the kids in your neighborhood were not in school all day,
    you would have enough kids hanging around everywhere you went that you
    probably wouldn't notice that you don't have any yourself.  :-)

    
    	And nobody benefits from educated kids...
    
    

    re: .131
    
    When I find some, I'll let you know......
    

>My wife and I (no kids so far) bitch about this one all the time. Have a kid,
>get a tax break, send the kid to public school. Have no kid, get no tax
>break, use no public resources.
    
     And if there weren't public schools, you'd be bitching about the high
    rates of juvenile crime and immense tax burden brought on by
    irresponsible parents who had children they couldn't afford to educate,
    and the resultant explosion in welfare that would precipitate.

>            -< if you think education is expensive, try ignorance >-

He already did.

Ah the wonderful financial benefits of having kids!  With that tax deduction,
and all those extra services we get, we're living on easy street.

    You know what- I think I'll have a couple more as my cash reserves are
    getting low...

Well, wiseguys, since your tax breaks are such a pittance, you wouldn't mind
giving them up to pay for your kids public education then, would you?

 Z   With that tax deduction,
 Z   and all those extra services we get, we're living on easy street.
    
    The benefit here is that I as a father of three am pouring far more
    money into the local economy than you are...or at least that is the
    reasoning.  
    
    I am a job creator while you are a loaf who goes to wrestling matches
    on Saturday night and supports your local tavern.
    
    -Jack

  gerald is into wrestling now?  the man has so many interests,
  i can't keep track.

I don't think he was referring to me, but I'll confess that I used to watch
pro wrestling on TV many years ago.  The best (worst) was the South American
stuff on the Spanish channels.  They'd come out in elaborate costumes with
animal mascots and theme music blaring.  F'rinstance, there was "David El
Pastor" (David the Shepherd) who'd come out in Biblical-epic costume
to the strains of the theme from Exodus.  He'd be leading a sheep.
And there was Don Quixote, who'd have a sidekick and a donkey.  Really.
Much cornier than the WWWF stuff.

    re: .138
    
    Yes, but you're also pouring far more into the local
    landfill than I am as well, and you're using more natural
    resources like water, heat and electricity too.  
    
    

    I am a firm believer in choice. People choose to have sex, therefore
    they choose to have children. If you make this choice, you should
    shoulder the full responsibility to support them. That includes
    food, shelter, clothing, education, etc.
    
    BTW, I have 2 children of my own, so I'm not some greedy single
    that doesn't wanna pay. I've always felt the same sentiment that
    Tom Expressed, and that sentiment did not change after my children
    were born.
    
    Mark

    Z    Yes, but you're also pouring far more into the local
    Z    landfill than I am as well, and you're using more natural
    Z    resources like water, heat and electricity too.
    
    Awe come on Mary Michael...I'm sure Didee Diaper service did a number
    on natural resources with your diapers too! :-)  Besides, all our trash
    goes to a transfer station and is burned to supply energy to some sort
    of manufacturing plant!

    >Huh? The morals of human nature are to act responsibly, which is what
    >Tom's posting recommended - responsible action. Responsibility begins
    >with the  individual.
    
    I am not taking issue with "ounce of prevention beats a ton of cure"
    attitude.  I am taking issue with the idea that those who behave
    irresponsibly are not held accountable.  Tom's immorality [imo] is
    harming innocent children as well as society as a whole.
    
    

    Hey pay attention this is the only topic where people are saying:
    
    a.  sex is a choice
    b.  be responsible for your choice
    
    In most other topics this is usually spoken as:
    
    a.  they're going to do it anyway why not give them condoms
    

>		I am taking issue with the idea that those who behave
>    irresponsibly are not held accountable.  Tom's immorality [imo] is
>    harming innocent children as well as society as a whole.


Well, "Huh?" again, then. Tom's .108 didn't say anything about how to treat
the children. It was an admonition not to produce children you can't afford.
And how on earth did you conclude that he was saying that those who behave
irresponsibly aren't held accountable???

> I don't think he was referring to me, but I'll confess that I used to watch
> pro wrestling on TV many years ago.  The best (worst) was the South American
> stuff on the Spanish channels.

You'd have loved the New Jersey Housewives that were on "Gorgeous Ladies
of Wrestling" back maybe seven years or so ago.  To make a long story
(that I've no doubt told before) short, these two women would come out
in robes and slippers, hair in curlers, faces covered with cold cream,
and hauling a cart overflowing with assorted household implements,
cleaning tools, small kitchen appliances and utensils, and so on.

They'd proceed to torment their opponents in turn with the various
household items, all the while keeping up a running chat about the
neighbors, other gossip, and who knows what else.  The climax of the
event frequently involved one of the housewives pumping the supine
opponent's entire face with a large plumber's helper.  At that point
the ref usually stepped in to call it a night.

Chris

    re: .145
    
    I would tend to believe that using a condom is being
    responsible for your choice.  Teaching young adults that
    properly used birth control is part of personal responsibility
    for your choice doesn't seem out of place to me.
    

    .145
    
    Its like handing them a driver's license.

    .146
    
    Well pardon me all the way to Boston, but I I believed the note to read
    that if they can't pay for education than they won't get an education.

    re: .143
    
    Regardless of where it goes, large households use more
    resources than small ones do.  Sometimes that helps the
    economy grow.  Sometimes it puts a strain on the local
    economy.  That's just the way it is.  More people means
    more police, more firemen, larger schools, better roads,
    bigger landfill/transfer station.  That translates to
    higher taxes.
    
    

    re: .149
    
    Ah, so we teaach them how to drive the car, but we won't
    let them buy insurance.......
    

Re: .121

    >Tom touts his atheistic moralism rather explicitly here in the box.  I
    >find his response to be incongruent with these writings.
    
Interesting how it is considered moral to force people to pay what they earn
for something they don't want. Yet, wanting people to take responsibility
for themselves and not ask government to steal from those who do is
considered immoral my many religious moralists. 

Re: .126

     >See .89.  Can you answer that one?

Society is never served by stealing from one who makes the required effort
to succeed in order pay for those that don't. The failure of government 
forced systems is evidence of this, including forced public education.

    
Re: .133

    >And if there weren't public schools, you'd be bitching about the high
    >rates of juvenile crime and immense tax burden brought on by
    >irresponsible parents who had children they couldn't afford to educate,
    >and the resultant explosion in welfare that would precipitate.

Attendance at school is a law. The high rates of juvenile crime you speak
of is perpetrated by those who are forcefully educated in the America school
system you seem to support.


How worthwhile is forced education to society? Think about history's greatest 
value producers in art, music, science, and business. Despite the many-fold 
increases in population and technology, we have no more DaVincis, 
Michelangelos, Beethovens, Mozarts, Galileos, Newtons, Hugos, Du Ponts, 
Carnegies, Fords, Einsteins. Why? The reasons can be traced to the destructive 
effects of expanding government control and force that is methodically draining
everyone's time, energy, resources and long-range potential. With each passing 
year, fewer and fewer tender youth can rise to become great value producers.
That shrinkage of individual potential reduces or eliminates greatness from
society.

    >Interesting how it is considered moral to force people to pay what they
    >earn for something they don't want. Yet, wanting people to take
    
    So your argument has now turned towards the philosophy of government
    versus the weaknesses of humanity.  My comments were based solely on what
    to do with poor children's education.
    
    Taxation itself is not inherently bad, the merits of government were
    once enjoyed by the people of this country.
    
    What has happened is that as the moral fibre of society began to break
    down, and the stronghold of "shame" and "guilt" for certain behaviors
    was considered misbegotten neurosis, our moraless society moved into a
    moraless government.
    
    In other words the "Jiminy Cricket" has been removed not only from our
    population but our government as well.  
    
    
    >responsibility for themselves and not ask government to steal from
    >those who do is considered immoral my many religious moralists. 
    
    I really do mostly agree with this.  For some reason I see Education
    differently than I do "welfare mothers."  I see Education especially
    in today's job market to be tantamount for the future of our children
    and this country.
    
    
    
    
    

    
    
    
    .149 more like making sure their car has a seat belt.
    
    

    Teach responsibility, let them get their own condoms.  Giving it to
    them is the issue, not the condoms itself.

    Okay, we have a solution.  Leave them in the cupboard and when one is
    needed, they can get it for themselves.  Whew!  It took awhile but it
    looks like this one is solved.

	Brian, what a good idea. But the parents have to promise not to make an
issue out of it if they use them. Cuz then they won't. Then babies, diseases,
etc will happen.



Glen

    no, not the cupboard.  leave them in the medicine chest.

    Get 'em to wear them 24 hours a day.  Much safer that way.  Don't give
    'em too much to drink, though...

    they'd be too hot in the summertime.

    Could always put holes in 'em for ventilation.  Or pack 'em in a
    codpiece with ice.

RE: .154

    >So your argument has now turned towards the philosophy of government
    >versus the weaknesses of humanity.  

I don't see humanity as weak. I see them as deceived. This of course is 
ignoring the fact that "humanity" can only be subjectively defined and is 
such a broad brush as to be not worth consideration in any rational discourse.

    >My comments were based solely on what to do with poor children's 
    >education.

You comments seemed to be based on some irrational premise that forced 
altruist behavior will someone make poor children poor no longer. This of 
course is nonsense.
    
    >Taxation itself is not inherently bad, the merits of government were
    >once enjoyed by the people of this country.
    
Minor successes, resulting from a philosophy of lawful theft, does not a merit 
make. Especially when we see these successes slowly and methodically 
deteriorating.

    >What has happened is that as the moral fibre of society began to break
    >down, and the stronghold of "shame" and "guilt" for certain behaviors
    >was considered misbegotten neurosis, our moraless society moved into a
    >moraless government.

More subjectively defined nonsense. A "moraless society" like "humanity" has 
no basis in a rational discussion, because the point made will always be
in error, likewise your definition of morality. 
    
    >In other words the "Jiminy Cricket" has been removed not only from our
    >population but our government as well.  
    
I miss the meaning of a metaphor referencing an animated bug. Please forgive
me.   :)
    
    >I really do mostly agree with this.  For some reason I see Education
    >differently than I do "welfare mothers."  I see Education especially
    >in today's job market to be tantamount for the future of our children
    >and this country.
    
Explain how forced education in this country has enhanced or children's
future, remembering that "humanity" and the "moraless society" that you speak 
of have all been "educated in this system, at least in the USA. 
    
    
    
    

    
      I've previously made no secret of my hostility to the facile
     philosophical maunderings of the deadbeat, er, libertarian
     party.  But I now discover it is more effective to let them
     damn themselves.  Of what does their thought consist, except
     something for nothing, a free lunch for them, at the expense of
     the rest of us if we are fools enough to feed them ?
    
      Conservatives (of whom I am one) and liberals in the USA at
     least agree about this : we have a created A SOCIETY.  That is,
     our rights come at the price of obligations.  An entitlement
     implies a duty.  A benefit doesn't just happen, it requires
     teamwork from citizens committed to the common enterprise.  You
     are free only because you promise to join in the common defense.
     You get justice only because your fellow citizens guarantee it,
     by providing a government that can tax for the general welfare.
     Conservatives and liberals DISAGREE about methods, and many other
     details.
    
      But the libertarians are hostile to the society itself.  They
     reject the common enterprise, the Constitution, the powers that
     we the people delegated to the state by explicit enumeration.
     They somehow expect security, justice, and freedom, but they
     want somebody else to pay their bills.
    
      The good news is, this self-centered hypocrisy is, and will remain,
     a fringe political disease.  I won't live to see a 2% Libertarian
     vote.  If these people saw their neighbor's house on fire, they'd
     look the other way.  But let their own house burn, and they squeal
     for help.
    
      bb

     Sounds to me like you haven't the vaguest idea what libertarianism is
    all about. Libertarianism is just about the opposite of a free lunch
    philosophy coupled with a minimalist role for government. I fail to see
    what makes this so incomprehensible to you.

    I believe many of this country's liberal ideas were born after the
    1st and 2nd world wars, in which many good men gave up their lives
    and left dependants behind. We can't expect our war dead to provide
    for their families, and we shouldn't expect a war-widow to survive
    without some form of help. I am of the understanding that many of 
    the intitlements that exist today originated to help families of
    vets. Somewhere along the lines, the entitlements were expanded to
    include just about anyone that wanted a free ride. Some of the people
    that were added into these entitlement programs have legitimate needs
    but it still can be argued that it is not the responsibility of Joe
    Tax payer to provide for them. There is no end to the need, but there
    should be some limit placed on how much society can ask of it's 
    people. 
    
	If the system had some form of balance, you wouldn't hear calls
    for dismantling the whole rotten mess.
    
    	Mark

>                        <<< Note 752.166 by MILKWY::JACQUES >>>>                       
>    Good reasons for bad ideas! >-
>    I believe many of this country's liberal ideas were born after the
>    1st and 2nd world wars, 
    
    Thomas Paine might argue with you.

| <<< Note 752.166 by MILKWY::JACQUES >>>


| If the system had some form of balance, you wouldn't hear calls
| for dismantling the whole rotten mess.

	On this I agree!

      ::::::::   :::::::: 
    :+:    :+: :+:    :+: 
   +:+        +:+    +:+  
  +#++:++#+   +#++:++#+   
 +#+    +#+        +#+    
#+#    #+# #+#    #+#     
########   ########       
                          
      ::::::::  ::::    :::     :::     :::::::::  :::::::::: 
    :+:    :+: :+:+:   :+:   :+: :+:   :+:    :+: :+:         
   +:+        :+:+:+  +:+  +:+   +:+  +:+    +:+ +:+          
   +#++:++#  +#+ +:+ +#+ +#++:++#++: +#++:++#:  :#::+::#      
        +#+ +#+  +#+#+# +#+     +#+ +#+    +#+ +#+            
#+#    #+# #+#   #+#+# #+#     #+# #+#    #+# #+#             
########  ###    #### ###     ### ###    ### ###              
                                                              

I dunno Glen,

Same song, different verse.

    
    god, that hurt my eyes just looking at it. 
    
    Glen, you need to seek help, preferably sooner than later.

    I don' tink it can get much verse dan dat.

    
    	Glen, what's that font called?  I like it.
    

    I meant to say "Liberal programs" not ideas. 

The best way for a person to live is by free choice. A person living by 
their free choice has earned their freedom. Conversely, to live by another 
person's, group of person's or government's set of laws or code by any
means other than your free choice is to abandon your natural right to freedom.

For those who think this gives me free rain to do anything I want to others,
I give you my own personal laws, the way I live my life.


First law - By my free choice is how I live.

Second law - I guarantee any person who interacts with me, directly or 
indirectly, that I will not initiate force, fraud or coercion against them or 
their property.

Third Law - If I violate my second law, and my victim and myself can not come 
to resolution, we shall present our dilemma to an arbitrator.

Fourth Law - Any individual or group of individuals that chose to interact 
with me, directly or indirectly, will conduct themselves by the above
three laws for the duration of our interactions, or I will not deal with them.


It has always been my opinion that the law of free choice is the best way to 
live. The axiom is: living by free choice is freedom.

Every person has free choice to their education. Imagine yourself getting any 
education of your choice. You could learn an index of knowledge to determine 
what knowledge was available. Gaining knowledge living the axiom that free 
choice is freedom.

Every person has free choice to his or her romantic partner.Imagine 
yourself interacting with the romantic partner of your choice. You and 
your lover agree to living the axiom that free choice is freedom.

Every person has free choice to use of their time. Imagine yourself doing 
whatever you do of your choice--career, education, sex, charity... 
ad infinitum. Doing any thing you chose living the axiom that free choice is 
freedom.

IMO, complete and total freedom is the only way human beings can continue to
advance and the only way to total individual happiness. Whenever anyone or
anything interferes with total freedom, they interfere with personal happiness
and thus are thieves of the lowest order. A simple way to identify a robber of 
freedom is to ask, does this individual, group of individuals, organization or 
government, expect to get something from you without earning it?

Unless every individual has total freedom, we are not free and happiness is
not achievable. 

    You may be right.  My forcible education seems to left me with the
    incorrect impression that all rain was free.

       <<< Note 752.89 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30
    DTN:381-2085" >>>
    
    >>>What happens if you have children you can't afford?
    >>
    >>       You're SOL. Ain't life a bugger?
    >
    >I wasn't only thinking of the effect on the parents and the children.
    >What happens to society if there's a large pool of uneducated children?
    
    Take a look around.  Now, how much larger can the pool of uneducated
    actually get?  The schools don't teach.  They don't teach reading,
    they don't teach writing and they don't teach arithmatic. They do
    brainwash the masses (all those dirty little minds).
    
    The ONLY thing that the government does well is to take away your
    liberties and give themselves more power.
    
    --Geoff

    |They don't teach reading, they don't teach writing and they don't
    |teach arithmatic.
    
    arithmetic.  /hth

Geoff, if you think there are lots of uneducated people with free public
education, you ain't seen nuthin' yet.

    
|   The schools don't teach.  They don't teach reading, they don't teach
|   writing and they don't teach arithmatic.
    
    Is that a fact?
    
    And in the Jumbo Shrimp category - what's a "Liberatarian school board"
    member?
    
    								-mr. bill

    >The ONLY thing that the government does well is to take away your
    >liberties and give themselves more power.
    
    I have to generally agree with this.  The politician's first
    response to any problem is generally to pass a new law that
    proscribes some human behavior, and take more of our money
    with which they can enforce the new law.  It rarely seems to
    occur to politicians to try any approach to solving a problem
    other than prosecution and punishment.  They are an excellent
    example of the person with a hammer who views every problem
    as a nail.
    
    >Take a look around.  Now, how much larger can the pool of uneducated
    >actually get?  The schools don't teach.  They don't teach reading,
    >they don't teach writing and they don't teach arithmatic. They do
    >brainwash the masses (all those dirty little minds).
    
    Now you've lost me.  My two kids got a very good education in the
    public schools they attended in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and
    Maine, and one of them went on to graduate from an ivy college.
    
    Of course she graduated near the top of her class in high school.
    If the kids who are graduating at the top of their classes were
    unable to read or whatever, then I'd say we have a problem with
    the educational system.
    
    But if kids can't read or do math or whatever, and they graduated
    near the bottom of their class, then I would look at the kids, and
    their parents, not the public school system, for answers...and
    responsibility.
    

General agreement, but ...

> But if kids can't read or do math or whatever, and they graduated

I think the problem that many have with the system is that if you can't cut
it, you are graduated anyway, often to the point that a high school diploma
means only that you occupied a seat for 12 years (any maybe not even that).

    Yes, I agree that is a problem.  But what is the alternative?  Do we
    just make them repeat the 9th grade until they turn 18, then throw them
    out?  At least if you pass them through the system they will get exposed 
    to all the subjects even if they aren't learning as much as they should.
    
    Personally I would like to see a whole different system in the first
    place, with no grade levels based on age, no grades for performance,
    and no competition allowed.  I'd like to see each kid be able to take
    as long as s/he needs to master each subject at each level before going
    on to the next level in that subject.  And with computers and other
    electronic means to enhance education, I don't see any reason why every
    student in America can't get an education individualized to his/her
    needs and abilities, with teachers there to facilitate and help those
    who need extra help.
    
    There are lots of things the public school system could do better, but
    one of the problem it has right now is that nobody in town wants to pay
    for anything better.  If teachers all got paid $10,000/year and had to
    work 80-hour weeks year round with no vacation, taxpayers would still
    want to cut their pay so they could lower their taxes.
    

    
    Perhaps, if people weren't losing 47% of their income to taxes (fed,
    state, and local) they would be more willing to support local
    education. Whether that be a private school or maybe a state run school
    or community cooperative school or church school, or home-based
    education.
    
    If the people had thier money to spend the way that they saw fit then
    the needs deemed important by the community would be met by the
    community.
    
    --Geoff

    I agree.  When we see major portions of our tax money being spent in
    ways we highly disapprove of, or in ways that are just plain
    illegitimate, then we tend to resist *any* increase in taxes no matter
    how well justified it is.
    
    If we could clean up Washington, our statehouses, and our local
    political systems, then we could get back to concentrating on what is
    important.
    
    That's what is so appealing about the Libertarian viewpoint.  We are
    never going to all be pleased with Washington running our life.  The
    only way we can deal with our political discontent is to get Washington
    mostly out of the picture and return politics, and our control over it,
    to the local level.
    
    There are some things, of course, that can only be done by Washington,
    but those are few and far between compared to what we are lumbered with
    today.  There is a lot that needs fixing and that is what Libertarians
    are saying we need, and I for one agree.

    if we all fixed ourselves it would be a good start.

    that too.

    But why should we bother?  Any time we try to take responsibility for
    something the government arrests us for it.  Anytime we need help they
    turn us down.  Anytime we don't need help they force it on us.  Anytime
    we try to go anywhere they put up roadblocks.  And whatever we want
    them to do, they do the opposite.
    

    |Any time we try to take responsibility for something the government
    |arrests us for it
    
    would you provide just one example?
    
    |Anytime we need help they turn us down.
    
    would you provide just one example?
    
    |Anytime we don't need help they force it on us.
    
    would you provide just one example?
    
    |Anytime we try to go anywhere they put up roadblocks.
    
    would you provide just one example?

    
    .189
    
    I think I see a theme here.

    i'm just tired of rhetoric, that's all.

    
    "When a man is tired of rhetoric, he is tired of life."
    
    Samuel Johnson, approximately
    

    
      So you're tired of rhetoric and you're in the 'BOX ?
    
      bb

    to everything there is a season,
    a time for rhetoric, a time for substance.
    and so on.

    To everything, spurn spurn spurn
    there is a season, spurn spurn spurn

    
    ...8^o
    
    Oh, oh, sorry.  SpurN.  SpurN.  

    Actually, I was being a little facetious, thinking about one of
    my favorite remarks by the author of "Looking Out for Number 1":
    
            Government has 3 functions:
    
            A. Stop you from doing things you want to do
            B. Make you do things you don't want to do
            C. Take your money without your permission
    
            You can get all that any night of the week in Central Park.
            So who needs government?
    
    But since you asked:  (and I'm sure other people could add to this)
    
    >|Any time we try to take responsibility for something the government
    >|arrests us for it
    >would you provide just one example?
    
    Cab driver in New York? who saw an armed robbery in progress,
    chased the perp with his car and ran him up against a brick wall.
    The perp was disarmed and charged with the robbery.  The cab
    driver was charged with assault with a deadly weapon.
    
    There are lots of stories like this.
    
    >|Anytime we need help they turn us down.
    >would you provide just one example?
    
    I couldn't afford health insurance for myself, my wife, and my
    two kids when I was unemployed for a year.  Many thousands of
    Americans are in that boat.  The government has refused to
    solve this problem.
    
    By not providing adequate public transportation all over the US,
    the government (fed, state, local) forces most of us to purchase
    and drive our own cars, which costs many times as much as public
    trans would, and puts people behind the wheel whether they are
    able to drive safely at the moment or not (DWI, medical problems,
    old age, young age, or whatever)
    
    >|Anytime we don't need help they force it on us.
    >would you provide just one example?
    
    Forced prayer in public schools (until the feds stop them).
    
    The War on Drugs, the War on Tobacco, Prohibition, the new
    Prohibition (for those under 21), the national speed limit
    (finally lifted now), laws against gambling, prostitution, and
    other human pleasures, RICO laws...
    
    >|Anytime we try to go anywhere they put up roadblocks.
    >would you provide just one example?
    
    Put up Christmas decorations or sing Christmas carols in
    public school.
    
    Random roadblocks where they pull you out of your car to test
    you for DWI.
    
    Buy some waterfront property, and the EPA tells you afterward
    that you can't build a house there, which is the only reason
    you bought the property in the first place.
    
    Worse, buy a piece of non-waterfront commercial property with
    a large shack on it right on Rt. 1 in Biddeford Maine, and the
    EPA tells you that since there is a large puddle there after it
    rains sometimes during the year, you can't build anything else
    on that lot, can't expand or fix up the shack, in short you
    can't improve the lot at all, even though the puddle disappears
    during hot dry weather, because it is "wetlands".
    

        >|Anytime we don't need help they force it on us.    
        >would you provide just one example?        
    
        |Forced prayer in public schools (until the feds stop them).
    
        this i don't understand.  the government forced prayer until
        the government stopped prayer?
    
        

    Local state or community government forced prayer (maybe still does)
    in public schools in some of the southern states.  Used to be in just
    about every state, in fact.  Heppened in the public school I attended
    in Maryland back in the 50s and 60s.
    
    Then the federal government stopped it after Madelaine Murray O'Hare
    complained about it in Chicago (or whoever/wherever).
    
    "Government" includes federal, state, and local, but they all do the
    same things to people.
    

    Hasn't O'hare been missing for months?  I bet she's been rubbed out by
    the gumment as a precursor to a reintroduction of forced prayer.

    Yeah, I heard that too.  Has she ever showed up?  Maybe she and 
    Jimmy Hoffa are yukking it up on some island in the Carribean...
    
    

    
    no colin. O'Hare is still in Chicago, well last time I checked it was.

    o'hare, i believe, is still missing.  i think she's dead.
    she wished to be buried in an unknown grave because
    certain people threatened to pray for her graveside.

    
    Oph, O'Hare is *not* missing. It is still in Chicago. I'm surprised
    at you, I hold you in extremely high esteem. now go my child and
    sin no more.

    Then it's her luggage that is missing.

    Well if she isn't dead it's a miracle, what with all those planes
    landing on her all the time...

    |Then it's her luggage that is missing.
    
    The case of the missing case.

ennui d'etui

    her trunk will turn up somewhere.

    
    was she missing a glove as well?

re: RUSURE::GOODWIN

quote from 752.185:

 ...get Washington mostly out of the picture and return politics, and our
 control over it, to the local level.
    

quote from 752.199:

 "Government" includes federal, state, and local, but they all do the same
 things to people.
    
    
So if government includes "local", then just what is your definition of the
"local level" we need to get back to?

Bob

    There are some things, like the Post Office, that only the federal
    government is big enough to do well.  
    
    But when it comes to speed limits, welfare, drinking ages, and other
    laws that the federal government has imposed on all of us via
    highway-fund-blackmail in recent years, many of those things are better
    left to state or local governments.  At least if the selectmen in my
    town were to try to pass some really stupid law I would be able to have
    a significant voice in trying to get them to change it and/or in trying
    to get new selectmen elected.  
    
    What I'm thinking is that there are local concerns that are not
    anyone's business outside of the local area, because no provisions of
    the constitution are being violated, so the feds ought to get their
    noses out and keep 'em out.
    
    As for local government, it can be just as nosy and just as overbearing
    as the feds, but at least you stand some chance of dealing with them,
    and if worse comes to worst you can go somewhere else.
    
    And overall, I would like government at all levels to back off a bit,
    to withdraw its nose, eyes and claws from our bedrooms, cars, bodies
    and lives, and exercise minimal governing power rather than maximum
    power it can get away with.  If government at any level wants to do
    something useful, let is do things to help people, provide information,
    and things like that rather than throw its weight around like the
    schoolyard bully, which is exactly what so many politicians once were.
    

    >was she missing a glove as well?
                                          
    I think so.  Couple of tusks too.

>    And overall, I would like government at all levels to back off a bit,
>    to withdraw its nose, eyes and claws from our bedrooms, cars, bodies
>    and lives,

And wallets, please. Let's not forget wallets.

>				If government at any level wants to do
>    something useful, let is do things to help people

The problem here, of course, is that it will always claim it's "helping"
"someone", and "someone" will always agree.

I don't want them to "help". They can best "help" me by leaving me the hell
alone.

    I agree, Jack, I agree.  How could I forget wallets.
    
    And yes, they always claim to be helping somebody (other than
    themselves that is).
    
    What I'm thinking is that the government does a lot of pretty neat
    stuff, like medical research, compiling statistics on this and that,
    and lots of other stuff that doesn't really bother me if you don't
    count the cost.  
    
    I would think since you and I and everyone else paid for the National
    Weather Service and NOAA, for instance, that weather information ought
    to be free.  Also maring charts and anything other information that is
    the product of our tax money.
    
    But it is not generally free (I know the web has some freebies right
    now, but I expect that not to last).  Right before the web made
    everything free the Nat'l Weather Service had a dialup BBS with weather
    maps and info.  But it was only available to commercial enterprises who
    would then resell the info a a profit, much the same as are marine
    charts now, on paper or CDROM. 
    
    I would like to be able to get any and all government-compiled
    information and research free of any charge.  Not only weather stuff,
    but research on diseases, anything available from the Centers for
    Disease Control, anything available from NASA, and anything available
    from government-funded research at private institutions.  
    
    Your money and mine has developed a $1.00 radar chip that can see
    through walls and other objects to detect objects.  This exciting
    little device was developed at Lawrence Livermore Labs and was
    initially made available for a reasonable price for a development kit
    to anyone interested in developing applications.  Interest was so great
    that they right away raised the price to $100,000 per kit. so people
    like you and I are unable to share in what we paid to develop.
    
    If the government wants me to quit smoking, then it should feel free to
    make any and all information on the subject available to me for free so
    I can decide for myself.  Instead it wants to create yet another
    controlled substance and another drug to have a war on -- another
    Prohibition if David Kessler gets his way.  
    
    The government could offer a lot to its citizens from what we have
    already paid for, but instead all it wants to do is bully us.  Makes
    you get a real warm feeling for the Libertarian point of view.
    

    re: .214
    
    Amen,
    
    		(sorry if I thumped too loud!)

As I've said before, the only legitimate reason for government is to protect 
the individual and property rights of it's citizens. Anything in addition to
this results in government tyranny. Government bureaucrats and judges enforce 
political agendas designed to support an ever expanding parasitical 
superstructure which always results in stagnation. That superstructure 
consists of self-aggrandizing politicians, wealth-draining government jobs, 
life-draining welfare dependents, unearned government subsidies, bankrupt 
social security, and fraudulent health-care plans. 

The murderous destruction of armed bureaucrats can be illustrated. Those 
armed agents are found in the IRS. They are also found in gun-backed
bureaucracies such as the ATF, FDA, INS. "Jackbooted thugs" is the most honest,
accurate description for many federal armed agents, despite the non-sequitur 
blatherings by politicians, bureaucrats, and journalists. Dehumanized armed 
agents are needed to enforce stagnating political agendas for all politicians, 
most bureaucrats, and some judges. Such tax-paid stagnation permeates the 
federal government today to increasingly undermine security and prosperity in 
America. 

>    If the government wants me to quit smoking, then it should feel free to
>    make any and all information on the subject available to me for free so
>    I can decide for myself.  Instead it wants to create yet another
>    controlled substance and another drug to have a war on -- another
>    Prohibition if David Kessler gets his way.  

I thought you already quit several years ago about the same time I did? :^) :^)

I agree that free access to info we already paid for is better than doubly
indemnifying us. The stuff that can be had from Pueblo is good, but I also see
that shutting down. Plus, much of what comes out of Pueblo is several years
behind the times.  Years ago you could call the post office and get the
entire US ZIPcode directory on 9-track magtape for free, down to the street
level, if you had the time, energy, and processor power to make use of it.
Today the USPS wants damn near $1k for the same info on CD-ROM.

    I did quit, over 10 years ago, was just using "me" because it was
    easier.
    
    I really hate the way the government encourages us to pick on groups of
    people to use as scapegoats for all our ills.  Once it was witches,
    at different times it was various immigrant groups, blacks, communists
    in the 50s, drinkers in the 30s, now smokers in the 80s and 90s, gays
    all the time...
    
    We binge on hating some group, then we come to our senses and pass laws
    to protect that group from such discrimination, then we pick on some
    other group to hate.
    
    I think it is a part of normal human behavior to try to pin the blame
    for our own failings on somebody else.  But at the very least I expect 
    my government to be above that sort of human frailty.  It is sad that
    not only are they not above it, they encourage it.  It is in their own
    interests to do so, I think, because it helps shift the focus of blame
    off the government itself.
    
    
    

>As I've said before, the only legitimate reason for government is to protect 
>the individual and property rights of it's citizens. 

I vehemently disagree.  Government should crack down on apostrophe abuse.

    Then it would be an apostate.

    
    .220
    
    eeks! That might land me in old sparky then.

Only if Jack and I were co-kings.

----------
From: 	[email protected][SMTP:[email protected]]
Sent: 	Tuesday, July 16, 1996 4:10 PM
To: 	[email protected]
Subject: 	radio ads blast Dole


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HARRY BROWNE, LIBERTARIAN FOR PRESIDENT
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For additional information:
Bill Winter, Director of Communications
Phone: (202) 333-0008
Internet:[email protected]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CAMPAIGN NEWS
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: July 16, 1996


Radio ads on Oliver North show blast Bob Dole
for backpedaling on assault weapons ban
        

        WASHINGTON, DC -- Fans of the Oliver North radio 
program in 116 cities across the USA will hear Bob Dole blasted 
this week for flip-flopping on the assault weapons ban.

        The attacks are the opening salvo of a nationwide radio 
advertising campaign from Libertarian Party presidential candidate 
Harry Browne. 

        "We want to reach conservatives who feel betrayed by Bob 
Dole's abandonment of the Second Amendment," explained Browne 
campaign director Sharon Ayres. "Dole figured he could sell out 
gun owners because they had nowhere else to go. Well, in 1996, 
they have somewhere to go: They can vote for Harry Browne."

        The advertisements stake out Browne's position as 
a fervent defender of the Second Amendment, and sharply criticize 
Dole for backpedaling on his promise to repeal the so-called assault 
weapons ban. They will run on the popular, syndicated right-wing 
talk show host's program during the week of July 15th to 19th.

        In one of the advertisements, Browne says, "Repeal the 
assault weapons ban now. Repeal the Brady Bill now. I'm Harry 
Browne, Libertarian candidate for President, saying government 
doesn't work and government gun control doesn't work.

        "Gun control disarms honest Americans while leaving 
guns in the hands of violent criminals. Bill Clinton is proud 
of the assault weapons ban, and Bob Dole refuses to repeal it. 
Bill Clinton is proud of the Brady Bill, and Bob Dole refuses 
to repeal it.

        "If the right to keep and bear arms matters to you, Harry 
Browne is your candidate for President. If you demand that the 
federal government live up to every part of the Constitution, 
Harry Browne is your candidate for President."

        The advertisements also give a toll-free number for more 
information about the Browne campaign and the Libertarian Party: 
(800) 682-1776.

        Explaining his no-compromise position on gun issues, 
Browne said, "Gun-control laws don't reduce crime, but passing 
them gives politicians another soap-box opportunity to pose as 
crime-fighters. Conservative politicians act tough by repealing 
the Bill of Rights, while liberal politicians act tough by 
outlawing weapons. Neither action reduces the crime rate. But 
both allow politicians to feel self-righteous, and both 
undermine our freedoms."

        If elected president, Browne has promised to repeal all 
federal gun-control laws.

        Besides winning votes for Browne, Ayres said the radio 
ads might serve as a wake-up call for wavering Republicans to 
defend the right to keep and bear arms.

        "Republicans must learn that if they abandon the Second 
Amendment, there is another political party eager to pick up 
those disenfranchised voters -- the Libertarian Party. Flip-flop 
on the gun issue and pay the price; that's the message we want 
Bob Dole and other Republicans to hear," said Ayres.

-- 
Harry Browne for President                         [email protected]
http://www.HarryBrowne96.org/                               fax: 202-333-0072
2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100, Washington DC 20037     voice: 202-333-0008




% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from [16.125.32.248] by us1rmc.bb.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA21157; Fri, 19 Jul 96 07:17:06 -040
% Received: by pkoexc1.pko.dec.com with Microsoft Exchange (IMC 4.0.838.14) id <[email protected]>; Fri, 19 Jul 1996 07:18:02 -040
% Message-Id: <c=US%a=_%p=Digital%[email protected]>
% From: Geoffrey Keller <[email protected]>
% To: "'[email protected]'" <cuptay::keller>
% Subject: FW: radio ads blast Dole
% Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 07:17:58 -0400
% X-Mailer:  Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.838.14
% Encoding: 96 TEXT
    

----------
From: 	[email protected][SMTP:[email protected]]
Sent: 	Thursday, July 18, 1996 8:42 PM
To: 	[email protected]
Subject: 	cut it another 89%


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HARRY BROWNE, LIBERTARIAN FOR PRESIDENT
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For additional information:
Bill Winter, Director of Communications
Phone: (202) 333-0008
Internet: [email protected]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CAMPAIGN NEWS
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: July 18, 1996


"Cut it another 89%" is Harry Browne's 
response to 11% cut in IRS budget

        
        WASHINGTON, DC -- "Don't stop there!" That was 
the reaction of Libertarian Party presidential candidate 
Harry Browne when he learned the U.S. House had trimmed 
the Internal Revenue Service's budget by 11% on Wednesday. 

        "Cut it another 89%," he challenged Republicans 
and Democrats today.

        The House voted 215-207 on Wednesday to cut nearly 
$774 million from the tax-collecting agency's $6.6 billion 
budget. But that's mild medicine compared to what Browne 
vows to do.

        "If elected president, I will end the income tax 
and abolish the IRS during my first year in office," 
Browne said.

        Browne has made the demise of the hated IRS a 
centerpiece of his presidential campaign -- and is offering 
Americans what he calls "The Great Trade."

        On hundreds of talk radio shows, Browne asks voters: 
"Would you give up all your favorite federal programs -- such 
things as farm subsidies, student loans, the Corporation for 
Public Broadcasting, and other programs -- in order to be 
free of the income tax forever?

        "We must get rid of hundreds of federal programs, but 
we can't remove them one at a time, because each program has 
beneficiaries who will fight us. We can overcome their 
resistance only by combining all the spending cuts into a 
single package that includes the largest tax cut in American 
history -- the total repeal of the federal income tax. That 
way most people can see that they'll save far more in taxes 
than they lose in subsidies," he said.

        "By combining the reduction of government with the 
repeal of the income tax, every voter will know that the 
price of keeping today's federal programs is to continue paying 
the income tax. Every voter will know exactly how much he can 
gain by eliminating the complete package of unconstitutional 
programs."

        Browne today also scoffed at Clinton administration 
warnings that the House's minor budget cuts might cause 
"reduced taxpayer services" from the IRS.

        "If we're lucky, this budget cut will result in 
reduced taxpayer abuse," he said.

         "Remember, without a warrant the IRS can order 
anyone -- your banker, your employer, the stores you deal 
with -- to provide information about your finances," said 
Browne. "The IRS can impose penalties on you for any of 
150 different reasons. That's the kind of 'service' 
Americans can do without. Under a Browne administration, 
Americans would no longer fear the IRS -- because it 
wouldn't exist."

        Browne, 63, is a bestselling author and investment 
advisor. With running mate Jo Jorgensen, he is already on 
the ballot in 33 states, and plans to qualify in all 50 
states by August.

-- 
Harry Browne for President                         [email protected]
http://www.HarryBrowne96.org/                               fax: 202-333-0072
2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100, Washington DC 20037     voice: 202-333-0008




% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from [16.125.32.248] by us1rmc.bb.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA21172; Fri, 19 Jul 96 07:17:33 -040
% Received: by pkoexc1.pko.dec.com with Microsoft Exchange (IMC 4.0.838.14) id <[email protected]>; Fri, 19 Jul 1996 07:18:29 -040
% Message-Id: <c=US%a=_%p=Digital%[email protected]>
% From: Geoffrey Keller <[email protected]>
% To: "'[email protected]'" <cuptay::keller>
% Subject: FW: cut it another 89%
% Date: Fri, 19 Jul 1996 07:18:27 -0400
% X-Mailer:  Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.838.14
% Encoding: 98 TEXT
    

    Ummm.  Just how is he going to repeal the evil-looking-gun ban, the
    give-criminals-a-five-day-lead law, and abolish the IRS without the
    support of Congress????
    
    Bob

Well, if you're going to have to make promises you can't keep, just to get
elected, you might as well make them big.

    
    
>    Ummm.  Just how is he going to repeal the evil-looking-gun ban, the
>    give-criminals-a-five-day-lead law, and abolish the IRS without the
>    support of Congress????
    
    	executive orders?
    
    jim

By screaming, yelling, stomping his feet, and throwing bigger hissy fits
than Scalia?

      If he had the chance, it would at least be great just to
      see him try.
    
      						Tony

    If the president of the United States can't accomplish that for which he
    campaigned, why do we need him??

    
    	we don't. ANARCHY NOW!!
    
    

    > If the president of the United States can't accomplish that for which he
    > campaigned, why do we need him??
    
    Because we need an Official Person to bite his lip and wipe tears
    from his eyes on cue at functions such as Olympic Opening Ceremonies.
    
    Chris

    >we don't. ANARCHY NOW!!
    
    It isn't anarchy, only sensible for people to discard/destroy/sell/find
    another use for that which they don't need. What is the value, to each
    individual in our society, of the President of the United States? I
    really would like to know.

It's a way of having a King without actually having a King.

Head of state for ceremonial purposes, and providing a rubber stamp to
whatever the legislature does, with appropriate (limited) power to object
to what the legislature does.

In a more global sense, just one more way to keep a majority from running
rampant over the rights of the minority.  It also means that we don't end
up having to rewrite all the law books every time a different party comes
to power.

Hey, anything that slows government's implementation of new stupid ideas is
ok by me.  AFAIC, any legislation done in haste is legislation that
everyone's going to come to regret.  The prez provides a limiting
mechanism... sorta like a governor.

    
      Article II.  Section 1 says, "The executive power shall be vested
     in the President of the Unites States of America."  This is commonly
     taken to mean that Congress passes laws, and it is the President who
     carries them out.  The assumption is, laws require enforcement, or
     they will have no effect.
    
      Section 2 says, "The President shall be Commander-in-Chief of the
     Army and Navy of the United States," the assumption being that in
     time of war, the only winning organization is central command.  This
     article also gives him treaty, appointive, and investigative powers.
    
      The veto is described in Article 1, section 7, paragraph 3.
    
      The office is separately and directly elected, giving it an
     independent power base, unlike parliamentary systems, and is an
     American invention.  The Confederation, a failure, had no such
     office.  The advantages of having a President were argued
     prospectively in The Federalist, and Madison, Hamilton, and Jay
     succeeded in convincing the people and the several states, that
     the office made sense.  Today, in the wildly unlikely event of a
     plebiscite on retaining the office, the American concensus would
     be even more overwhelmingly in favor of keeping it.  The war record
     of this office alone would probably make people terribly afraid to
     abolish it.
    
      bb

    Yea, but what do we need him for?   :)

    >why do we need him?
    
    We need him primarily to put the brakes on the otherwise unrestrained
    idiocy of Congress.  That's why most presidents have been from the
    party opposite the majority party in congress -- it's one of those
    voter instincts that helps us to survive.
    
    And once in a while the government, in the person of the persident, has
    to actually DO something, and he's handy for that too.
    
    But in a sense you're quite right -- who needs him or the congress
    either?  Thank goodness for gridlock.

    >We need him primarily to put the brakes on the otherwise unrestrained
    >idiocy of Congress.
    
    This is a big problem with the system. This is how politicians feed on
    each other and work together to convince the public of the need. The
    facts are that not one individual needs these politicians, not one.
    They live off us by creating the problems and then convincing us that
    we need them to solve the problems. We don't need any of their usurping
    self-created jobs. They are a drain and a hindrance to our happiness.

    Welllllll.....   I feel the same way most of the time, but there are a
    few things that I think we couldn't have done without 'em.  Like every
    time I drop a letter in the mailbox and it gets ther for $.35.  I like
    all the space travel and other scientific research too.
    
    And other things -- lots of 'em as a matter of fact.  It's just that
    when they really get me annoyed, that's all I can think about for a
    while.  :-)

    I don't see anything that the government does, that wouldn't have been
    accomplished with competitive free enterprise business. 

    >I don't see anything that the government does, that wouldn't have been
    >accomplished with competitive free enterprise business.
    
    I used to feel that way too, but it just doesn't hold up.  Example: the
    Postal System.  There is no way any private company would venture to
    deliver a letter from Mooselookmeguntic, ME to Frozenoze, AK for $.35.
    
    The only way the USPS can accomplish this feat is to do it on a
    national scale with no competition slurping up the easy stuff like the
    thousands of letters that need to be delivered all within some one city
    block somewhere.
    
    Yes we could regulate prices and regulate coverage, but by the time we
    got done with all that, we would probably be paying $20 for a letter,
    plus all the taxes to fund the regulation.  We're better off just
    letting Uncle do the job.
    
    Plus:  Uncle doesn't need to make a profit -- just has to break even.
    
    Same goes for national health care, for the same exact reasons.  It
    galls me to think of how much of my money goes to make insurance companies
    rich when all I need is a simple Rx that should be available over the
    counter in the first place.
    
    A friend of mine from Lebanon tells me that there is no such thing as
    prescription drugs over there -- they are all over-the-counter.  It is
    up to you to know what you want and how much to take.  Your
    responsibility.  These guys have the right idea.
    
    And we should have a national public transportation system and a
    national public education system with no upper limit on degrees.  
    
    Both could be made to have "user fees" like the Post Office, and that
    would be fine with me.  The point is, some human endeavors are just too
    big for private companies to handle in a free market.
    
    The US space program would never have gotten off the ground if the
    government didn't do it.  Same with a lot of other scientific research
    with no immediate payoff.

    Yeah, them Lebanese really know how to run a country.

    I knew someone was going to say that.  And I agree.  But I do like the
    idea of leaving more responsibility up to the individual and less to
    the government, sentiments I've been hearing quite a lot about latest.
    
    I'm not the typical 'murican who thinks everyone else in the world is
    an ignorant jerk.  We can learn a lot from the rest of the world, and
    if we don't start doing some of that, they are going to leave us in
    their well-deserved dust in many many ways.

    >The US space program would never have gotten off the ground if the
    >government didn't do it.  Same with a lot of other scientific
    >research with no immediate payoff.
    
    
    If there was money to be made due to a business need and open competition 
    to perform the task, it would be much further advanced then now. Look
    at the computer industry. Without government regulation, control or
    interference it has advanced asymptotically. The same would happen for
    anything for which there is a consumer demand.
    
    I also think 35 cents is quite high for one lousy letter, considering 
    the volume. The post office always wants increased rates. Business would 
    give a better deal to its customers, based on volume alone. 
                       

    .244
    
    Ah, I see the plan.
    
    Take basic antibiotics off prescription and allow anyone to self
    prescribe.  Devoid of any prescription controls, bacteria mutate and
    develop many killer strains, devastating humanity.  Libertarians
    take over?
    
    We already know that bacteria are becoming highly resistant to
    the common antibiotics and that old diseases like TB are re-emerging.
    As much as I mistrust our masters, I don't think I want to trust
    Joe Bloggs to self prescribe whenever he feels like it, in the interests
    of personal freedom & responsibility.   
    
    
    
               

Received: from hustle.rahul.net (hustle.rahul.net [192.160.13.2]) by maildeliver3.tiac.net (8.6.12/8.7.4) with SMTP id PAA17240; Sun, 21 Jul 1996 15:57:39 -0400
    Whether or not you believe Harry Browne should be the next president,
    don't you believe that he should have a chance to be a part of the
    presidential debates and get his message accross?  If you want to help
    ensure that the debates contain content in this presidential election,
    here are a few things that you can do.
    
    --Geoff
    
          ***************************************************
                    7 Things You Can Do This Week to
          Help Harry Browne Get Into the Presidential Debates
          *************************************************** 

The first Presidential Debate will take place in St. Louis on September
25th.
    
Bob Dole and Bill Clinton will be there.

Will Harry Browne be included in the Presidential Debates?

He just might -- if you help now.

If we can get Harry Browne up to at least 7% in the polls, we
stand a good chance of getting him included in the 1996 Presidential
Debates. 

Why 7%?

Harry Browne says, "To be included in the 1996 Presidential debates, I
need to reach the same 7% in the polls that Ross Perot had in 1992 just
days before he was included in the first Presidential Debate. Just one
week after that first debate, Perot was polling 18%, so clearly
Americans rely on the Presidential Debates as a way to learn about the
candidates and make their choice. I think that a 7% standing in the
polls just prior to the debates indicates a potential of 2 to 3 times
as much. Enough, in fact, to affect the outcome of the 1996 elections."

To accomplish this, we must dramatically boost name recognition for
Harry Browne now.  We must publicize _Why Government Doesn't Work_. We
must explain what Harry Browne is proposing and why. And start the
drumbeat now for including Harry Browne in the Presidential Debates.

Would you like to help increase Harry Browne's chances of reaching 7%
in the Presidential polls?

Would you like to help increase Harry Browne's chances of being
included in the Presidential Debates?

There are 7 things you can do this week that will move Harry Browne
closer to both.

MONDAY:  Write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper, college
newspaper, weekly magazines, or other frequent publications about Harry
Browne's Libertarian Presidential Campaign.

  1.  Use Harry Browne's name several times in your letter. Repetition
  is the mother of memory. When the national polls call, people need to
  remember "Harry Browne".

  2.  Refer to _Why Government Doesn't Work_ in the letter. Some readers
  will go to the bookstore and buy it. They may read themselves free.

  3.  Your letter must focus on one of Harry Browne's core campaign
  themes:

    - "Harry Browne says, `Government Doesn't Work'"

    - "Libertarian Presidential Candidate Harry Browne wants to
       immediately end the Insane War on Drugs -- so our streets will
       be safe again."

    - "Libertarian Presidential candidate Harry Browne says, `Get
       government entirely out of Social Security. Sell off trillions of
       dollars of unneeded federal assets and buy private retirement
       annuities for senior citizens dependent on Social Security.'"

    - "Harry Browne, the Libertarian Presidential candidate, wants to
       end the income tax and abolish the IRS his first year in office
       and replace them with nothing."

TUESDAY:  Call in to talk radio shows to talk up the Harry Browne
Libertarian Presidential Campaign.

  1.  Pick the Harry Browne core campaign theme that best fits the talk
  radio discussion:

    - "Harry Browne says, `Government Doesn't Work.  Government doesn't
       deliver the mail on time, its schools don't educate our children,
       it can't keep our streets safe. Government Doesn't Work.'"

    - "Libertarian Presidential Candidate Harry Browne wants to
       immediately End the War on Drugs -- which will take the windfall
       profits out of pushing drugs, remove the incentives for joining
       gangs, and make our streets safe again."               

    - "Libertarian Presidential Candidate Harry Browne says, `Get
       government entirely out of Social Security. Sell off trillions of
       dollars of unneeded federal assets and buy private retirement
       annuities for senior citizens dependent on Social Security. End
       the obscene 15% Social Security Tax that GenX'ers and Baby Boomers
       pay for Social Security they'll never get.'"

    - "Harry Browne, the Libertarian Presidential candidate, wants to
       end the income tax and abolish the IRS his first year in office and
       replace them with nothing.  Every dollar you earn will be yours to
       spend, to save, to give to your favorite charity or church or cause."

  2.  Repeat Harry Browne's name several times during your call.
  Repetition is the mother of memory. When the national polls call,
  people need to remember "Harry Browne, Libertarian for President."

  3.  Mention _Why Government Doesn't Work_ during the call. Quote from
  it. Some readers will go to their local bookstore and buy it. Harry
  Browne's book might well win their hearts and minds to individual
  liberty and self-responsibility.

WEDNESDAY:  Post messages about the Harry Browne for President Campaign
on computer networks.

  1.  If you subscribe to CompuServe, America OnLine, or Usenet newsgroups,
  or have access to other computer forums, you can post messages about
  Harry Browne under appropriate topic areas.  Please follow the same
  guidelines as for letters and talk radio shows.  Talk up Harry Browne's
  name (try to include it in the subject line),  _Why Government Doesn't
  Work_, and his core Libertarian Presidential Campaign issues.

  2.  Respect the charters and guidelines of each forum, but don't
  "preach to the choir" by limiting your postings to areas already
  frequented by libertarians.  Wherever political or social concerns
  and the "solutions" touted by establishment politicians are discussed,
  make sure the readers know about Harry Browne.  Pick the Harry Browne
  core campaign theme that fits best with the subject matter of the
  forum, and make sure they know there is a Libertarian alternative.

  3.  When posting messages about Harry Browne online, please also
  mention:

    - The Harry Browne 800 Number: 1-800-682-1776.

    - The Harry Browne for President WWW site:
      http://www.HarryBrowne96.org
        
    - How to get on our e-mail list.  Tell them they can subscribe by
      sending a message to  <[email protected]> with
      "subscribe" in the subject line.

THURSDAY:  Vote for Harry Browne in every online presidential poll you
can find. Ask your friends with computers to vote Harry Browne in these
polls, too.

  Journalists pay attention to these polls.  Some polls are re-started
  daily, some are re-started monthly -- so vote as often as the rules
  allow.

  Here are a few of the polls currently running:

    AllPolitics (CNN/Time) Virtual Election
    http://pathfinder.com/cgi-bin/GDML/gdmldb?VirtualElection

    Campaign 96 Online Survey
    http://www.96.com/cgi-96/survey.cgi?

    IPT Virtual Voting Booth
    http://www.ipt.com/vote/vote.htm

    RTIS Cyberpoll
    http://www.rtis.com/nat/pol/cyberpoll/

    Vox Pop Strawpoll (formerly Stardot)
    http://www.voxpop.org/strawpoll/

  Links to these and other polls are listed on the Harry Browne for
  President WWW site.  New polls could start at any time, so check
  there for an updated list.

FRIDAY:  Write a letter to 1 or 2 of the key television interview and
talk shows -- a few are listed below -- and tell them why you think
Harry Browne would be interesting to their audiences.

     Larry King Live                 The Tom Snyder Show
     820 First Street NE             CNBC 
     Washington, DC 20002            3000 West Alameda Blvd
                                     Burbank, CA  91523

     The Charlie Rose Show           Tony Brown's Journal
     WNET-TV                         1501 Broadway, Suite 412
     499 Park Avenue                 New York, NY 10036              
     New York, NY 10022             

     John MacLaughlin's One on One
     Oliver Productions
     1211 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 810
     Washington, DC 20036

SATURDAY:  Write to the major Network News Organizations listed below
and tell them why you think Harry Browne is newsworthy. Why you think
his presence in the Presidential Debates would be good for America.
Why you think Harry Browne and the Harry Browne Libertarian
Presidential Campaign would intrigue and interest their viewers. Why
you think Harry Browne's Libertarian Presidential Campaign could
dramatically affect the Presidential Debates and the Election.

  * Put a P.S. at the end of your letter - and ask these news
  organizations for regular and frequent coverage of the Harry Browne
  Libertarian Presidential Campaign, not just a one-time, "see how fair
  we are" obligatory piece.  Ask them for the same level of coverage that
  they're giving Dick Lamm of the Reform Party.

  * If you want to play a little guilt hardball, say, "Harry Browne may
  get between 5% and 15% of the Presidential vote this year. Will you
  give Harry Browne 5% to 15% of your total Presidential Campaign
  Coverage?"

     NBC Nightly News                           CBS News
     30 Rockefeller Plaza                       524 West 57th Street
     New York, NY 10112                         New York, NY 10019
     e-mail: [email protected]               FAX: 212-975-1893

     CNN                                        ABC News
     One CNN Center, 100 International Blvd     47 West 66th Street
     PO Box 105366                              New York, NY 10023
     Atlanta, GA 30348                          FAX: 212-456-2213 
     FAX: 770-827-1593

SUNDAY:  Tell 7 people you do business with about the Harry Browne
Libertarian Presidential Campaign.  Or 7 people you socialize with.

Tell each one of them, "Harry Browne, the Libertarian Candidate for
President says, 'Government Doesn't Work.' Do you agree?"

Ask, "Do you believe your taxes are way too low, just right, or way
too high?"

Ask, "Do you believe we have too little government, just the right
amount of government, or too much government?"

Then ask them what Harry Browne calls The Most Important Question In
Politics: "Would you be willing to give up all your favorite federal
programs, if it meant you'd never have to pay an income tax as long as
you live?"

  * Tell them What's In It For Them if Harry Browne's in the
    Presidential Debates. 

  * Tell them What's In It For Them if they vote for Harry Browne.

  * Tell them What's In It For Them if Harry Browne were elected
    President of the United States.

                   *****************************

If you'd like to be an outstanding spokesperson for the Harry Browne
Libertarian Presidential Campaign, frequently refer to _Why Government
Doesn't Work_ -- especially Chapters 20, 23, and 24.

You can also use Harry Browne's Presidential Campaign Platform as
political talking points for your calls, letters, and e-mail postings.

AND: If you want your 7 steps to really make a difference, print out 7
copies of this message for friends, and ask them to do 7 things to get
Harry Browne into the Presidential Debates.

These seven small steps could help get Harry Browne into the 1996
Presidential Debates.

These seven small steps could change the politicial debate for 1996.

These seven small steps could make a difference in America's future.

-- 
Harry Browne for President                         [email protected]
http://www.HarryBrowne96.org/                               fax: 202-333-0072
2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100, Washington DC 20037     voice: 202-333-0008



% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from mail11.digital.com by us1rmc.bb.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA19133; Mon, 22 Jul 96 20:32:32 -040
% Received: from maildeliver3.tiac.net by mail11.digital.com (8.7.5/UNX 1.2/1.0/WV) id UAA05154; Mon, 22 Jul 1996 20:24:20 -0400 (EDT
% Received: from mailserver1.tiac.net (mailserver1.tiac.net [199.0.65.232]) by maildeliver3.tiac.net (8.6.12/8.7.4) with ESMTP id UAA12006; Mon, 22 Jul 1996 20:27:00 -0400
% Received: from gkeller.tiac.net (gkeller.tiac.net [207.60.57.127]) by mailserver1.tiac.net (8.6.12/8.7.4) with SMTP id UAA25247; Mon, 22 Jul 1996 20:26:55 -0400
% Message-Id: <[email protected]>
% Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 20:19:07 -0400
% From: Geoffrey Keller <[email protected]>
% X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0b5aGold (Win95; I)
% Mime-Version: 1.0
% To: cuptay::keller, [email protected]
% Subject: [Fwd: 7 things you can do]
% Content-Type: message/rfc822
% Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
% Content-Disposition: inline
    

    >If there was money to be made due to a business need and open
    >competition to perform the task, it would be much further
    >advanced then now.
    
    American business, with its MBA/Wall Street inspired myopic focus
    on near term profits, has shown itself incapable of the kind of
    long term planning, investment, and patience required for an
    investment on a massive scale such as the space program ever to
    "pay off".
    
    In addition to that problem, the space program, like much
    scientific research funded by governments, is done with the
    expectation that the "profits" that result will be measured
    in terms of the advancement of human knowledge rather than
    in dollars and cents.  How would private industry ever be
    motivated in this case to make the massive investments
    necessary?
    
    >anything for which there is a consumer demand.
    
    Yes, this is what Wall Street slavers over -- quick profits.
    
    >I also think 35 cents is quite high for one lousy letter, considering
    >the volume. The post office always wants increased rates. Business
    would
    >give a better deal to its customers, based on volume alone.
    
    Business would only give a better deal in the most profitable
    areas like cities where mail delivery is easy and quick.  A
    private company wouldn't even touch letters mailed from and to
    homes way out there in the puckerbrush miles from anywhere, as
    the post office does.
    
    A private mail delivery service would do the same thing as most
    health insurance companies do -- pick off the cream and turn
    down the rest any business that isn't profitable.  That's why
    I like the Post Office, and that's why I like the idea of a
    nat'l health care system to provide a basic health care safety
    net.
    

    >Take basic antibiotics off prescription and allow anyone to self
    >prescribe.  Devoid of any prescription controls, bacteria mutate and
    
    No, doctors would still prescribe medicine.  But people would not have
    to have an official Rx.  Would some people self-prescribe?  Of course.
    Would people abuse narcotic drugs?  Of course.  Would things go wrong
    if people were allowed to be responsible for themselves?  Of course.
    But that's no reason to take away responsibility and freedom from
    absolutely everyone, and take everyone's taxes to pay for all the
    policing that requires.
    

   re: .246

   Do you honestly believe that bacteria will mutate slower if the FedGov
   controls antibiotic perscription?  That's certainly what I got from
   reading your note.  Sure, maybe they can spot trends of resistence, etc,
   but they can do that without perscription controls.

   That's a good one even by Box standards.

   -- Sam

    Hey, let's do it then.  What have we got to lose?
    
    You have a complex system of supplying pharmaceuticals that has evolved
    over many decades that functions well, serving the common good of a
    society.  In the interest of some supposed inhibition on personal
    freedom, you want to change that whole system at a stroke.   You have
    no model for what will happen to that system if you change one of its
    fundamental components, you have no plan for dealing with any possible
    disasters. From this, I'm supposed to infer that the proponent of the
    idea has some special knowledge of the concept of "personal
    responsibility"?
     
    Hang on.  I can see an interesting button on my system.  I have no idea
    what it does but 4598502 vo43it(*&(*B8
    
    

    
      It's standard cheapskate...er, libertarian fare.  Nobody can
     be allowed to take anything from me, me, me...but where is a
     cop when you need one ?  Same old, same old.
    
      bb

re .250:

>   re: .246
>
>   Do you honestly believe that bacteria will mutate slower if the FedGov
>   controls antibiotic perscription?

Resistant strains evolve when either a too low dosage and/or too short treatment
will kill off all but partially resistant critters, which means the next
"round" of critters is more resistant against treatment.  Repeat until you
have a form that's totally resistant.

This has already happened in a short period of time (a few years) in the
varroa mite, which attacks honeybees.  A miticide is available for beekeepers
in a strip to kill the mite.  Beekeepers are warned to follow directions
exactly, don't reuse strips after the first use (lower level of treatment) else
they may be breeding resistant mites.  Resistant mites have already shown up in
Italy for this very reason.

It's common for antibiotic prescriptions to have the directions to finish the
entire prescription, even if the infection is "over" sooner.  The reason is
you may have killed 99.99% of the nasties but the .01% that survive will
make a comeback and be harder to kill next time.

However just having goverments prescribe the stuff isn't a solution.  The
directions must be followed.

>   That's a good one even by Box standards.

No it's real life.

    >...you want to change that whole system at a stroke.
    
    No I don't.  I just want to change one little piece of it.
    
    >You have no model for what will happen to that system if you
    >change one of its fundamental components
    
    Pay attention now...
    
    This system already exists in at least one entire country.
    Models don't get much better than that.  But of course the USofA
    is much too proud to learn anything from anyone else in the world.
    
    The only reason for requiring prescriptions is to "save us from 
    ourselves".  The usual childish please-take-care-of-me-the-world-
    should-be-perfect garbage.
    
    And for every baby who feels more secure with big brother monitoring
    and controlling every move s/he makes, there are hundreds more who are
    worse off because of it.  What we really ought to do is devise a system
    where people who love BIG Government can have all they are able and
    willing to pay for themselves.

    Are still talking about the Lebanon?  That self-reliant country full
    of Syrian troops and Israeli client armies.
    
    Excuse the attention problem, but I thought I'd made it fairly clear
    that changing one component in a complex, interactive system is
    theoretically equivalent to changing the whole.  Or so systems science
    tells us.
    
    
    

The thing I've been wondering about is do they (the libertarians) even
consider what got us here in the first place? Why were federal agencies such
as the FDA, FAA, et al. started in the first place? Wasn't it "we the people"
that most likely voiced a concern over, say, tainted meat that got the ball
rolling? That is not to say that over time, these agencies have become too big
for their own britches and they need to possibly be trimmed down. But how can
they assume that by closing down all these agencies, we will all be better off
for it? 

Oh, well, they say it will give us back the "freedom to choose", without cost
to ones own pocketbook. Fine. Well my "choice", and I'm sure the majority of
others, is to stick with the federally regulated meat, because history shows
that the meat packing industry cannot be trusted to self-regulate. As is true
with many other industries that are federally regulated. 

I can't see the logic in throwing it all away now, only to have to build it 
all back again when the inevitable happens a second time around. If that were 
to happen, I'm sure there would still be those touting "personal freedom", but 
because we live in a society with lots and lots of people (to say the least), 
decisions have to be made for the common good of the people. If you don't 
like it, go live on a deserted island.


Bob

    I agree that we don't want to "throw it all away".  But governmental
    control over society has gone way beyond what is necessary to have a
    good society, and just keeps on going in that direction.
    
    Why should the federal government set speed limits?  Why should they
    set drinking ages?  Why should they establish hundreds of laws
    governing local issues that states or even local communities could
    govern just fine?
    
    Why?  Because we all like to try to force everyone else to live OUR
    WAY.  We can't live and let live.
    
    But some of us are saying "enough!", and we're willing to cut way back
    and rebuild just so we can see what we really need and what we don't
    really need.  In spite of all the rhetoric from dems and repubs about
    cutting back on big government, nothing has changed and nothing really
    will change under those two parties.

    >How would private industry ever be motivated in this case to make the 
    >massive investments necessary?
    
    
    Profit, the same reason the computer industry was motivated. Government
    does things for the glory of the politician. Business does it for
    profit and to out do it competitors. The first drains the populas for
    that which they may not want or need. The second only produces that
    which is wanted and needed. Because if it wasn't it wouldn't be
    profitatable.

    
      The computer was mostly developed out of patriotism, not the
     profit motive, in time of war.  All the early electronic computer
     customers were governments, and their prime objectives were
     encryption and decryption.  It is doubtful that our current
     business machines ever would have been invented if the Japanese
     and Germans hadn't attacked Britain and the US.  And many of these
     computer pioneers made no money out of it.  They just won the war.
    
      bb

    Yea, I'm sure Bill Gates really GAS about the war. Are you really
    trying to tell us that the computer you have on your desk, with access
    to the Internet, the latest word processers and spreadsheets,
    communication hardware and software such as phone, fax and video, are a
    because the Japanese and Germans attacked Britain and the US?

    The guys who invented the spreadsheet gave it away and made nothing.

    >The guys who invented the spreadsheet gave it away and made nothing.
    
     And I'll bet their spreadsheet looked just like today's.  :-)

    Actually, wasn't it Herman Hollerith who invented the punch card reader
    for the 1890 Census that was the beginning of IBM?
    
    Many of the successful businesses we have today were started either as
    government contracts or were started from discoveries made by
    government scientists working on various projects.
    
    Also, many of the expensive long-term research projects conducted by
    private industry are funded by government contract.
    
    Some things are simply too big for private industry to be able to do on
    their own.
    
    That's why Japan, France, and other countries have railroads that are
    so much more advanced than ours -- their governments are allowed to do
    large scale projects like that, whereas ours is not.

    You should read the account of James J. Hill who was a 19th-Century 
    producer who achieved great success in the American railroad industry and 
    began spearheading an international expansion until he was snuffed out by  
    the US government. The story  of James J. Hill is documented in the book 
    "Entrepreneurs Versus The State" by Burton W. Folsom, Jr. 
    

    
      re, .260 - so, extrapolating, it is a goal of you libertarians
     that American society would be better off as a Microsoft product ?
     Say, Win95...I can see it now...
    
      bb

    >so, extrapolating
    
    You can extrapolate all you like. The facts are that the one industry
    that has made, and continues to make, order of magnitude leaps in
    technology and value for society, the computer industry, is the only
    industry that is virtually unregulated. Government regulation hinders
    human advancement.

    Just like a horse with blinders on.

    How so?

	Isn't it amazing how we can fool the animals??? A simple thing like
blinders. Yes, it is amazing! 

    
      The computer business isn't unregulated, and Bill Gates' biggest
     worry is being designated a combination in restraint of trade, as ATT
     was.  If you think you can just build and sell a computer, without
     regulation, just try it.  The FCC for starters will shut you down.
     Good thing, too, since you'd mess up all the TV reception in the
     area if you didn't follow the regs.  And you better watch the safety
     regs and labeling regs and environmental regs, etc.  But then, why
     let actual facts get in the way of a good libertarian rant...
    
      bb

And aren't there regulations regulating which countries we can sell
our stuff to? 

    I wasn't talking about the buying and selling. I was talking about the
    development.

    
    Digital's business is selling computers world-wide.  Even if there was
    a totally regulation free market in the US, we would still have to
    build a product that met the same regulations in other countries.
    

    The internet has been the subject of recent regulation. 
    
    Also, the Gov has passed legislation which limits encrytion to one 
    format so that they can continue to eavesdrop on anyone they like 
    and can decode encrypted files.
    
    So much for being un-regulated.

    > How so?
    
    Seeing only one human endeavor that has made great contributions to
    society.

    >Seeing only one human endeavor that has made great contributions to
    >society.
    
    You're kind of an out-of-context sort of person, aren't you. When
    someone mentions one of something, contribution for example, it is a
    non-sequitur to assume that it follows that only that something is
    recognized. Also, when someone makes a comparison between two specific
    items or situations, it doesn't automatically follow that some
    similar comparison, is valid. That is why it seems difficult to get a 
    point or opinion across to you, on any one specific subject. It's funny
    too, because I think that you and I agree on most subjects. 
    

    >The facts are that the one industry that has made, and continues to
    >make, order of magnitude leaps in technology and value for society, the
    >computer industry, is the only industry that is virtually unregulated.
    
    Well sometimes I do tend to get into junkyard dog mode and attack
    anything anyone puts in here, so lemme turn that off for the moment.
    {click}
    
    Yes, I think we do agree on lots of stuff.  But the above quote is what
    I was referring to.  On reading it yet again, I still think it says
    something about the computer industry being the one industry that makes
    leaps in value for society, but I'm not sure I can agree with that.
    
    I think the space industry has made great leaps in society's knowledge
    of the universe.  Marketable?  not all that much yet, if you don't
    count all the spinoff technologies which have contributed to products
    including the computer industry.  But sometimes knowledge pays off
    longer term or in ways that can't be measured in $.
    
    How about research into genetics?  Or in medicine?  Or in food
    production?  Entertainment (radio, tv, movies)?  How about the end of
    the cold war with the USSR?
    
    Certainly all these things have great value for society all over the
    world.
    
    How about civil rights legislation and laws prohibiting discrimination
    based on superficial human characteristics?  OK, we don't all like
    those.  Pretty soon there won't be *anybody* left to pick on.  Drat!
    
    I was just questioning what I took to be an assertion that the computer
    industry was the only worthwhile, or even the most worthwhile, human
    endeavor.  And I also have to question the assertion that government
    doesn't ever do anything good.
    
    Other than that, and anything else I may disagree with you on, past,
    present, or future, I agree with you completely.  :-)
    
    

    >Certainly all these things have great value for society all over the
    >world.
    
    Certainly. And by the way, it isn't government that I have a problem
    with, it is politics and those who use government to usurp livelihoods.
    Government is needed to insure that the individual and property rights
    of each citizen are protected. This they can do by maintaining a
    military and police force. However, "good-for-society" type laws, which
    make criminals out of ordinary citizens (drug laws for example) is
    government abuse of power and an assault on freedom. This assult
    generally adversely affects the economy and therefore happiness.
     
    >How about civil rights legislation and laws prohibiting discrimination
    >based on superficial human characteristics?  
    
    Personally I think this type of legislation causes racism and bigotry.
    The protection of individual rights is the key. When everyone's
    individual rights are protected, everyone is protected. When groups are
    protected, someones rights will be ignored.
    
    >I was just questioning what I took to be an assertion that the
    >computer industry was the only worthwhile, or even the most worthwhile,
    >human endeavor.  
    
    Again, it was an example, not the only example. Stifling of advancement
    is most noticeable in industries which are required to directly work
    through a government regulatory agency, such as the FDA, which has
    generally slowed down the advancement of medical cures. Please, I'm not
    saying that some good has not come out of the FDA, however when the
    cost of medical breakthroughs and advancements prohibit companies from
    pursuing needed cures for disease, we all lose. If we lose then
    government is not protecting us.
    
    >And I also have to question the assertion that government doesn't ever do 
    >anything good.
    
    This was never an assertion that I was making. I'm sorry if there was
    confusion. I try to stay on one subject, with one context at a time.
    I don't see the space program and the computer industry being in the
    same context generally. The computer industry advancement seems to be
    done fairly efficiently, the work being done mostly by private
    industry, where the money spent is spent by those accountable for the
    success of their company. The space program had/has vast waste built in 
    because it is tax supported and run by congress who is not really 
    accountable, because they didn't have to earn the money and don't have to 
    work to the principles of a "black bottom line". Many great things have 
    come from the space program. However, there was to much unjustifiable 
    waste, which I don't think would have happened if it operated under a
    for-profit company.
                            

    re-1
    ditto

    I agree with everything you say.
    
    Damn.  Now there's nothing to argue about!  :-)

    Yes there is.

    No there isn't!

    >Damn.  Now there's nothing to argue about!  :-) 
    
    Sure there is. Just pick any one of the hundreds of Jack Martin's
    notes.  :)

One thing this conference doesn't lack is target material ...

    But what if everybody is right?

    Then it would be a clear sign of an outcome based multiculturalist
    oppressive quagmire.  I would have a problem with that!

    Yes, that would definitely be a problem.

Jack,

I have heard you use the term "outcome-based" a few times, particularly 
after I related a story about a friend who tried to tutor his daughter in
math and being discouraged/thwarted by the school. My understanding of this 
term is a little vague - could you elaborate?

    Bruce:
    
    One must keep in mind that the "educated" administrators of our schools
    today have been taught and teach this irrational philosphy. Government
    run schools today are inept at educating children because they embrace
    the ideas of John Dewey, an existentialist who dishonestly replaced the
    objective principles of education with power-usurping, subjective
    methods. Dewey's philosophy dismisses as socially irrelevant the
    teaching of fundamental knowledge such as reading, writing, mathamatics
    and science.
    
    Dewey's philosophy promotes the concept that children can be "educated"
    by allowing them to randomly pursue their own whims. The students whims
    are considered socially relevant to the here-and-now and thus are
    deemed as the basis of education. The "teacher" therefore merely
    follows wherever the child's feeling may lead (rather then the teacher
    providing the child with objective knowledge through sytematic input of 
    facts and information). With an existential action approach, Dewey deems 
    the mind as the creator of "reality". Thus in one stroke he denies all 
    knowledge previously learned while denying reality. 
    
    This is how today's teachers "think". It matters not if they teach in
    public or even private school in many cases. 

    My entry was actually an enticement for Sacks or somebody to put the
    phrase into the Soapbox word for the day.  However, Outcome based
    education purports to the idea of feelings as opposed to intellect.  In
    the case of your friend, it certainly stands to reason it would not be
    in the schools interest to have one student excell through intellectual
    means while all the other students are learning under the outcome based
    models.  What the NEA and parents fail to realize is while 4th graders
    in the US are contemplating the number of navels on their body,
    Japanese children are beginning to learn the difference between
    integral and differential calculus.
    
    -Jack

    I've heard that somewhere before, hmmmmmmm?? And for some reason I
    agree with it.  

Ack. Thx.

    Neither of my kids, who went through public schools in New England,
    had that sort of education.  Where exactly did you say this outcome
    based education is being done?
    

.289:

Largely in agreement with what you say here.

>    the ideas of John Dewey, an existentialist who dishonestly replaced the
>    objective principles of education with power-usurping, subjective
>    methods.

Hey, now THERE'S objectivity for ya.

	Wow Jack..... just wow..... 

    Tom:
    
    Haha!!!  Glen, glad you are in Awe.  Have an open mind sometime and
    maybe you'll realize you are being screwed by the Irene Swartz's of the
    world.
    
    -Jack

    
      John Dewey, the real parent of modern, free, universal, and
     compulsory education through age 16, encountered much opposition
     in his (19th century) life.  To this day, his vision is the
     subject of intense debate.
    
      The idea of school uniforms probably would have appealed to
     Dewey very much.  He was quite a disciplinarian.
    
      bb

    Re .293:
    
    > Hey, now THERE'S objectivity for ya.
    
    There's a difference between non-prejudiced and objective.  Objectivity
    does not prevent a person from making a judgement after learning the
    facts.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    RE: .74 and others regarding Libertarians and Public education...
    
    Here is an excerpt from "Why Government Doesn't Work" by Harry Browne
    
    CHAPTER 18 "Improving Education"
    
    Sub-head "What Must Be Done"
    
    ...let me point out two important changes that must be made to improve
    education:
    
    1. The federal government must get completely out of education.  It has
    made a bad situation much worse.  And it has no constitutional
    authority to meddle in education in anyway -- even if it were capable
    of helping.
    
    2. Federal taxes must be lowered dramatically so that parents have the
    ability to finance their childrens education directly, without having
    to depend on the kindness of strangers -- or strange bureaucrats.
    
    Once we make these reforms, it will be up to the people in each state
    to decide which educational system is best.
    
    * Some states will revert to the kind of education provided before the
      federal government took over -- with public schools that reflect the
      local values and circumstances.
    
    * Some states will adopt a voucher system, in order to enhance freedom
      of choice and lessen dependence on government.
    
    * And maybe some states will withdraw from education entirely --
      reducing taxes accordingly so that parents have the funds to buy
      whatever education they want for their children, and making education
      completely insulated from government interference.
    
    In the states in the third group, schools would become truely "public"
    -- responsive to the choices of their customers, the parents. The would
    necessarily be economical, and yet effective, places of learning.  And
    you would never have to endure a school that was bent on indoctrinating
    your child in an alien philosophy.
    
    ...
    
    Education is one of the most important things we give to our children
    -- much too important to allow government to tamper with it.

    
    Strange how these educators are apparently first-rate when it comes to
    teaching alien philosophies, but unable to inculcate the three Rs.
    

    snarf alien philosophies snarf snarf...what do you snarf mean alien
    phil snarf osophies?

----------
From: 	[email protected][SMTP:[email protected]]
Sent: 	Friday, July 26, 1996 3:27 AM
To: 	[email protected]
Subject: 	Release: include Browne in debates


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HARRY BROWNE, LIBERTARIAN FOR PRESIDENT
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For additional information:
Bill Winter, Director of Communications
Phone: (202) 333-0008
Internet: [email protected]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CAMPAIGN NEWS
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: July 26, 1996


Include Harry Browne in presidential debates, urge newspapers

        
        WASHINGTON, DC -- The demands are getting louder: 
Include Harry Browne in the presidential debates.

        Over the past several weeks, three newspapers and 
two influential political columnists have urged that Libertarian 
Party candidate Harry Browne be invited to go head-to-head 
against Bill Clinton and Bob Dole in the televised presidential 
debates in September and October.

        "As a party, the Libertarians have clearly earned 
inclusion in those debates. The fledgling Reform Party has 
not," editorialized the Denver Post on July 11th. "It would 
be fair to set 1996 debates between Clinton, Dole, and Browne 
as representatives of the only parties to meet the present 
yardsticks for national recognition."

        The Times Herald-Record in Middletown, New York 
agreed: "Browne, an investment advisor and political novice, 
[is] the presidential candidate of the Libertarian Party. He 
would like to elevate his party to a status that gives it 
an invitation to the presidential debates, as Perot managed 
in 1992. That would be interesting. [His] presence at the 
debate table would make for a livelier, perhaps more meaningful, 
discussion." (July 9th)

        Washington Post political columnist Colman McCarthy, 
syndicated in 26 newspapers, urged Browne's inclusion -- even 
if Republicans and Democrats balk.

        "Harry Browne, well-spoken and not sponging off the 
taxpayers, deserves a place at whichever forum hosts Clinton-Dole 
debates," he wrote on July 13th. "To keep out the Libertarian 
would be yielding to the might of the two main parties..." 

        The Sunday Review in Hayward, California noted approvingly 
that Browne would bring "new ideas" to the debate.

        "Members of the Libertarian Party want to be invited to 
this year's presidential debates, and we think they belong there," 
the newspaper wrote on July 14th. "We invite those who present 
presidential candidates to the American public to open the door 
wider. It is time for new ideas in the United States..."

        And columnist Joseph Perkins at the San Diego Union-Tribune 
suggested that if Browne was invited to the debates, he would "win 
converts to the Libertarian Party" -- and could catapult the 
Libertarians into major party status.

        "By the next presidential election, in 2000, the 
Democrats and Republicans might very well find the Libertarians 
a third party to be reckoned with," he wrote on July 19th.

        Browne, expected to be on the ballot in all 50 states 
by November, is leading the charge of up to 1,000 Libertarian 
Party candidates running for office in 1996.

-- 
Harry Browne for President                         [email protected]
http://www.HarryBrowne96.org/                               fax: 202-333-0072
2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100, Washington DC 20037     voice: 202-333-0008




% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from [16.125.32.248] by us1rmc.bb.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA02856; Mon, 29 Jul 96 08:07:44 -040
% Received: by pkoexc1.pko.dec.com with Microsoft Exchange (IMC 4.0.838.14) id <[email protected]>; Mon, 29 Jul 1996 08:08:14 -040
% Message-Id: <c=US%a=_%p=Digital%[email protected]>
% From: Geoffrey Keller <[email protected]>
% To: "'[email protected]'" <cuptay::keller>
% Subject: FW: Release: include Browne in debates
% Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 08:08:12 -0400
% X-Mailer:  Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.838.14
% Encoding: 89 TEXT
    

----------
From: 	[email protected][SMTP:[email protected]]
Sent: 	Saturday, July 27, 1996 1:23 PM
To: 	[email protected]
Subject: 	on the campaign trail


                 On the Campaign Trail with Harry Browne

                               (Episode #15)


Washington, D.C., Tuesday, July 9

The Libertarian Party convention has caused an enormous stir. Newspaper
articles, talk shows, Internet forums, TV personalities are buzzing
about the party, its convention, the platform, and its candidate.

Three months ago Rush Limbaugh was trashing any idea of a third party
-- saying it would cause Bill Clinton to be reelected. Of course, he
probably was thinking then of Ross Perot as the only third-party
possibility. But now Talk Daily, the daily newsletter of the talk-radio
industry, reports that Rush Limbaugh said good things about the LP
convention on Monday, adding "You listen to their candidate speak . . .
The guy wants to abolish the income tax, it's not going to happen, but
what he says about 'why?' makes sense . . ."

7:15am: A full day of interviews -- starting with two radio shows
before 8am.

9am: A half-hour interview in-studio on Pacifica Radio. The network is
very much to the left, but we find a great deal of common ground -- in
wanting to reduce the military to a level where it defends this country
and no more, to get rid of all the government programs that trap blacks
in the inner cities, in restoring our civil liberties, and several
other issues.

10am: I meet with Declan McCullagh of Hot Wired -- an Internet
cybermagazine. As the only visible candidate who opposed Internet
censorship, I'm in a strong position with his audience.

11am: Back at the hotel, I'm on the air with Mark Scott in Detroit. He
has been plugging my candidacy and my book continually on his show.

7pm: Pamela, Rob Martin, and I go to the office of "Politics Now," an
Internet forum -- operated by ABC News, the Washington Post, Newsweek,
the National Journal, and the Los Angeles Times. I participate in an
"online chat" -- wherein people type questions on their computers, I
see the questions on my screen, and I answer them. It goes well. My
answers are lengthy, but I'm a fast typist -- and the newsmen tell me I
replied to a record-breaking number of questions.

9:30pm: My third appearance with Patrick Halprin on News Talk
Television, a cable network. He is skeptical of some of my positions
but he, too, wants to see me in the debates. The show is telecast from
New York, but I'm in a studio in an office building in Washington.
After the show, the Washington producer tells me I won the votes of
everyone in the control room in New York. And she invites me to appear
on the Dennis Wholey show on the PBS network this Friday.

Wednesday, July 10

8:40a: Up early for a radio interview with Vicki Sherlock in Ohio. She
called to have me on because listeners have been discussing my
candidacy since the convention. She is very supportive.

10:30a: We go to the office of Americans for Tax Reform. I speak
briefly to about 40 or so conservatives who either are journalists or
officers in activist organizations -- at a weekly meeting arranged by
Grover Norquist. They are receptive to my ideas, but many are
non-committal. However, a little later in the meeting, an NRA
representative says that Dole's flip-flop on the assault weapons ban
means that many NRA members won't vote at all in November -- to which
several people in the room call out "Harry Browne."

6p: I'm on the McNeill-Lehrer News Hour on PBS (I guess it should now
be called the Lehrer-Lehrer News Hour). Charlene Hunter-Gault
interviews me for seven minutes. I expect a lot of flak, but she is
very polite and lets me tell my story my way. After the interview, I
say to her, "I expected we'd be at each other's throats." She says, "Oh
no, this is your forum to speak your piece." It was not one of my
better performances (I even forgot to give the phone number), but I'm
sure it did us some good.

10p: The day ends with a radio show in Dallas, going out on a clear
channel to most of the nation. The host is supportive and the callers
are friendly.

Thursday, July 11

Today's Denver Post has an editorial saying, among other things, " . . .
These facts should be borne in mind when it comes time to set this
fall's presidential debates. As a party, the Libertarians have clearly
earned inclusion in those debates. The fledgling Reform Party has not.
It would be fair to set 1996 debates between Clinton, Dole, and Browne
as representatives of the only parties to meet the present yardsticks
for national recognition. If Perot is the Reform Party nominee, it is
equally clear that the debates should be four-way -- again, because of
Perot's personal showing in 1992.

"If Lamm is the Reform Party nominee, the argument for including him in
a four-way debate is considerably weaker -- since neither he nor his
party would have a national track record. But in any event, it would be
a travesty to put a relative dilettante like Lamm into three-way
presidential debates with Clinton and Dole while excluding a candidate
-- Browne -- who has played by the rules he sincerely seeks to change."

9am: What a day! Nine radio shows and two press interviews -- all by
phone. One is a syndicated show on health matters in which the hostess,
Deborah Ray, is strongly opposed to the FDA and the Republicans'
health-care "reforms." The press interviews are with the Pittsburgh
Post-Gazette and the thrice-weekly paper in the Tennessee town where I
live. In the evening, I talk with Michael Reagan -- who continues to be
supportive and who urges that I be included in the debates. After the
show, I tell him I felt uncomfortable on the air including his father
among the Presidents who have allowed government to get bigger, and he
tells me not to worry about it.

8p: The last show is with John Buttrick, former LP gubernatorial
candidate, acting as a substitute host. I'm on for the last of his
three hours. He says he's been asking every caller whether he wants me
to be in the debates. The vote at the end of the show was 13 in favor
and one abstention.

Friday, July 12

9am: Michael Cloud, Pamela, and I go to a recording studio where I
spend three hours recording six new 1-minute radio ads. Two of them
push gun rights, because Bob Dole recently broke his promise to repeal
the ban on assault weapons. Two stress the importance of my being in
the October Presidential debates. And the last two push the Great
Offer: "Would you be willing to give up your favorite federal programs
if it meant you would never have to pay income tax again?" Imagine: it
takes 180 minutes to get six minutes right.

1pm: An appearance for the first time on Blanquita Cullum's syndicated
radio show. She's a Republican, but very friendly and supportive.

3pm: I'm on "This Is America," a PBS television show. It's one hour
around a dining room table with other guests Congresswoman Patricia
Schroeder, writer Arianna Huffington, and three authors. Although
Dennis Wholey is an excellent host (he hears everything you say, even
as he's deciding what to ask next), I don't have time to develop any
issue; it's pretty much an hour of soundbites. At one point, the
conversation provides the perfect setup for the Great Offer, but he
cuts me off before I can make it; so I throw it in when the topic has
turned to something less appropriate. As we near the end of the hour, I
still haven't mentioned the phone number. He spends a few seconds of
closing with each guest, and he asks me, "It's quite an honor to run
for President, isn't it?" And I say, "Yes, and anyone who wants to help
me can call 1-800-272-1776." Everyone starts laughing during the "1776"
part -- so I repeat the number to continued laughter.

7pm: On a plane back to Nashville for two days.

Nashville, Saturday, July 13

Colman McCarthy's article appears in The Washington Post. Although he
is very liberal, his article is overwhelmingly positive. He refers to
me as "a candidate of honed intelligence and decent moral purpose." And
"Harry Browne, well-spoken and not sponging on taxpayers, deserves a
place at whichever forum hosts Clinton-Dole debates. . . . At the
least, Browne's quickness of mind would raise TV ratings and keep the
public from flicking to 'Geraldo' reruns or more pundit analysis of low
voter turnout."

1:15pm: A reporter and camera crew from the local CBS-TV affiliate
arrive at our home for a "pre-interview" for an appearance in-studio
this evening. Although the interview is scheduled for only ten minutes,
the pre-interview lasts about 45 minutes. A lot of footage is shot --
but I'm not sure what for.

4:30pm: An interview at home with a reporter from Nashville Scene,
presumably because I live in the area.

6:50pm: Pamela and I can't find the TV studio and we arrive five
minutes into the scheduled ten minutes allotted for my interview.
Instead of taking call-in questions, the reporter interviews me for
five minutes. I get all the highlights in -- including the 800 number.
I think he's annoyed and I can't blame him -- after he drove half an
hour to my house and spent 45 minutes there, only to have me arrive
late at the studio. I'll have to write a note of apology.

Sunday, July 14

3pm: A wonderful hour on the radio with Dimitri Vassiros in Pittsburgh.
A great host with a good sense of humor. Although we disagree about
immigration, at the end of the show I ask whether he's going to vote
for me and he says, "Yes." He also says he will push to get me into the
October debates. I will later learn that tomorrow he will announce on
the air that he's joining the Libertarian Party.

6pm: Two hours on Randy Johnson's nationally syndicated radio show. One
negative caller on the Drug War, and all the rest are positive and very
complimentary. One says, "I supported Pat Buchanan in the primaries,
but when I heard your speech on C-SPAN, I had to stand up and cheer."

Monday, July 15

Our ads begin running on Oliver North's syndicated radio show. We
rotate the ads 1-minute spots -- covering government doesn't work,
getting into the debates, gun rights, and the Great Offer.

9am: Up early (for me) for a radio show, but the interview has been
cancelled. However, there are two more radio interviews. And then
Pamela and I head for the airport. On the way, we stop at the Nashville
Banner for an interview. It's conducted by a summer intern in his early
twenties. He's going through Yale on a government-guaranteed student
loan. When I ask him whether he would give it up in order to be free of
the income tax forever, he says, "No." Then I realize he's never paid
income tax and has almost no idea what I'm talking about.

2pm: We get to the airport -- where I do another radio interview by
phone. Then we fly to New York.

10pm: A fast-moving, 20-minute radio interview with Bob Dunning in
Sacramento. He challenges me on every point, and we go back and forth
rapidly. I'm convinced he doesn't like any position I hold. But at the
end, he says, "I certainly want to see you in the debates."

New York, Tuesday, July 16

6am: I awaken very early for a 10-minute phone interview on WOR, one of
the big New York stations. But the producer calls to tell me I've been
preempted by some breaking story involving Senator D'Amato. I'm
beginning to recognize a conspiracy at work -- not to keep me off the
airwaves, but to make me tired and ineffectual by awakening me early
every morning to no purpose.

9am: A phone interview with the news director of a New Hampshire radio
station. He tapes a few questions and answers to run on the news
reports all day tomorrow. After the interview, he mentions that on the
way to work he heard Bob Raleigh on WBZ, Boston, saying I was the
epitome of a Presidential candidate -- handsome, dapper, articulate. No
wonder we're getting such support from talk radio: they're all blind.
However, I relish the fact that the campaign is being talked about on
shows when I'm not there; this is a sign that name recognition is
getting broader and broader.

10:30am: Many of the interviews now are 30 minutes, instead of 60,
because there are just too many to handle. On a syndicated NPR radio
show, the hostess is a liberal, but we get along well for 25 of the 30
minutes. All the calls are respectful and easily handled. But the last
caller is a doctor who wants to get rid of the FDA. I agree and explain
why, but the show's hostess argues with me on this one. I handle it
without much trouble, but it eats up the all-important last few minutes
of the show. So I break off the argument and make a plea for help to
get into the debates and give the LP phone number -- just in time
before I'm cut off.

4pm: I'm on for the second time with Alan Colmes, a self-described
liberal Democrat who has a syndicated radio show. He's very open-minded
and we get along fine. Usually the listeners to a show mirror to a
large extent the ideology of the host, but almost every caller is
excited about my campaign. As I leave the studio I'm stopped by Steve
Malzberg, who has a late night news show and wants to interview me --
and by top New York show host Barry Farber, who is enthusiastic about
the campaign, says he's talked about me on the air often since the
convention, and wants me on his show.

5pm: I talk with Perry Willis at Libertarian Party headquarters. He
says they are trying not to buckle under the pressure of all the
inquiries -- from the public and from the press. He says they have 40
to 50 media inquiries that they're trying to get to today.

8pm: An hour with Gil Gross, who's on 180 stations on the CBS radio
network. Almost all the calls are supportive. In fact, since the
convention the ratio of positive-to-negative calls has gone way up.
I've started asking many of the talk-show hosts at the end of each
program, "Do you want to see me in the debates?" Gil Gross says, "By
all means," just as Alan Colmes did earlier in the day.

Wednesday, July 17

6am: Up early to be across town at 8 for my first show of the day -- on
Pacifica Radio with a host who says my program makes me sound just like
a right-wing Republican. I ask whether the Republicans want to end the
Insane War on Drugs, restore the Bill of Rights, end the hassling of
blacks in airports, and such. It does no good. The host is in left
field, and anything less than the destruction of corporate America is
Republicanism to him.

8pm: My last show of the day is also in studio -- this time with Dara
Wells on New York's NPR station. She is a good host, full of
personality and good humor. It seems obvious that she wants smaller
government, but she doesn't take sides in the discussion. Plenty of
good calls. One man says I'm going too far; we must keep the federal
"safety net" because of all the poor and disadvantaged people in
America. I ask him if he believes there are many poor and disadvantaged
people in America today. He says, "Of course there are." I reply, "Well
then, the safety net doesn't appear to be working, does it? Government
doesn't work, and it doesn't provide security any better than it
educates our children."

Wednesday night / Thursday morning, July 17-18

2am: After sleeping off and on between shows during the day, I wake up
in the middle of the night to appear by phone on the Art Bell show --
my second appearance with him. His show is syndicated to 238 stations
-- and I believe he has the second largest radio talk-show audience in
America (after Rush Limbaugh). The show is five hours long, and the
length of my stay is left open. As it turns out, I'm on for four hours.
For the first two hours he grills me on every imaginable topic.
Although he is very much on our side, he asks almost every hardball
question I've ever heard. Then he opens the phones and the callers
continue the grilling.

I keep pointing out that government doesn't work, and so we shouldn't
look to government to solve the next problem raised. Someone asks
whether I favor tort reform, as the Republicans do. I say there are too
many lawsuits because there are too many laws that facilitate suits --
laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Civil Rights
acts, the various environmental laws, and so on. The answer isn't to
limit damage awards by putting another layer of government on top of
what we have already -- but rather to repeal all the laws that are
making America lawsuit happy. Art Bell responds by saying, "God, I love
to listen to a principled person." He is very, very supportive. And he
plans to rerun this broadcast on Tuesday, August 13. By accessing our
World Wide Web site at http://www.HarryBrowne96.org, you can link to
Art Bell's Web site and find the exact time and station in your area.

1pm: After catching a few more hours sleep, Pamela and I board a plane
to Nashville. My schedule is supposed to be lighter for Friday,
Saturday, and Sunday -- so I can get some sleep, catch up on paperwork
in my office, and refresh myself for the intense schedule that lies
ahead.

-- 
Harry Browne for President                         [email protected]
http://www.HarryBrowne96.org/                               fax: 202-333-0072
2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100, Washington DC 20037     voice: 202-333-0008




% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from [16.125.32.248] by us1rmc.bb.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA02791; Mon, 29 Jul 96 08:07:16 -040
% Received: by pkoexc1.pko.dec.com with Microsoft Exchange (IMC 4.0.838.14) id <[email protected]>; Mon, 29 Jul 1996 08:07:47 -040
% Message-Id: <c=US%a=_%p=Digital%[email protected]>
% From: Geoffrey Keller <[email protected]>
% To: "'[email protected]'" <cuptay::keller>
% Subject: FW: on the campaign trail
% Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 08:07:45 -0400
% X-Mailer:  Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.838.14
% Encoding: 336 TEXT
    

    Mr. Keller:
    
    While the context of these reports sound encouraging, let me assure you
    that Harry Browne will lose overwhelmingly.  I say this without
    trepidation and without malice.  He seems like a quality individual and
    has some very good ideas. 
    
    The libertarian party doesn't seem to realize that a run for the
    president is somewhat of a waste until they make end roads in local
    governments.  Where are the libertarian mayors, governors, selectmen,
    etc.?  As we already knew...nowhere to be found.  
    
    -Jack

    RE: .303
    
    Mr. Martin.  There are currently 161 libertarians holding elected
    office nation-wide and there are over 1100 libertarians on ballots this
    fall nation-wide.
    
    Seeking the presidency is a very ambitious goal for anyone.  While
    getting Harry Browne elected president is a long-shot, it is a
    worthwhile endevor undertake.  He is the only candidate with solid
    ideas and well thought out strategies to reduce the oppressive
    government that we have today.
    
    I believe that if Harry Browne is included in the presidential debates
    this fall he will have a VERY good chance of winning the election.  If
    the Republicrats and democians manage to keep him out of the debates
    then I agree with you, that he will have no chance of winning the
    election.
    
    --Geoff 

>    I believe that if Harry Browne is included in the presidential debates
>    this fall he will have a VERY good chance of winning the election.

Bwahahahahaha!

    Hey, I am seriously considering him as a voting option.  I'm simply
    telling you that the libertarian parties has not even begun to scratch
    the surface in local politics.  163 offices is a miniscule number and
    it needs to grow substantially.  I would say in all honesty, vote for
    Harry Browne by all means; but in this election, consider your vote as
    a protest vote because that's all it will stand for.  
    
    -Jack

    
      Boy, is Geoff Keller wrong.  No libertarian would win a single
     electoral vote for president in 1996 if Clinton, Dole, and Perot
     withdrew in his favor.  No chance.  In Massachusetts or New Hampshire,
     no libertarian candidate for president has ever gotten as much as
     one per cent of the popular vote.  More than half of all polled
     on the subject, among the American people, had never heard of the
     libertarian party.
    
      bb

    I've noticed that too -- that the Libertarian party never seems to get
    off the ground.  They seem to have a few local offices, but never
    get much attention in national elections.
    
    I think part of that is due to the fact that they really haven't pushed
    themselves -- haven't gathered the millions necessary to insert
    themselves into the nation's attention.  Maybe this year will be
    different?  They are already getting more publicity than I have ever
    seen them get before, and if they can get into things like TV debates
    with the dole and clinton, then they might get a few votes for a
    change.
    
    I have always wondered why they did not try harder to raise money and
    make themselves known.

    
    Maybe, just maybe, the reason that the Libertarians don't "get off the
    ground" is that we the people don't agree with the Libertarian party?
    
    								-mr. bill

 Mr. Bill:
    
 ZZ    -< Nah, the real reason is we the people are stupid, right? >-
    
    I'm afraid this actually sums it up well.  My mother in law was over
    yesterday, bless her heart.  Now here's a woman who has all the free
    time in the world and she says to me with this sincere look on her
    face, "I believe president Clinton is a good man."  I asked why and of
    course she gave the answer I expected...."We;;, he sounds
    compassionate."
    
    Now just so we'll better understand the context, Josephine has voted
    democrat ever since FDR.  Mainly a Kennedy supporter because he was
    Catholic and from Boston.  Now I understand the heart can be close to
    home.  What dear Josie doesn't realize is...she thinks that the
    democrats of today are the exact same animal as they were years ago. 
    She doesn't stop to think...Hey, maybe JFK was a prolifer...but Clinton
    isn't.  Maybe JFK was a supply sider...while Bill Clinton isn't...That
    sort of thing.
    
    I've seen it first hand Mr. Bill.  Our society has a large contingency
    of real nice people who are simply inept in their ability to vote based
    on knowledge.
    
    -Jack

    
      While libertarianism isn't everybody's cup of tea, including
     mine, I think it has a 'potential' greater than its current showing.
     For example, in the Bush-Dukakis 1988 election, the libertarian
     drew only 0.47 %, against hardly stellar opposition.  Surely, more
     than 1 in 200 Americans who actually vote think more-or-less along
     libertarian lines.  Obviously, large sections of America would never
     go libertarian - the labor unions, the religious, the left, etc.
     But still, why not 1-in-50 (2%).
    
      I think part of it is TV.  In US politics, only TV really matters,
     and even on TV, if you cannot say it in 30 to 60 seconds, they've
     zapped you with the remote.  Perhaps what the libertarians need is
     a good sight gag and a pithy slogan.  Think ads.
    
      bb

    Re .308:
    
    > They seem to have a few local offices, but never get much attention
    > in national elections. . . .  I have always wondered why they did not
    > try harder to raise money and make themselves known.
    
    Growth is incremental; party membership is continually growing, and its
    speed is not due to lack of effort.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Re .309:
    
    > Maybe, just maybe, the reason that the Libertarians don't "get off the
    > ground" is that we the people don't agree with the Libertarian party?

    No, that isn't it, because polls show that people do agree with the
    Libertarian party, and recent years have seen mainstream politicians
    take up Libertarian ideas.
    
    Are you ready to apologize for your "guns blazing" error and insults
    yet?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    
|   Are you ready to apologize for your "guns blazing" error and insults
|   yet?
    
    I am really sorry that I ever wrote 362.513, .529, .539....
    
    								-mr. bill

    Re .314:
    
    > I am really sorry that I ever wrote 362.513, .529, .539....
    
    Sounds like regret for what it's cost you, but not an apology to me. 
    Try again.  Go for something as flamboyant as 362.539.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

----------
From: 	[email protected][SMTP:[email protected]]
Sent: 	Tuesday, July 30, 1996 1:57 AM
To: 	[email protected]
Subject: 	Release: talk radio


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HARRY BROWNE, LIBERTARIAN FOR PRESIDENT
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For additional information:
Bill Winter, Director of Communications
Phone: (202) 333-0008
Internet: [email protected]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CAMPAIGN NEWS
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: July 30, 1996


Talk radio is talking about Harry Browne,
says new Talkers magazine survey
        

        WASHINGTON, DC -- He's the fifth most talked about man in
America.

        So says the new issue of Talkers magazine, which lists
Libertarian Party presidential candidate Harry Browne as one of the
hottest topics of conversation on talk radio -- despite what his
supporters are calling a virtual "Browne-out" by the mainstream media.

        Browne placed fifth in the "Talkers Ten" list of individuals
most often discussed by radio talk show hosts and callers from June
17th to July 15th. The list is compiled by Talkers magazine, considered
to be the "bible" of the talk radio industry.

        Browne trailed only Bill Clinton, Bob Dole, and Reform Party
hopefuls Ross Perot and Richard Lamm.

        The wave of talk-radio enthusiasm for Browne has his campaign
staff elated -- but also a little curious.

        "Isn't it odd that Harry Browne is dominating talk
radio...while his campaign continues to be overlooked by mainstream
newspapers and television news?" asked campaign director Sharon Ayres.

        "Is Harry Browne being deliberately ignored, or is the rest of
the media just slow to catch on to this genuine grassroots political
phenomenon?" she asked.

        Browne credits his surprising talk-radio strength to his
campaign message -- a heaping dose of Libertarian economic frugality
coupled with a vigorous defense of civil liberties -- which he says is
resonating with talk radio listeners.

        "The fact that a presidential candidate with no prior name
recognition has become a hot topic of conversation on talk radio points
up how many people are excited by the thought of repealing the income
tax and replacing it with nothing, by the idea of the getting
government's hands off Social Security, and the notion of reducing
crime by ending the destructive War on Drugs," said Browne.

        Over the past several months, Browne has appeared on hundreds
of talk radio shows on thousands of individual stations. More than 50
radio talk show hosts have either endorsed his presidential bid, or
promised to work to get him included in the presidential debates.

        The "Talkers Ten" list is compiled monthly by Talkers magazine
"in an ongoing survey of talk show hosts and producers, representing a
cross section of radio stations and networks across the nation."

-- 
Harry Browne for President                         [email protected]
http://www.HarryBrowne96.org/                               fax: 202-333-0072
2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100, Washington DC 20037     voice: 202-333-0008




% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from [16.125.32.248] by us1rmc.bb.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA04473; Wed, 31 Jul 96 07:22:41 -040
% Received: by pkoexc1.pko.dec.com with Microsoft Exchange (IMC 4.0.838.14) id <[email protected]>; Wed, 31 Jul 1996 07:23:19 -040
% Message-Id: <c=US%a=_%p=Digital%[email protected]>
% From: Geoffrey Keller <[email protected]>
% To: "'[email protected]'" <cuptay::keller>
% Subject: FW: Release: talk radio
% Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 07:23:17 -0400
% X-Mailer:  Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.838.14
% Encoding: 82 TEXT
    

|        Browne trailed only Bill Clinton, Bob Dole, and Reform Party
|hopefuls Ross Perot and Richard Lamm.
    
|        "Isn't it odd that Harry Browne is dominating talk
|radio...while his campaign continues to be overlooked by mainstream
|newspapers and television news?" asked campaign director Sharon Ayres.
    
    Nano-points to the first libertarian who can explain how placing fifth
    in a field of five is "dominating".
    
    								-mr. bill

    re: .315
    
    Its replies like these that put a smile on my face!!!
    
    					Tony

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HARRY BROWNE, LIBERTARIAN FOR PRESIDENT
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For additional information:
Bill Winter, Director of Communications
Phone: (202) 333-0008
Internet: [email protected]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CAMPAIGN NEWS
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: August 1, 1996


Anti-terrorist proposals are "attack on the rights 
of innocent Americans," charges Harry Browne

        
        WASHINGTON, DC -- President Bill Clinton and 
Congressional Republicans are using the recent attacks 
on TWA Flight 800 and the Olympic games to try to pass 
a "wish list" of unconstitutional legislation under the 
guise of fighting terrorism, Libertarian Party 
presidential candidate Harry Browne charged today.

        "If we're not careful, half of the Bill of Rights 
will fall victim to the frantic desire of Republican and 
Democratic politicians to appear tough on terrorists," 
he warned. 

        Browne spoke out against a wide range of so-called 
"anti-terrorist" proposals from the White House and 
Congressional Republicans -- including roving wiretaps, 
no-warrant wiretaps, extending RICO laws to terrorists, 
Internet censorship, government-mandated taggants, and 
efforts to weaken computer privacy.

        "Each of these proposals is an attack on the 
rights of innocent Americans masquerading as an attack 
on guilty terrorists," said Browne. "Add them all together, 
and you have a Republican and Democratic wish list to 
increase the power of government at the expense of the 
Bill of Rights.

        "But the Bill of Rights is a literal and absolute 
document. The First Amendment doesn't say you have a right 
to speak out unless the government has a 'compelling interest' 
in censoring the Internet. The Second Amendment doesn't say 
you have the right to keep and bear arms until some madman 
plants a bomb. The Fourth Amendment doesn't say you have a 
right to be secure from search and seizure unless some FBI 
agent thinks you fit the profile of a terrorist. The government 
has no right to interfere with any of these freedoms under any 
circumstances," said Browne.

        The Libertarian candidate said the "anti-terrorist" 
proposals -- and the bipartisan haste to pass them into 
law -- dramatically illustrate the importance of having 
another choice in the 1996 presidential race.

        "Clinton has gotten into a bidding war with Newt 
Gingrich, Bob Dole, and other Republicans to see who can 
repeal your rights fastest. Neither of the two older 
parties will defend the Bill of Rights. Only a Libertarian 
will speak out against this headlong rush towards a police 
state," he said.

        Responding to the specific "anti-terrorist" proposals, 
Browne said he opposes:

        * So-called "roving'' wiretaps, which would allow 
police to tap multiple phones of suspected criminals. "This 
does nothing but make it easier for the government to spy 
on people not convicted of any crime," said Browne. "There 
is no evidence that this kind of wire-tapping power would 
have prevented any past terrorist action -- or will prevent 
any future terrorist act."

        * No-warrant wiretaps, which grant "emergency" 
wiretap authority to government agents for 48 hours without 
a judge's order. "This would repeal basic Fourth Amendment 
protections and put us all at the mercy of uncontrolled 
government spying," said Browne.

        * Extending anti-racketeering statutes to terrorists, 
making them subject to property forfeiture laws. "Asset 
forfeiture laws are a license for legal looting by law 
enforcement," said Browne. "These laws must be abolished 
-- not expanded."

        * A provision which would ban the publication of 
bomb-making information on the Internet -- while keeping 
it legal in printed form. "Politicians claim the First 
Amendment doesn't apply to the Internet, while blithely 
ignoring the fact that such information remains widely 
available in public libraries, army manuals, and even 
in the Encyclopedia Britannica," said Browne.

        * A long-standing White House push to allow 
government officials to spy on computer communications by 
mandating weakened encryption technology. "Free speech 
includes the right not to be spied on by government officials," 
countered Browne.

        * Government mandated taggants -- microscopic plastic 
color-coded identifiers -- in black or smokeless powder and 
explosives. "Such taggants pose a safety threat to innocent 
users, would create a de facto system of ammunition registration, 
and would impose a hidden tax of up to $700 million on the mining 
and quarrying industries, which are the principal users of 
such products," said Browne.

        Unlike Republicans and Democrats, Browne said he 
wouldn't be goaded into permanently gutting the Bill of 
Rights to temporarily grandstand as "tough on terrorists."

        "The Bill of Rights wasn't written to protect terrorists. 
It was designed to protect you," said Browne. "Of course, these 
safeguards would protect the guilty as well as the innocent. But 
brushing them aside gives government employees the power to do 
as they wish -- to harass whomever they think is guilty. If that 
happens, then terrorists have already won their greatest victory."

-- 
Harry Browne for President                         [email protected]
http://www.HarryBrowne96.org/                               fax: 202-333-0072
2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100, Washington DC 20037     voice: 202-333-0008


--------------2E8150FF20E5--

    

      re: -1
    
      Beautiful.  Browne is the *only* choice.  Finally, someone telling
      it like it is (save being silent on citizenship, i.e. sovereign/
      subject).
    
      There are power structures that would do anything to disallow him
      from being too influential tho.  Anthing.
    
    						Tony

    RE:.320
    
    >(save being silent on citizenship, i.e. sovereign/
    >subject).
    
    Could you expand your question here.  I think that Harry has put forth
    his ideas on citizenship (or at least immigration)
    
    --Geoff

    re: .321
    
    At one time, all private citizens were citizens of the united states
    of America.  In 1867, with the passage of the 14th ammendment, an
    entirely new citizenship was created.  This is called a Citizen of
    the United States.  All emancipated slaves became Citizens of the
    United States.
    
    Those who are citizens of the united states of America are sovereign
    citizens.
    
    sovereign - A person, body or state in which independent and supreme
    	        authority is vested.
    
    subject   - One that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed
    	 	by his laws...Men in free governments are subjects as
    		well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy rights and 
    		franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws.
    		The term is little used, in this sense, in countries
    		enjoying a republican form of government.
    
    Part of 14th ammendment text:
    All persons born or naturalized in the United States and SUBJECT
    to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States *and*
    of the State wherein they reside.
    
    Sovereigns are not subject to Federal law.  United States citizens
    are.  (United States with a capital "U" and a capital "S" refers to
    the Federal govt. which is a corporation with respect to the States.)
    Sovereigns are accountable only to common law, a broad based law
    wherein a crime can only be committed if there is a victim and any
    alleged crimes are settled by a common law court of jury of peers.
    (Which is precisely the jurisdiction the Freemen asked for but were
    denied by the tyrannical federal govt.)
    
    This is why the Freemen kept telling the FBI (read: federal) they had
    no jurisdiction.  The Freemen were sovereign and simply not subject
    to the United States (Federal govt.) not being 14th ammendment
    citizens.
    
    In 1933, FDR duped almost all sovereigns into rescinding their citizen-
    ship and becoming subjects to the Federal govt.  He did so by deceit-
    fully having them enter into adhesion contracts with the fed govt.
    Things like SS, birth certificates, W2 forms...
    
    Essentially, the federal govt. desecrated one of the most fundamental
    pillars of the type country the founding fathers formed; one wherein
    the private citizen is SOVEREIGN.  The founding fathers in no way
    envisioned a system remotely like what we have today.  They are rolling
    in their graves.  This is nothing short of treason.
    
    I believe even voting represents an adhesion contract with the federal
    govt.  Sovereigns, not having a citizenship relationship with the
    federal govt., do not vote for federal officials - including the
    president.
    
    Thus, Harry Browne does accomadate the existence of subjects as part
    of his political platform from the standpoint of asking for people's
    votes (i.e. adhesion contract implying subjection to federal govt.)
    with the federal govt.
    
    If one wants to effect change within the system, the thing to do, imo,
    is to vote libertarian.  However, a more ideal and noble pursuit would
    be to become a sovereign.  To do this is a tall order and includes 
    a written contract wherein you swear that all adhesion contracts are
    null and void on the basis that they were entered into deceptively
    without any proper knowledge of the consequences.  This has been done
    oftentimes.
    
    						Tony
              

|   Could you expand your question here.
    
    Aren't you sorry you asked?  (BTW, only White Male Christians are
    "sovereigns" and only they are eligible to be members of the
    "common law jury".  So sayeth the "freemen".)
    
    For more "research" you can start looking on the Internut.  Stormfront,
    which Glen Silva noticed is a particularly smelly source, has many many
    "good" pointers in this fruitful area of "research."
    
    								-mr. bill

Re: .322

>    At one time, all private citizens were citizens of the united states
>    of America.  In 1867, with the passage of the 14th ammendment, an
>    entirely new citizenship was created.  This is called a Citizen of
>    the United States.  All emancipated slaves became Citizens of the
>    United States.

I don't think so, Tony.  From note 10.0, Constitution of the United States:

Article. I.

Section. 1.

...
     No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained the Age of 
twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who 
shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be 
chosen.

Section. 3

     No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of 
thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United STates, and who shall 
not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

Were the Representatives and Senators elected before the passage of the
14th Amendment citizens of the united states of America or Citizens of the
United States?  Or are they the same thing?

				-- Bob

    re: .-1
    
    Good, since you brought up the Constitution, there are at least
    7 classes or types of "citizenship".  Not necessarily citizens,
    since citizens are granted priviledge, people have unalienable
    rights.
    
    Here they are:
    
    People of the United States, and their Posterity (from the preamble)
    
    People of the several States, also known as Electors (art1, sec2)
    
    Citizen of the United States (art1, sec2, sec3, art2, sec1)
    
    natural born Citizen (art 2 section 1)
    
    Citizens of each State, of the several States (art4, sec2)
    
    "the people"  (amendments 9 & 10)
    
    United States citizen  (amendment 14).
    
    These are NOT all the same people.  People, or people are not necessarily
    citizens, when taken into the whole context.  Since the Constitution
    is a CONTRACT, one must become a party to the contract to be bound
    by it.  Notice how the Uniform Rule of Naturalization demands that
    new Citizens uphold the Constitution (gotcha).  Folks who join the
    Federal military (gotcha), federal employees, etc...   these are
    genuine full blown US citizens, subject to congress and the IRC.
    
    I'm sure we'll be discussing this a little bit more indepth later.  For
    now, go look up each of the above to make sure I'm not BS'ing you.
    Notice capitalization, or lack of when checking the origonal document.
    They didn't accidentally screw up.  I'm not an English major, but
    you'll know that People and people are different "objects".
    
    Regards,
    MadMike
    
    

    Another factor that you brought up that determines citizenship is
    inhabitant/resident.  These are not the same thing either.
    
    Nor is the United States, the same as the United States of America,
    this was affirmed by the supreme Court, and I put the decision in
    here somewhere.  I'm sure mr. bill remembers where, even though he kept 
    his mouth shut when he was passin over it.
    
    And yes mr. bill, prior to the 14th Amendment and the Dred Scott
    decision, the United States government and various State governments
    were big freekin racists.  And that ain't on internet:
    
    
    That any alien being a free white person... shall be admitted a
    citizen aforesaid...  Uniform Rule of Naturalization 
    
    Every free white man at the age of twenty-one years, being a native
    or naturalized citizen of the United States... shall be entitled
    to vote.    Art1, sec3  Constitution of North Carolina 1865
    
    Every white male citizen of the United States... shall be entitled
    to vote.  Art 2, Sec1, Constitution of California.
    
    Notice how voting (oh ya, this was in the voting topic) dictates
    one must be a US Citizen (an elector, partaking in the democracy,
    and therefore a party to, and subject of said democracy).  Of
    course, the United States of America is a Republic, which is different
    that a democracy, right?
    
    MadMike

    >RE: <<< Note 752.323 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the
    >left" >>>
    >                       -< Same ol same ol Barbieri.... >-
    >
    >|   Could you expand your question here.
    >
    >    Aren't you sorry you asked?  (BTW, only White Male Christians are
    >    "sovereigns" and only they are eligible to be members of the
    >    "common law jury".  So sayeth the "freemen".)
    
    No Bill, I am not at all sorry I asked.  I am always willing to be
    enlightened.  The question sparked a couple of good replies and whether
    or not I agree or disagree with the content, discussion is good.
    
    --Geoff

From: 	[email protected][SMTP:[email protected]]
Sent: 	Tuesday, August 06, 1996 12:16 PM
To: 	[email protected]
Subject: 	Release: Dole tax cut too timid


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HARRY BROWNE, LIBERTARIAN FOR PRESIDENT
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For additional information:
Bill Winter, Director of Communications
Phone: (202) 333-0008
Internet: [email protected]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CAMPAIGN NEWS
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: August 5, 1996


Bob Dole's tax cut: "Too timid, too meager," 
says Libertarian candidate Harry Browne

        
        WASHINGTON, DC -- The tax cut Bob Dole will propose 
today is "Libertarian Lite" -- and is too timid, too meager,
and too hypocritical to have any real impact, Libertarian 
Party presidential candidate Harry Browne declared today.

        "Bob Dole is lucky there's no tax on hypocrisy," said 
Browne. "After all, he's proposing to return a mere $548 
billion in taxes to the American public -- after voting for 
$960 billion in tax increases over the past 14 years."

        Browne said Dole's proposal is "typical Republican 
smoke and mirrors. He's a lifetime politician, a tax-raiser, 
someone who has voted for almost every big government scheme 
of the past 30 years, trying to masquerade as an advocate of 
smaller, less expensive government.

        "But Dole voted for President Reagan's huge tax 
increase in 1982 and President Bush's huge tax increase in 
1990. So this timid tax cut doesn't even begin to reimburse 
the billions of dollars that Bob Dole has confiscated from 
American taxpayers," said Browne.

        Dole's proposal calls for a 15% tax reduction over six 
years, a meager tax credit for children, and unspecified reforms 
of the Internal Revenue Service.

        "Dole says his tax cut will help solve the problem of 
stagnant wages," said Browne. "But he's more interested in 
salvaging his stagnant presidential campaign -- since he's 
offering to trim just 15 on the dollar of future taxes.

        "The real Libertarian solution is to totally abolish the 
income tax -- so every dollar you earn will be yours, to spend, 
to save, to give away as you see fit. When the income tax is 
repealed, you will get a 20%, 30%, or 40% increase in take-home 
pay, depending on your current tax bracket. That's the real solution 
to stagnant wages."

        Browne challenged Americans to compare his tax-cut plan to 
the Dole plan.

        "Do you want a real Libertarian solution -- or the timid, 
phony, Libertarian Lite offered by Republicans?" asked Browne. "If 
you really want to reduce the size and cost of government, voting 
for Harry Browne is the only way to do it."

        The two plans, side by side:

        * Dole: A 15% income tax cut, phased in over three years.

        * Browne: Will end the income tax his first year in office 
and replace it with nothing. "By reducing the federal government 
to its Constitutional functions, we can do away with all direct 
taxes -- the income, estate, gift, capital gains, and Social Security 
taxes -- financing national defense and the federal judiciary with 
the tariffs and excise taxes being collected already," said Browne.

        * Dole: Promises to balance the budget by 2002 by increasing 
federal spending for seven more years, but "slowing the growth" of 
federal programs.

        * Browne: Will balance the budget his first year in office 
by dramatically reducing government spending. Will sell off federal 
assets and use the proceeds to pay off the federal debt entirely.

        * Dole: Promises to rewrite the tax code and make unspecified 
changes to the IRS.

        * Browne: Will abolish the IRS his first year in office.

        "Compare the two plans," urged Browne. "If you want genuine, 
serious reductions in your tax burden, don't waste your vote on a 
big-government politician like Bob Dole. Vote Libertarian."

        Browne, 63, is a bestselling author and investment advisor. 
With running mate Jo Jorgensen, he is already on the ballot in 37 
states, and plans to qualify in all 50 states by August.

-- 
Harry Browne for President                         [email protected]
http://www.HarryBrowne96.org/                               fax: 202-333-0072
2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100, Washington DC 20037     voice: 202-333-0008


--------------5C593DCE4A71--

    

Re: .325

>    Good, since you brought up the Constitution, there are at least
>    7 classes or types of "citizenship".

How do you know that these are all distinct?

I agree that there are some distinctions made in the original Constitution
of 1789.  There is a distinction between the inhabitants of a state and
the Electors of that state - not everyone was allowed to vote.  There is
a distinction between slaves, Indians, and everyone else.  It's not clear
(at least to me) who was and was not considered to be a citizen.

However, the 14th Amendment changed this by saying that "All persons born or
naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
This is the same class of citizenship that is required for Representatives
and Senators.  In other words, once the 14th Amendment was passed, there
was only one class of citizens: both former slaves and members of
Congress, and everyone in between, were citizens of the United States.

What about the apparent loophole that Tony cited in the 14th Amendment:
"and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"?  I think this clause is there
to account for foreign diplomats and their families living in the United
States.  If you were born in the United States and your father was the
French ambassador you wouldn't automatically become a U.S. citizen.  The
rest of us who aren't foreign diplomats are all "subject to the
jurisdiction" of the United States.  If you don't believe me, try breaking
a federal law and confessing to it in open court, and see what happens.

>    Since the Constitution
>    is a CONTRACT, one must become a party to the contract to be bound
>    by it.

The Constitution is *not* a contract between the federal government and
individual citizens.  It is a set of laws that was established, through
their elected representatives, by "We the People of the United States" on
behalf of themselves and their posterity (which includes me and you,
assuming that you were born or naturalized in the United States) as the
basis for our present system of government.

Notice that I said "through their elected representatives".  The United
States is a republic.  No doubt there were many citizens in 1789 who
disagreed with the Constitution.  It didn't matter.  Their elected
representatives approved it, and the Constitution became binding on
everyone in the country, not just people who agreed with it.  If you were
born or naturalized in the United States you are a U.S. citizen and the
Constitution is also binding on you, whether or not you agree with it.

>I'm not an English major, but you'll know that People and people are
>different "objects".

No, I don't "know" this.  There is a distinction between "people" as the
plural of "person" and "a people" meaning a set of people connected in
some way, such as people with the same ethnic background, or "the people",
meaning the general population, e.g. the inhabitants of the United States.
"people" is capitalized as "People" at the beginning of a sentence.  Apart
from that, its capitalization is pretty much arbitrary.  Many words are
capitalized in the U.S. Constitution which in present day usage would not
be capitalized; it was an 18th century custom.

Re: .326

>    Another factor that you brought up that determines citizenship is
>    inhabitant/resident.  These are not the same thing either.
    
What's the difference, and how does it affect this discussion?

>    Nor is the United States, the same as the United States of America,
>    this was affirmed by the supreme Court, and I put the decision in
>    here somewhere.

It's hard for me to comment on this without seeing the decision.

>    And yes mr. bill, prior to the 14th Amendment and the Dred Scott
>    decision, the United States government and various State governments
>    were big freekin racists.

No argument there.

>    Notice how voting (oh ya, this was in the voting topic) dictates
>    one must be a US Citizen (an elector, partaking in the democracy,
>    and therefore a party to, and subject of said democracy).

The 14th Amendment cleared this up: everyone born or naturalized in the
United States is a U.S. citizen, with the exception of foreign diplomats
and the like.  You aren't given the option of opting out of the system.

				-- Bob

}>    Good, since you brought up the Constitution, there are at least
}>    7 classes or types of "citizenship".
}How do you know that these are all distinct?

Pick it apart.  They may not be "distinct".  I can be a natural born
citizen, and a citizen of one of the several states.  Or I can be
a US citizen.  Can I be both?  Can I switch between them?  I don't
know to tell you the truth.  Today the line seems blured.  We're all
supposed to think we're "US Citizens".  I tend to think of myself
as an American.

}I agree that there are some distinctions made in the original Constitution
}of 1789.  There is a distinction between the inhabitants of a state and
}the Electors of that state - not everyone was allowed to vote.  There is
}a distinction between slaves, Indians, and everyone else.  It's not clear
}(at least to me) who was and was not considered to be a citizen.

Ever hear of Cherokee Nation?  They ain't fooling.  It's a nation alright.
Part of it is located inside the state of North Carolina.  I believe in
1924 congress did some funny business which (tried to) turned all indians 
into federal citizens.  I don't know details off hand.  See what type of
fight the states have with the indians and their casinos.  Truth be
known, the indians can tell the state to SHOVE OFF, if they choosed.  Look,
we'll play ball with you.  You shut up and we'll cut you in on the take.
If you don't like it, we'll still open the casino and you'll get nothing.

}However, the 14th Amendment changed this by saying that "All persons born or
}naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
}are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

The trick:  Born or naturalized in the UNITED STATES  *AND* subject to
the jurisdiction of....  
What if you're born in texas, or florida and NOT subject to the
constitution?  (subject to the jurisdiction of, IMO is the equivalent of
saying "subject to congress")  
  

}This is the same class of citizenship that is required for Representatives
}and Senators.  In other words, once the 14th Amendment was passed, there
}was only one class of citizens: both former slaves and members of
}Congress, and everyone in between, were citizens of the United States.

No.  It is still against the law for government to pin status on you.
You must be the one who seeks the status.  Status in this case would
be citizenship.  This is the grounds for the unconciable contract (sp?)
and the "out" many people use in "certain battles".  An unconciable
contract is equivalent to a fraudulent contract, and we all know that
something obtained by fraudulent means is NULL AND VOID.

Senators and Representatives must submit (seek out), become subject to the
Constitution.  You can't hold public office (federal) unless you are
within that particular subdivision.  You can't be a texan, and go to
DC as a federal rep.  You can be a rep, FROM texas however.
See that.  If I want to be a public employee, I was the one who went
looking for something.  The government didns't say, OK, you're a
US Citizen.  I said I was.  IMO: The 14th Amendment is trickery and
word art.

{
What about the apparent loophole that Tony cited in the 14th Amendment:
"and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"?  I think this clause is there
to account for foreign diplomats and their families living in the United
States.  If you were born in the United States and your father was the
French ambassador you wouldn't automatically become a U.S. citizen.  The
rest of us who aren't foreign diplomats are all "subject to the
jurisdiction" of the United States.  If you don't believe me, try breaking
a federal law and confessing to it in open court, and see what happens.
}

Ta-da.  Those folks are INSIDE of this country at the pleasure of the
federal government.  They got a visa to enter, right?  Dual citizenship
is usually offered in this case.  This is priviledge.  


>    Since the Constitution
>    is a CONTRACT, one must become a party to the contract to be bound
>    by it.
}The Constitution is *not* a contract between the federal government and
}individual citizens.  

The Constitution is a contract between the federal government and the
states.  It doesn't bind individual citizens unless they ASK for something
in return.  Join the military.  Ask to vote (partake in the democracy).

}It is a set of laws that was established, through
}their elected representatives, 
}by "We the People of the United States" on

If you read the preamble - the whole preamble, carefully, and using your
english skills again, you will notice "we the people" is actually
CONGRESS ASSEMBLED.  Not "everyone".

}behalf of themselves and their posterity (which includes me and you,
}assuming that you were born or naturalized in the United States) as the
}basis for our present system of government.

No.  I was born in Springfield Massachusettes.  A Commonwealth within the
United States of America.

}Notice that I said "through their elected representatives".  The United
}States is a republic.  

No it is not.  The United States is a democracy.  Look at congress.
51 votes out of 100 and it's a done deal.  That is a democracy.
The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is a republic.  Obviously, try to amend the
Constitution and you need 3/4ths of the states.  What happened to 51%.
That is a republic. You see what I'm saying....
Another trick:  Look at the Olympic atheletes.  "USA" on their jackets.
Look at a soldier. "US" on the lapel.  Hmmm....  just an observation.

{
No doubt there were many citizens in 1789 who
disagreed with the Constitution.  It didn't matter.  Their elected
representatives approved it, and the Constitution became binding on
everyone in the country, not just people who agreed with it.  If you were
born or naturalized in the United States you are a U.S. citizen and the
Constitution is also binding on you, whether or not you agree with it.
}

The constitution is binding on the states.  This is where jurisdiction
comes into play, and why something a state can do can be ruled 
unconstitutional.  On the other hand, the federal governments "laws"
can also be ruled unconstitutional.  For example:  Guns near schools
prohibits commerce.  supreme court says "BS... no jurisdiction", that's
a state issue".

The items explicitly mentioned in the Constitution are binding on me.  
Laws made in the course of running the federal gov't may not apply to me - 
jurisdiction.

Look at the US code.  There's Postive law, and non-positive law.
Positive law is explicitly spelled out in the Constitution, specifically
granted to Congress.  Any title that's not positive law cannot be
taken (or interpreted as prima facie evidence as to lawfullness) to
have legal effect if challenged.  You can demand proof of the lawfullness
of the title, ask for specific statute, intent, AUTHORIZATION applicability 
and constitutionality of the code/law/statue that is the basis of a
claim against you.

{
>I'm not an English major, but you'll know that People and people are
>different "objects".
No, I don't "know" this.  There is a distinction between "people" as the
plural of "person" and "a people" meaning a set of people connected in
some way, such as people with the same ethnic background, or "the people",
meaning the general population, e.g. the inhabitants of the United States.
"people" is capitalized as "People" at the beginning of a sentence.  Apart
from that, its capitalization is pretty much arbitrary.  Many words are
capitalized in the U.S. Constitution which in present day usage would not
be capitalized; it was an 18th century custom.
}

The men who wrote the Constitution were educated men.  They didn't do
something arbitrarily.
The Constitutional Convention was heald in secret.  Under the Articles
of Confederation, the term "United States" meant "Congress Assembled".
A capitalized noun is a proper noun with specific meaning, not general
meaning, so the preamble can be read as "We, Congress Assembled... and our
future Congresses.  The courts still know this country was formed by
compact.  Congress formed a chartered corparation known as the
United States under the auspices of the Articles of Confederation.
I and you did not sign said compact, nor did "the people".  The "S"tates
ratified the Constitution.  "S"tates are federal territorys.  Notice
the FBI jackets.  District of Georgia.  Didn't you think Georgia
was a "s"tate?   it is.  It's also a State.  This isn't arbitrary.
If you really want to be paranoid, GA. and Ga. are different too.  To
avoid confusion, I live in Georgia.   
{
Re: .326
>    Another factor that you brought up that determines citizenship is
>    inhabitant/resident.  These are not the same thing either.

What's the difference, and how does it affect this discussion?
}
It affects the discussion because it is the key to determining citizenship.

Inhabitant:  "One who resides actually and permanently in a given
place, and has his domicle there".  Blacks, 6th edition.

Reside:  "to have one's residence... a foreign corparation, for venue
purposes, "resides" in the county where its registered office and
registered agent is located".  Blacks law dictionary.
(ever hear of an agent in fact)

Residence: "Place where one actually lives... Residence implies something
more that physical presence and something less than domicile.  The terms
"resident" and "residence" have no precise legal meaning... Blacks 6th
(one can have many residences, but only one domicile)

Resident: "... when used as a noun, means dweller, habitant, or
occupant; one who resides in a place for a period of more or less
duration.... largely determined by the context in which it's used".

Resident: "An agent, minister, or officer residing in a distant place
with the dignity of ambassador; the chief representative of the government
at certain princely states.  Residents are a class of public ministers
inferior to ambassidors and envoys; but like them they are under the
protection of the law of nations".  (Jowitts Dictionary of English law)


The main thing to note:  An inhabitant is a HUMAN BEING flesh and
blood.  A resident MAY be a REPRESENTATION of that being.  Now we're
starting to play with a quasi-corparation.  

More paranoia:  Michael Maciolek is not the same as MICHAEL MACIOLEK.
Michael is the yahoo typing this stuff in.  MICHAEL can be a representation
of Michael.  Case in point, my father has power of attorney in some of
my affairs.  He is my agent in fact.  He can represent me/act as me/
do everything I can do.  Except BE me.  Now you know why Laywers are
the first thing many people run to when any semi-legal looking Bullchips
letter arrives in the mail.  Usually it's addressed to BOB SO&SO.
Write on the envelope "NO SUCH PERSON AT THIS LOCATION".  Let THEM figure
it out.


}>    Nor is the United States, the same as the United States of America,
}>    this was affirmed by the supreme Court, and I put the decision in
}>    here somewhere.
}It's hard for me to comment on this without seeing the decision.

I've seen SEVERAL places where this is slightly obvious.  The Gold
Act of 1934, all over the Internal Revenue code, but the main place
to see what I'm saying is:
NY. re: MERRIAM 36 NE 505, 141 NY 479,  
AFFIRMED IN
US v. PERKINS 163 US 625, 16SCt. 1073, 41 LEd. 287.
(this ruling meant that the 16th amendment DOES NOT APPLY to the 50
free & independant states of America; rather only to the exclusive
federal areas specified by Congress, because such power/jurisdiction
is as foreign to the 50 states as they are to each other by Law.
The US != USA)

{
>    Notice how voting (oh ya, this was in the voting topic) dictates
>    one must be a US Citizen (an elector, partaking in the democracy,
>    and therefore a party to, and subject of said democracy).
The 14th Amendment cleared this up: everyone born or naturalized in the
United States is a U.S. citizen, with the exception of foreign diplomats
and the like.  You aren't given the option of opting out of the system.
}

No the 14th amendment messed things up a bunch.  Re: opting out of the
system,  Call the Department of Health and Human Services.  Ask about
the Social Security Act.  Ask if this is voluntary.  
Here:  1-800-952-0100.  "Is social security voluntary".  While
writing this, I take back the phone number part.  Verbally, sure...
they'll tell you anything.

You will get a BULLSHEET confusing "answer" if the response is WRITTEN.
"Yes, but...."

It's the "but" part that can be exploited.  

Finally, Mr. bill will pipe in shortly and bash some of this as
racist internet stuff.  And I'll admit most of this stuff is technically 
only usefull if you are "fighting someone".  Some of the people who operate 
this way like to tack on the free white person stuff.  The fact remains that 
you can be white/red/black/brown/yellow/whatever, and operate this way.
Some folks use religion to operate this way.  Whatever.  The web is
deep.  How you personally choose to unravel it is up to you.  The main
thing is you CAN look up what I'm saying, and research this on your
own, and you will be shocked when you see the pieces of the puzzle fitting
together.  Research to me is the US Code, not internut stuff.  Some bozo
on internet didn't help me lien my property against the county, nor
abate any lawsuit against me.  You want to fork up someones system,
this is the wrench that does it.  It can make you practically untouchable
by certain entities.

You may need to re-read this a time or two (5).  Then if/when you try and
check anything (case law), you'll be pointed elsewhere which will further
confuse you, until "the light comes on".  Once the light comes on it's
a whole new ballgame. 

Regards,
MadMike

    RE: .330 -- Good note Mike (or is that Michael:-))
    
    On another note...  We now have over 330 replies to this note and we do
    not yet have the Libertarian Party 1996 Presidential Platform posted so
    I thought that I would so that we can all see where the Libertarian
    Party and Harry Browne stand on the issues of the day...
    
    

                           Libertarian Party 1996
                         National Campaign Platform

                        A First Step Toward Freedom

                         Harry Browne For President

PREAMBLE

Government doesn't work. It can't deliver the mail on time, it doesn't keep
our cities safe, it doesn't educate our children.

Government programs have failed. Government reforms have failed. Democratic
and Republican politicians have failed. Government doesn't work.

Still, whatever the issue, Republican and Democratic politicians propose
more government as the answer -- even when, as is usually the case, it is
government that has caused the problem.

Libertarians stand for individual liberty, self-responsibility, and freedom
from government -- on all issues at all times. If there's a problem, our
first question is not, "How can government solve this problem," but "What
government program must be eliminated to improve this situation?"

     We are the only party dedicated to dramatically reducing
     government -- and doing it now, not in some pie-in-the-sky future
     year.

     We are the only party that recognizes that the federal government
     has expanded far beyond the small, limited government envisioned
     by the Founding Fathers.

     We are the only party that believes the Bill of Rights is an
     absolute document, to be taken literally. Government has no right
     to violate the Bill of Rights in any circumstance.

This means:

   * You, and every other person, have the right to speak and write freely
     -- on paper, on the airwaves, on the Internet -- even if the
     government and the politicians don't like what you say.
   * You have the right to keep and bear arms -- even if some lunatic
     shoots up a restaurant in Texas.
   * You have a right to be safe from unreasonable search and seizure --
     even if a DEA agent thinks you fit his profile of a drug dealer.
   * You have a right to financial privacy -- even if an IRS agent demands
     to know everything about you.
   * You have a right to the full use of your own property -- even if some
     bureaucrat wants to declare your backyard a wetlands.

Because politicians have long disregarded the limitations of the
Constitution, the federal government has exploded in size. It is intrusive,
oppressive, and obscenely expensive. And we the people suffer from all its
failed programs.

Government doesn't work. Its War on Poverty has expanded poverty. Its War
on Drugs has created a huge, illicit drug industry, escalated drug use, and
generated a crime wave in every American city.

Still, politicians of both old political parties insist that the next
government program will work, will pay for itself, will improve America,
will solve some social problem.

But government doesn't work.

THE LIBERTARIAN DIFFERENCE

The overriding question in this Presidential election is: How can we make
the federal government much smaller?

Democratic and Republican politicians try to pose as supporters of smaller
government. But on issue after issue, they still call on government to
solve problems.

The differences among them are trivial. But the differences between their
positions and those of Harry Browne, the Libertarian candidate, are as
night and day.

1. Reducing Government

Democratic and Republican politicians are both responsible for the
overbloated $1.6 trillion federal government. Republican Presidents and
Republican Congresses, Democratic Presidents and Democratic Congresses have
all served to make government bigger and bigger and bigger.

With the exception of the retrenchment period after World War II, every
President -- Republican or Democrat -- since Calvin Coolidge has left a
government that's bigger than the one he inherited. We have to stop this
trend.

Today, with the American public overwhelmingly anti-politician and
anti-government, politicians of both parties try to convince us that they,
too, are for "smaller government," "lower taxes," "less regulation." But
the specific proposals they make will all lead to bigger government.

   * Democratic politicians play games by "reinventing government," even
     though every reform they propose makes government bigger and more
     expensive.
   * Republican politicians play games by proposing to close down
     Departments of the federal government, even though they intend to
     transfer the functions and expenses of those Departments to other
     agencies -- leaving government just as big as ever.
   * Harry Browne, the Libertarian candidate, says government doesn't work
     -- and he wants to remove the federal government immediately and
     completely from every activity not specified in the Constitution --
     education, energy, regulation, crime control, welfare, housing,
     transportation, health care, agriculture, and all the other areas the
     federal government has stuck its nose into unconstitutionally over the
     past 60 years.

2. The Income Tax

The enormous tax increases of 1982, 1983, 1990, and 1993 show that neither
of the old parties stands for lower taxes. Republican and Democratic
politicians alike are quite willing to raise your taxes anytime, on any
pretext.

Today they try to convince us that they have changed, that "We are all
low-taxers now." But their proposals would only rearrange the existing tax
burden. Because they have no concrete plans to reduce government
significantly, there is no way they can lower your taxes significantly.

The income tax is the biggest government intrusion into the lives of the
American people. It forces every worker to be a bookkeeper, to open his
records to the government, to explain his expenses, to fear conviction for
a harmless accounting error. Compliance wastes hundreds of billions of
dollars. The income tax penalizes savings and creates an enormous drag on
the U.S. economy. It is incompatible with a free society.

We must get rid of hundreds of federal programs, but we can't remove them
one at a time, because each program has beneficiaries and supporters who
will fight us. We can overcome their resistance only by combining all the
spending cuts into a single package that includes the largest tax cut in
American history -- the total repeal of the federal income tax. That way
most people can see that they'll save far more in taxes than they lose in
subsidies.

By combining the reduction of government with the repeal of the income tax,
every voter will know that the price of keeping today's federal programs is
to continue paying the income tax. Every voter will know exactly how much
he can gain by eliminating the complete package of unconstitutional
programs.

But this isn't what politicians of the two old parties want. They like the
power that comes from controlling your income.

   * Democratic politicians like a progressive income tax that's based on
     the "ability to pay" -- meaning that those who have earned the most by
     doing the most for others should be penalized the most. But their
     "progressive" tax rates somehow always hit middle-class Americans the
     hardest.
   * Republican politicians pretend to be helping us by proposing to end
     the current version of the income tax, and replace it with a giant
     sales tax -- or with a "flat tax" that contains so many wrinkles, it's
     actually just another progressive tax. But because they aren't
     reducing government, they are merely rearranging the same oppressive
     tax burden.
   * Harry Browne, the Libertarian candidate, wants to end the income tax
     and abolish the IRS his first year in office and replace them with
     nothing. By reducing the federal government to its Constitutional
     functions, we can do away with all direct taxes -- the income, estate,
     gift, capital gains, and Social Security taxes -- financing national
     defense and the federal judiciary with the level of tariffs and excise
     taxes being collected already. Harry Browne makes this offer to every
     American: Would you give up all your favorite federal programs -- such
     things as farm subsidies, student loans, the Corporation for Public
     Broadcasting, and any other programs -- in order to be free of the
     income tax forever?1

3. Social Security

Social Security is a fraudulent insurance scheme in which the government
collects money from you for your retirement and immediately spends the
money on something else. All polls show that an overwhelming majority of
Americans have little hope of getting back a single dollar for the 15% of
their wages they're pouring into it.

   * Democratic politicians deny what every working American knows: The
     Social Security system is bankrupt and close to collapse.
   * Republican politicians want to keep Social Security afloat through tax
     increases and benefit reductions -- including raising the retirement
     age, invoking a means test, and changing the cost of living index on
     which yearly changes are calculated.
   * Harry Browne, the Libertarian candidate, knows the only way to avoid
     the coming Social Security collapse is to get the government
     completely out of Social Security. He wants to sell trillions of
     dollars worth of unneeded federal assets to finance the liquidation of
     Social Security through the purchase of private retirement annuities
     for the senior citizens who are dependent on Social Security. These
     people will have guaranteed contracts with private companies who have
     never broken their promises -- unlike the U.S. Congress. And you will
     never again have to pay the 15% Social Security tax -- which is really
     just throwing part of your wages down a rathole.

4. Government Spending

In their Alice-in-Wonderland world, when politicians talk about smaller
government, they don't mean a government that is actually smaller. They
mean a government that is smaller than some hypothetical government that is
much larger than today's government. In other words, to a politician,
"smaller government" means government that doesn't grow as fast he wants.

   * Democratic politicians want a "smaller government" that continues to
     grow by 4% a year.
   * Republican politicians want a "smaller government" that continues to
     grow by 3% a year.
   * Harry Browne, the Libertarian candidate, knows that government doesn't
     work. He doesn't just want to stop government growth -- he proposes
     slashing the federal budget 50% the first year as a first step.

5. Balanced Budget

An unbalanced budget isn't just a bookkeeping curiosity. Every debt
incurred on your behalf by the politicians means you have to pay a larger
interest cost every year. Today we are paying $275 billion a year in
interest expense, which means we are continuing to pay for
long-since-abandoned, long-forgotten schemes by the politicians of
yesteryear -- schemes that were going to make health care more affordable,
that were going to improve education, that were going to clean up the
environment. The schemes failed, the politicians retired with generous
pensions, and we are left paying the interest expense year after year after
year.

We must get rid of that interest expense by retiring the entire federal
debt. But first, we must put a stop to the growing debt by balancing the
budget immediately.

   * Republican politicians want to increase federal spending for seven
     more years, pretending that a future Congress will balance the budget
     by making spending cuts the current Congress is unwilling to make.
   * Democratic politicians want to increase federal spending for seven
     more years, pretending that a future Congress will balance the budget
     by making spending cuts the current Congress is unwilling to make.
   * Harry Browne, the Libertarian candidate, plans to balance the budget
     his first year in office by reducing government spending. He also
     plans to sell off federal assets -- and use the proceeds to pay off
     the federal debt entirely.


6. Welfare

Prior to the 1960s, the word "welfare" was rarely used in conversation.
Instead, people spoke of "charity" -- administered by churches, service
clubs, foundations, the United Way, and other agencies. "Welfare" was a
small department in the back of City Hall somewhere. The notion that
someone could be permanently on the dole was virtually unheard of.

Today millions of Americans have been consigned to a lifetime of poverty,
dependency, disrespect, and hopelessness as permanent wards of the state.
The welfare laws, tax laws, minimum wage laws, and other regulations
discourage them from leaving welfare to become self-supporting citizens.
This is what the American people have received for the trillions of their
dollars the politicians have wasted on a bizarre plan to have government do
away with poverty.

   * Democratic politicians have various plans to "reform" welfare, even
     though every previous welfare reform bill has increased the cost and
     the number of people on welfare.
   * Republican politicians want to send federal welfare money to the state
     governments, tied up in a multitude of strings.
   * Harry Browne, the Libertarian candidate, knows that federal welfare
     doesn't work. It has consigned millions of Americans to a life of
     dependency and despair, and it has cost us trillions of dollars. He
     wants to end it completely and immediately.

7. Education

There is no Constitutional authority for the federal government to be
involved in education in any way whatsoever. The growing amounts of money
and control coming from Washington have been matched by lower SAT scores,
declining standards, more dangerous schools, and generations of Americans
who have no basic education in history, geography, the Constitution,
mathematics, science, or literature.

This doesn't bother the politicians, however, because they don't see
federal aid to education as a means of raising literacy and knowledge.

   * Democratic politicians want to use federal aid to education as a way
     to implement their social agenda.
   * Republican politicians want to use federal aid to education as a way
     to implement their social agenda.
   * Harry Browne, the Libertarian candidate, knows that no federal
     educational program will work, and he wants to get the federal
     government out of education completely and immediately. The most
     effective way we can improve education in America is to repeal the
     income tax, so that you can afford to educate your child your way --
     in a private school that offers the curriculum you want, in a
     religious school that teaches the values in which you believe, or
     through home-schooling conducted your way.

8. Crime & the War on Drugs

Before there were drug laws in America, there were no drug problems. And
prior to the federal government's declaration of War on Drugs in the 1960s,
there were no muggers on the street trying to support a $100-a-day habit,
no pushers on high school campuses trying to hook children on drugs, no
gangs fighting over monopoly drug territories, no drive-by shootings, no
crack babies, no overdose problems. Outside of the 14 years during alcohol
Prohibition, nothing like this had ever been seen in America. It took the
War on Drugs to make it happen.

   * Democratic politicians like the War on Drugs just as it is -- because
     they love the power it gives the federal government.
   * Republican politicians want to accelerate the War on Drugs -- by
     taking away more of your Constitutional liberties, by taking away more
     of your privacy, by turning America into more of a police state.
   * Harry Browne, the Libertarian candidate, says the War on Drugs is a
     total failure. Government can't keep drugs out of the country; it
     can't even keep drugs out of its own prisons. He wants to end the
     insane War on Drugs -- which will take the criminal profit out of the
     illicit drug trade and bring peace to our cities once again. On his
     first day in office, he will pardon everyone who has been convicted of
     a non-violent federal drug offense -- to empty the federal prisons of
     the marijuana smokers and others who are no threat to society, and
     make room for the truly violent criminals and other thugs who escape
     prison through early releases and plea bargains to return to the
     streets and terrorize our citizens.

9. Health Care

Today 51% of all health care dollars in America are spent by government.
This has run up the prices of doctor visits, hospital stays, and health
insurance -- far outpacing the rate of general inflation. Government has
failed utterly to make health care more accessible or affordable. But the
politicians see this failure as an excuse to impose even more government
upon us.

   * Democratic politicians want to remake the American health-care system
     in the image of the disastrous European systems, attempting to blame
     government's failures on the free market.
   * Republican politicians pass legislation that will regulate the private
     health insurance companies out of business, and will lead to the
     imposition of a "single-payer," Canadian-style health system in
     America.2
   * Harry Browne, the Libertarian candidate, says government health care
     doesn't work and he wants to get government out from between you and
     your doctor. By getting the federal government completely out of
     health care, we will have more choices, better health care, and lower
     prices for doctor visits, hospital stays, and health insurance.

10. The Federal Judiciary

The American judiciary was supposed to protect the American people from
politicians and bureaucrats who wanted to overstep the bounds of the
Constitution. Instead, the judiciary has been a main part of the trashing
of the Constitution. Judges talk about "penumbras" in the Constitution.
They say the Constitution is a living, changing document (which really
means that it's a dead, meaningless document). They throw out the Bill of
Rights on the grounds that the government has a "compelling interest" in
overruling it.

Either the Constitution limits the government or it doesn't.

   * Democratic politicians want the President to appoint judges who will
     use the law to implement their social agenda.
   * Republican politicians want the President to appoint judges who will
     use the law to implement their social agenda.
   * Harry Browne, the Libertarian candidate, will appoint only judges who
     consider the Bill of Rights to be a literal, absolute document that
     allows no exceptions to your right to free speech, freedom of
     religion, freedom to keep and bear arms, freedom to be secure in your
     property, safe from search and seizure. He will appoint only judges
     who take the 9th and 10th amendments seriously, and thus will not
     tolerate the federal government involving itself in activities not
     authorized by the Constitution.

11. Personal Values

The Constitution gives the federal government no authority to tell us how
to live our lives. However, the politicians will not be restrained. They
want to govern every aspect of our existence.

   * Both Democratic and Republican politicians believe that Americans are
     dysfunctional children who need government to act as their parents.
     They both seek to impose their values in the most intimate personal
     and family relationships and admit to no limits on their authority to
     do so.
   * Harry Browne, the Libertarian candidate, respects the right of all
     Americans to choose and act on their own personal values, to work
     together in their families and communities to achieve the goals they
     set for themselves. Americans throughout their history have proven
     their ability to solve problems their own way, without government
     interference.

12. Immigration

At one time, America attracted only those from around the world who were
seeking freedom -- freedom from oppressive governments, freedom to build a
future for their families through hard work. Today, America attracts too
many people who come here only to take advantage of government welfare
benefits.

   * Republican politicians want to solve this problem -- created by
     government -- by putting another layer of government on top of it.
     They want to keep out the productive people along with the
     free-loaders, they want to build a wall or a ditch along our borders,
     and they want to beef up the military to patrol the borders.
   * Democratic politicians don't know what they believe on this issue,
     because the polls aren't conclusive yet.
   * Harry Browne, the Libertarian candidate, wants to dismantle the
     welfare state -- which will automatically solve our immigration
     problems. Once there is no more gravy train, the only people who will
     want to come here will be those who want the freedom to work and to
     build a better life for their families.

13. National Defense & Foreign Policy

Our government has spent trillions of dollars on the military since World
War II, and yet we are completely vulnerable to the whims of any two-bit
dictator who can get his hands on a nuclear missile. And by involving
ourselves in a multitude of treaties around the world, we are liable to be
drawn into World War III by a petty dispute between third-rate powers.

   * Republican politicians believe we must defend our "national interests"
     by roaming the world in search of trouble. And, somehow, almost
     anything that happens anywhere is cited as a threat to those national
     interests. Consequently, the Republicans keep us on the brink of
     trouble at all times.
   * Democratic politicians don't have a clear-cut attitude toward foreign
     policy. But to prove they're as tough as the Republicans, they put our
     money and lives on the line in the affairs of other countries all over
     the world.
   * Harry Browne, the Libertarian candidate, will bring American troops
     home to America at once. He will remove us from the entangling
     alliances that Thomas Jefferson warned us against. He will see to it
     that America has a proper defense against any missile attack, so that
     we will no longer need retaliatory weapons and intimidating military
     power. We will be far safer than we are now, while spending far less
     money on the military.

DON'T WASTE YOUR VOTE THIS YEAR

The overriding issue this election year is smaller government.

And on that issue, there is no real difference between the two old parties
-- no difference that could effect a real improvement in your life now.

Only the Libertarians offer specific, workable, credible proposals to
dramatically reduce the size, cost, and intrusiveness of government.

For years, you may have wasted your vote -- giving it to candidates who
have served to make government bigger and bigger. Don't waste your vote
again by giving it to candidates like Bob Dole or Bill Clinton, whose
entire careers have been devoted to making Big Government bigger.

It's time to make your vote count for a change -- time to vote for someone
who is determined to make government much smaller now.

If you cast your vote wisely, you can make a difference. But if you don't
vote for what you want, you are throwing your vote away.

   * If you want huge tax cuts now, vote for them now.
   * If you want huge spending cuts now, vote for them now.
   * If you want a balanced budget now, vote for it now.
   * In other words, if you want much smaller government now, vote for
     Harry Browne, the Libertarian candidate for President.

Stop voting against what you're afraid of, and start voting for what you
want.

Vote for the only candidate who has the will and determination to
immediately reduce government to a fraction of its size today.

Vote to take back your freedom, to take back your life. Vote to end the
income tax and abolish the IRS. Vote to keep your earnings in your hands --
to spend, to save, to give away as you see fit.

Vote to affirm your support for the small and limited Constitutional
Government given to us by the Founding Fathers.

This year, vote for:

   * Harry Browne for President
   * Libertarians for Congress and the Senate
   * Libertarians in state and local races.

This year, don't waste your vote.

Vote Libertarian.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Footnotes

1 A proposed six-year federal budget, showing revenues and expenditures, is
laid out in chapter 24 of Why Government Doesn't Work by Harry Browne (245
pages, St. Martin's Press, available at any bookstore, $19.95).

2 The Kennedy-Kassenbaum bill was passed 100-0 in the Senate in May 1996; a
similar bill was passed in the House. It compels private insurance
companies to issue unprofitable policies -- guaranteeing that insurance
premiums will rise, leading the politicians to impose price controls, and
driving the insurance companies out of business.

--------------7D085A635862--

>               In other words, once the 14th Amendment was passed, there
>was only one class of citizens: both former slaves and members of
>Congress, and everyone in between, were citizens of the United States.

Not quite true.  Naturalized citizens can't be President, so there are
at least two distinct classes.

    What about people in Guam and Puerto Rico?

Re: .330

>I can be a natural born
>citizen, and a citizen of one of the several states.  Or I can be
>a US citizen.  Can I be both?

Natural born citizens and the citizens of the several states are also
citizens of the United States, as stated in the 14th Amendment.

> Today the line seems blured.  We're all
>supposed to think we're "US Citizens".  I tend to think of myself
>as an American.

In the eighteenth century and for much of the nineteenth century people
tended to think of themselves as citizens of a particular state rather
than as citizens of the United States.  There was a disagreement between
advocates of "states rights", who were mainly from the South, and
federalists, who were mainly from the North.  After the North won the
Civil war the 14th Amendment resolved the question in the federalists'
favor: citizens of each state were also citizens of the United States.

The 14th Amendment also imposed restrictions on the states: "No State
shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive
any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor
deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws."  The federal government took on the job of defending individual
rights within each of the states.

It sounds like the ideas you are presenting are similar to the arguments
made by southern "states rights" advocates before the Civil War.

>Ever hear of Cherokee Nation?  They ain't fooling.  It's a nation alright.

I'll believe that when they send a delegation to the United Nations.

The Cherokee Nation, and other Indian tribes, are under the jurisdiction
of the federal government.  That's why they can thumb their noses at state
governments.

>The trick:  Born or naturalized in the UNITED STATES  *AND* subject to
>the jurisdiction of....  
>What if you're born in texas, or florida and NOT subject to the
>constitution?

Texas and Florida are part of the United States and are subject to the
Constitution.

>}This is the same class of citizenship that is required for Representatives
>}and Senators.  In other words, once the 14th Amendment was passed, there
>}was only one class of citizens: both former slaves and members of
>}Congress, and everyone in between, were citizens of the United States.
>
>No.  It is still against the law for government to pin status on you.
>You must be the one who seeks the status.

I don't believe this.  Is there a Supreme Court decision which supports
your opinion?

> An unconciable
>contract is equivalent to a fraudulent contract, and we all know that
>something obtained by fraudulent means is NULL AND VOID.

As I've said, the U.S. Constitution is not a contract between the federal
government and individual citizens.  It is the supreme law of the land and
takes precedence over the common law, not the other way around.

>You can't be a texan, and go to
>DC as a federal rep.  You can be a rep, FROM texas however.

That's because the Constitution says "No Person shall be a Representative who
... shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall
be chosen."

>Ta-da.  Those folks [foreign diplomats] are INSIDE of this country at the
>pleasure of the federal government.  They got a visa to enter, right?  Dual
>citizenship is usually offered in this case.

I don't think dual citizenship is offered to foreign diplomats and their
families.  In fact, I believe that to become a U.S. citizen you have to
renounce your allegiance to any other country.

>The Constitution is a contract between the federal government and the
>states.  It doesn't bind individual citizens unless they ASK for something
>in return.  Join the military.  Ask to vote (partake in the democracy).

This is your theory.  I don't believe it.  Do you have any evidence for
what you're saying?

>If you read the preamble - the whole preamble, carefully, and using your
>english skills again, you will notice "we the people" is actually
>CONGRESS ASSEMBLED.  Not "everyone".

I don't see the words "in Congress assembled" in note 10.0.  Is part of
the preamble missing from 10.0?  I need to look this up - maybe the words
"in Congress assembled" are actually from the Declaration of Independence.

>}behalf of themselves and their posterity (which includes me and you,
>}assuming that you were born or naturalized in the United States) as the
>}basis for our present system of government.
>
>No.  I was born in Springfield Massachusettes.  A Commonwealth within the
>United States of America.

Springfield, Massachusetts is part of the United States.  Massachusetts
may call itself a Commonwealth, but as far as the U.S. Constitution is
concerned it's a State.

>}Notice that I said "through their elected representatives".  The United
>}States is a republic.  
>
>No it is not.  The United States is a democracy.  Look at congress.
>51 votes out of 100 and it's a done deal.  That is a democracy.

59 votes out of 100 in the Senate and you've failed to stop a filibuster.
66 votes in the Senate and 335 votes in the House and you've failed to
override a presidential veto.

>The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is a republic.

The United States and the United States of America are the same thing.
(I'm still interested in seeing the Supreme Court decision that according
to you says that they are different).  The United States is a democratic
republic: representatives are elected democratically and govern under the
limited authority granted by a written constitution.

>The constitution is binding on the states.  This is where jurisdiction
>comes into play, and why something a state can do can be ruled 
>unconstitutional.  On the other hand, the federal governments "laws"
>can also be ruled unconstitutional.  For example:  Guns near schools
>prohibits commerce.  supreme court says "BS... no jurisdiction", that's
>a state issue".

It's the U.S. Constitution that determines what authority is granted to
the federal government and what authority is granted to the state
governments.

>The items explicitly mentioned in the Constitution are binding on me.  
>Laws made in the course of running the federal gov't may not apply to me - 
>jurisdiction.

If Congress has authority to pass a law then you are obliged to obey that
law and will be penalized if you break it, whether or not you consider
yourself a citizen of the United States.

>Under the Articles
>of Confederation, the term "United States" meant "Congress Assembled".
>A capitalized noun is a proper noun with specific meaning, not general
>meaning, so the preamble can be read as "We, Congress Assembled... and our
>future Congresses.

That sounds to me like a pretty bizzare way to interpret the Preamble.  So
you're saying that when the Preamble talks about "securing the Blessings of
Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity", it really means that the
individual congressmen wanted to secure the blessings of liberty for
*themselves* and for the congressmen that came after them, and not for
anyone else?  I don't think so.

By the way, a "proper noun" means the name of a particular person, place,
or thing.  In the Preamble, "Blessings", "Liberty" and "Posterity" are not
proper nouns.  The phrase could equally well have been written "securing
the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity".  The
capitalization of "Blessings", "Liberty" and "Posterity" were simply an
eighteenth century style of writing.  Similarly, capitalization differences
elsewhere in the Constitution don't necessarily signify a change in
meaning.

> Congress formed a chartered corparation known as the
>United States under the auspices of the Articles of Confederation.

No, the United States Constitution *replaced* the Articles of
Confederation.  You're talking as if the Articles of Confederation were
still in effect today, which they aren't.

>}>    Nor is the United States, the same as the United States of America,
>}>    this was affirmed by the supreme Court, and I put the decision in
>}>    here somewhere.
>}It's hard for me to comment on this without seeing the decision.
>
>I've seen SEVERAL places where this is slightly obvious.  The Gold
>Act of 1934, all over the Internal Revenue code, but the main place
>to see what I'm saying is:
>NY. re: MERRIAM 36 NE 505, 141 NY 479,  
>AFFIRMED IN
>US v. PERKINS 163 US 625, 16SCt. 1073, 41 LEd. 287.
>
>(this ruling meant that the 16th amendment DOES NOT APPLY to the 50
>free & independant states of America; rather only to the exclusive
>federal areas specified by Congress, because such power/jurisdiction
>is as foreign to the 50 states as they are to each other by Law.

Do you mean the 16th Amendment or the 14th Amendment?  The 16th Amendment
gives Congress power to lay and collect taxes.

Please quote the relevant parts of the decisions.  In what year did the
Supreme Court decide each case?

> The main
>thing is you CAN look up what I'm saying, and research this on your
>own, and you will be shocked when you see the pieces of the puzzle fitting
>together.

I'm way too busy, unfortunately.

				-- Bob

    re: .334
    
    >I don't think dual citizenship is offered to foreign diplomats and
    >their families.  In fact, I believe that to become a U.S. citizen you
    >have to renounce your allegiance to any other country.
    
    This used to be true, but was changed several years ago.
    
    Bob
    

The U.S. doesn't recognize dual citizenship.  This doesn't mean you can't
have it, just that the U.S. will ignore the non-U.S. citizenship.

We have a terminology problem.

}Natural born citizens and the citizens of the several states are also
}citizens of the United States, as stated in the 14th Amendment.

}In the eighteenth century and for much of the nineteenth century people
}tended to think of themselves as citizens of a particular state rather

Words are important.  being computer geeks, we know that AND BUT and OR
are extremely important.  The "  AND subject to its jurisdiction" is
what you're missing.  You need to ask questions.  HOW am I subject to
it's jurisdiction?  Am I?  The answer isn't always "yes".


}It sounds like the ideas you are presenting are similar to the arguments
}made by southern "states rights" advocates before the Civil War.

Please tell me when the 9th and 10th Amendments were REPEALED.  As far as
I know, they haven't been.  So, this talk about "that was then, this is
now" doesn't fly.


}>Ever hear of Cherokee Nation?  They ain't fooling.  It's a nation alright.
}I'll believe that when they send a delegation to the United Nations.

The indians want to be left alone.  They could care less about joining
the united nations.  The indian nations are sovereign, that's why they
can give the states the finger.  The indians screwed up, in that they
also accept PAYOLA from the feds... with strings attached.

}Texas and Florida are part of the United States and are subject to the
}Constitution.

Republic of Texas.  Republic of California.  You seem to want to blur
the lines between state borders.  In the extreme, you would lump
everything together and ignore the concept of a state.  That's how
you are coming across.  To my knowledge States still have their own
court system, and the feds have a court system, so there is a subtle
"border" between jurisdictions.  Even though the rules have been made
uniform to some degree nationwide.

{
>}This is the same class of citizenship that is required for Representatives
>}and Senators.  In other words, once the 14th Amendment was passed, there
>}was only one class of citizens: both former slaves and members of
>}Congress, and everyone in between, were citizens of the United States.
>No.  It is still against the law for government to pin status on you.
>You must be the one who seeks the status.
I don't believe this.  Is there a Supreme Court decision which supports
your opinion?
}

I don't know offhand.  But I know if I misrepresent something while in
the process of trying do business with you, you have a remedy.  When you
get more into this, you'll see evidence of trickery.  This includes
your signature (your seal),   "Sign by the X".  Remember how uneducated
people signed their name?  What happens when you put your seal next to
the "X"?   I'll leave it at that at the moment.

}As I've said, the U.S. Constitution is not a contract between the federal
}government and individual citizens.  It is the supreme law of the land and
}takes precedence over the common law, not the other way around.

I don't contest this.  I contest jurisdiction and who it applies to.
Go see the 7th Amendment.  The Constitution *IS* COMMON LAW.  There is
a trick.  In an earlier post one of the definitions mentions venue.
Play with the IRS.  They want you in Tax court.  Well, use the Constitution
to club them over the head.  Change venue to US District court and the
IRS is blocked now.  


}I don't think dual citizenship is offered to foreign diplomats and their
}families.  In fact, I believe that to become a U.S. citizen you have to
}renounce your allegiance to any other country.

It is, ask any <illegal> who makes babys here.  A better example using your
note is the French diplomat.  The child COULD and usually does have
dual citizenship.  When the child reaches the age of majority, usually
18, they pick one.  Most likely they are in France and dump the US
citizenship.

{
>The Constitution is a contract between the federal government and the
>states.  It doesn't bind individual citizens unless they ASK for something
>in return.  Join the military.  Ask to vote (partake in the democracy).
This is your theory.  I don't believe it.  Do you have any evidence for
what you're saying?
}

You hadn't come upon the supreme Court decision I cited.


******

>If you read the preamble - the whole preamble, carefully, and using your
>english skills again, you will notice "we the people" is actually
>CONGRESS ASSEMBLED.  Not "everyone".
I don't see the words "in Congress assembled" in note 10.0.  Is part of
the preamble missing from 10.0?  I need to look this up - maybe the words
"in Congress assembled" are actually from the Declaration of Independence.
>}behalf of themselves and their posterity (which includes me and you,
>}assuming that you were born or naturalized in the United States) as the
>}basis for our present system of government.
>
*****
This might have been worded poorly.  To see the CONTEXT of this debate,
you'll also need to be familiar with the Articles of Confederation.
The Constitution replaced the AoC, but background is evident.

When "we the People" wrote the Constitution, they were actually saying
"congress" a chartered corparation is making this contract.  I and
you are not a party to it UNLESS WE ENTER IT.


{
>No.  I was born in Springfield Massachusettes.  A Commonwealth within the
>United States of America.
Springfield, Massachusetts is part of the United States.  Massachusetts
may call itself a Commonwealth, but as far as the U.S. Constitution is
concerned it's a State.
}

Terminology problem.  There is a GEORGRAPHIC Massachusettes, and a 
political massachusettes.  The geographic state can't operate in court.
It needs something, a body politic made up of representation, blah blah...
again, jurisdiction.  If you are not in the body politic, you can't
be subject to it.  That is not to say you can start beating the hell
out of people and "breaking the law" just because you're "free".
Again, jurisdiction.  Punching someone in the nose violates common
law.  You won't be tried in common law venue, you'll be tried in
a different court which is ok.  Some "crimes" are bogus, and you can
force them into common law venue where they will surely fail.


***************
>}Notice that I said "through their elected representatives".  The United
>}States is a republic.  
>
>No it is not.  The United States is a democracy.  Look at congress.
>51 votes out of 100 and it's a done deal.  That is a democracy.
59 votes out of 100 in the Senate and you've failed to stop a filibuster.
66 votes in the Senate and 335 votes in the House and you've failed to
override a presidential veto.
>The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is a republic.
******************
Filibusters, super majoritys... this is a congressional issue.  I don't
concern myself with congresses rules, except when they apply to me.
I made my point identifying that it's quite clear who is a democracy
and who is a republic.  If the USA was a democracy 26 states would
be needed to ratify amendments.  The US is represented by Congress a
democracy.


}The United States and the United States of America are the same thing.
Again, see the supreme court decision.


}It's the U.S. Constitution that determines what authority is granted to
}the federal government and what authority is granted to the state
}governments.

The Constitution grants powers to congress and sets up the federal
government.  The Bill of Rights is the cap to the freewheeling federals.
Specifically the 9th and 10th amendments.  Anything NOT EXPLICITLY
mentioned in the constitution is PROHIBITED and left up to the states
to figure out.   Of course, it has to be constitutional.


}>The items explicitly mentioned in the Constitution are binding on me.  
}>Laws made in the course of running the federal gov't may not apply to me - 
}>jurisdiction.
}If Congress has authority to pass a law then you are obliged to obey that
}law and will be penalized if you break it, whether or not you consider
}yourself a citizen of the United States.

This depends. Again, it's jurisdiction.  Ever see a case ajudicated
because of lack of jurisdiction?  Congress can do whatever they want
and all to often they do.  The only way to challenge bad law is to
break it, and become a poster boy and hope the court system works.
On 2nd hand, you don't necessarily have to break it to test it.  You
can file an injunction against the law, which may or may not happen
if the State of Georgia decides we all need to do emmissions testing
where I live.  This is a mandate from the EPA forced upon states.
This is also a tax, and I don't recall voting on whether we should do
this or not.  I'll bet you all my automobiles will get permanently waived 
again like they did somewhere else.  :^)


}capitalization of "Blessings", "Liberty" and "Posterity" were simply an
}eighteenth century style of writing.  Similarly, capitalization differences
}elsewhere in the Constitution don't necessarily signify a change in
}meaning.

Again, context.  "T"eacher and "t"eacher are not the same.
Another thing, 18th century style?  Why is so much legal stuff in Latin?
Cause latin is dead and the meaning of a word CAN'T change.


}No, the United States Constitution *replaced* the Articles of
}Confederation.  You're talking as if the Articles of Confederation were
}still in effect today, which they aren't.

Important in context.

{
>(this ruling meant that the 16th amendment DOES NOT APPLY to the 50
>free & independant states of America; rather only to the exclusive
>federal areas specified by Congress, because such power/jurisdiction
>is as foreign to the 50 states as they are to each other by Law.
Do you mean the 16th Amendment or the 14th Amendment?  The 16th Amendment
gives Congress power to lay and collect taxes.
}

I mean the 16th amendment.  Most of this stuff is usefull for blowing
the IRS into the weeds.  And because of that, that is what most of
my information is geared towards.  Once you "clarify" the 14th 
amendment issues, the rest falls into place.

}Please quote the relevant parts of the decisions.  In what year did the
}Supreme Court decide each case?

I'm busy too, and I got a 5 year head start on you, so I'm not going to
go look it up.  A quick hint is that it was during the 16th supreme
court, and probably done after 1913.  The year shouldn't matter either.
To my knowlege this issue has never came back up again for the supreme
court to rule otherwise, therefore, it's LAW.  Same thing with the
Coinage Act of 1792.  This is touchy stuff.

Regards,
MadMike

Well, MadMike, I see we still have our differences, but I won't be able to
reply for a few days since I'll be out of town.

				-- Bob

    MadMike is very very *on* in this topic.  This is really a very good
    one.
    
    Just to throw one out there, re: the 14th.
    
    Mike is correct about the AND statement.  In order to be party to the
    dual citizenship offered by this amendment, you must be subject to the
    rule of the US Congress, which is not a normal situation for most of
    us.
    
    Suppose, though, that you travel to someplace benign, like Canada, or
    Mexico.  Or even a Cherokee reservation.  At that time, what is my
    citizenship?  The state where I live is prohibited from doing direct
    business with any state other than the 50 united States.  This is
    therefore federal territory, and in my dealings with the foreign state
    I am subject to federal rule.  This is why the federal government
    issues the passport.
    
    Thus, if I travel to Europe, the state governments there recognise me
    as a US Citizen, which is formally defined in the 14th amendment.  When
    I return to Georgia I am no longer subject to the rule of the federal
    government.  When I go to a foreign place, like Washington, D.C., I am.
    
    It's the jusidiction business.  A Georgia citizen can, f'rinstance,
    legally visit the Mustang Ranch and request certain favors in the State
    of Nevada.  A Nevada citizen can be arrested for solicitation if he
    tries to do the same thing in Georgia.  Citizenship does not change.
    
    It's all geography.  Maybe that's why they don't teach it in school
    anymore.
    
    Later,
    		Mike

  Hi,

    With my work hours, I have been unable to respond until now.  (I work
    Sunday/Monday/Tuesday and every other Wednesday from 8 AM to 8 PM.)
    I haven't been at work since last Tuesday.

    There is no doubt MadMike is more knowledgeable than I in this area,
    but the following are my thoughts.  I am not totally sure these are
    correct, but I am pretty sure.

    I believe the 14th ammendment created a brand new citizenship in the 
    following sense.  For the first time, a person who was not an elected
    official into the federal government and who did not live in a federal
    possession (such as D.C. or Guam, etc.) could be a "U.S. Citizen."

    Its that simple.

    Prior to the 14th ammendment, I don't think it was possible to not
    hold public office, to live in a state, and to be a Citizen of the
    federal government.  How can you be a citizen of the federal govt.?
    Doesn't that seem odd?  Were people ever meant to be citizens of the
    federal government?  Is that the kind of country our forefathers 
    envisioned?  One wherein there would be this centralized 'government' 
    and all people be under its jurisdiction?

    There was a united states of America before the Constitution.  Right off
    the bat, it makes a lot of sense that given that the Constitution would
    mark the creation of the federal govt. that its intent would be to spell
    out its authority.  It also makes a lot of sense to me that a concern
    of the framers of the Constitution was giving this newly formed body
    too much power.  Indeed, it seems that the Constitution was a solid
    attempt to explicitly 'limit' its power.  This is certainly in accordance
    with historical context, i.e. its framers were certainly leery of 
    centralized control.  As an example, Jefferson (I think it was him) has 
    a quote where he just describes *democracy* as terrible and I think he
    means this from the standpoint of jurisdiction over all private citizens.
    Given that this is so, how do we accomadate the idea that the Constitution
    placed all private citizens as subject to a DEMOCRATIC body???  This 
    doesn't make sense!

    The Constitution is not something private citizens are held to, it is
    something the federal govt. is held to.  It was like they just created
    this federal government and now they wanted to define its authority.

    Do people really think the framers of the Constitution desired to create
    a national government and place all citizens of the united states of
    America under its jurisdiction?

    I believe, as the Constitution marked the inception of a centralized
    federal govt., the citizenry described in the Constitution are not
    those citizens that existed *prior* to the Constitution, but rather it
    refers to new citizens.  Or to put another way, persons who are a part
    of the federal govt. in some ways (such as elected officials or people
    living in D.C.).

    The Constitution wasn't about redefining private state citizen's status
    as citizens, it was about defining the citizens of federal persons.

							Tony

  Hi,

    I wanted to highlight one thing mr. -bill said that I think is
    largely unkosher.  I am not suggesting mr. -bill meant to do this,
    but one thing he said can be taken a certain way.

    mr. -bill seemed to critique the idea of sovereignty on the basis
    of the perceived (I don't know if this is true or not) ideas of
    a certain group of people - the Freemen.  He refers to the Freemen
    as excluding sovereignty to only white people.

    My concern is not what the Freemen think.  My concern is the flawed
    logic of casting contempt on a certain belief on the basis of casting
    contempt on a whole other separate belief by linking them as coming
    from the same people.

    We all know that the framers of this country formed a country wherein
    'owning' slaves was an acceptable practise.  

    What is our logical followup to this fact?  Do we brandish the entire
    'thought' of our forefathers on the basis of this fact?  If some of
    our legal writings designate "free white owners" or some such thing,
    do we denounce sovereignty on the basis of this unfortunate historical
    context?

    Clearly our forefathers formed a country wherein its private citizens
    were sovereigns.  Do we thus conclude that this concept is reprehensible
    on the basis that they accomadated slavery?  If so, why not just toss
    out everything they envisioned?  If we don't toss out everything, what
    is the basis for tossing out 'this' and not tossing out 'that'?

    OK, so lets say the Freemen are racists and do not see sovereignty as
    something available to blacks.  Does this necessarily make null and void
    the validity of the concept of sovereignty as a part of the citizenship
    established by our founding fathers?  How so?  Where is the logic in 
    such (non)thinking?

    My feeling is that the founding fathers were, as are we all, influenced
    by their cultural realities.  Perhaps some thought slavery was OK.  Perhaps
    some felt it was wrong, but reasoned that Britain and the mindset of too
    many of the citizens of the united states of America was way too vast an
    obstacle at the present time.  Maybe they saw no chance of abolishing
    slavery and succeeding with the existence of this young country.

    Whatever the case may be, my posture is that we have the wisdom to denounce
    slavery and also to uphold the idea of sovereignty.  Clearly, just as 
    blacks have been given other rights, they ought be given full right to
    becoming sovereign citizens.

    We know the country that was created was not perfect.  We know its citizens
    were at a morally 'far out' place with respect to some ideas (thinking
    slavery was OK).  But, to cast a dark light on sovereignty on the basis
    of recalling slavery or on the basis of referring to sovereigns who may
    have some mixed up ideas is just plain bad thinking.

    Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater!

							Tony

    .341
    
    The US was not the only country grappling with the change from
    monarchies and oligarchies to republican parliamentary democracy and
    thus struggling for birth.  Most European countries undergoing the same
    path abolished slavery before the US, and without a bloody war over it. 
    Few reverted to absolute monarchism and then not for long.  At the
    time, the whole powerful economy of England was also fuelled by slave
    labour. You cannot really argue that maintaining slavery was essential
    for holding the nation together.

|   My concern is the flawed logic of casting contempt on a certain belief
|   on the basis of casting contempt on a whole other separate belief by
|   linking them as coming from the same people.
    
    Over and over again you try this.  You've been taught well.
    It's Realy Simple.
    
    The reason pineapple bombs are Gunderson fiction is because he *LIED*
    about them.
    
    The reason Swinton did *NOT* address the New York Press club is because
    Jack McLamb *LIED* about Swinton talking to the New York Press club.
    
    And when *YOU* bring the Freemen into this topic in .322, expect me to
    point out their stinky beliefs in .323.
    
    
    But keeping it really really simple.
    
    Here's a couple of *TYPICAL* quotes found in court case after court
    case after court case after court case where so called "sovereigns"
    assert their "sovereignty".
    
    
    "...their [so-called sovereigns] legal arguments attacking the court's
    jurisdiction and the validity of the [findings against them] were
    clearly meritless."
    
    "...the arguments they [so-called sovereigns] advance on appeal are also
    frivoluous."
    
    
    So the facts are quite simple.  Your "theories" are accepted as "truth"
    only by a bunch of white supremicist wackos and the fools they've
    managed to deceive with their lies.
    
    Sorry if you find that so hard to acknowledge.  Do you expect Harry
    Browne and the Libertarians to welcome your support?
    
    								-mr. bill

    mr.bill, you little pit bull you...  you latch onto some folks who
    had some (a whole bunch) of flaws in process and attack the whole mess as 
    being flawed, or, your silence is deafening when it comes to skipping
    over stuff that's true.
    
    Most likely what you are seeing is some moron who went into court
    and started beefing about jurisdiction, and got slammed.  Maybe he
    used some old case law crap that drew on the "free while male,
    property holding sovereign natural born, christian....."... and he
    got porked.  And you put in the judges finding that "it's all hogwash".
    
    You leave out rulings like  "Case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
    Matter has been ajudicated in common law venue."  or, when the
    system simply "fails to respond" within the specified time frame and
    loses by default.
    
    Face it.  Some folks don't have a clue as to what they're doing.  They
    get crushed.  Some folks know what they're doing and get sheeet on 
    anyway.  Others just "go away".
    
    You still haven't broken my lien yet.  And I don't mention
    Internut, jewish banker, christian, slave, white honky land owner
    anywhere in there.  And the county can't remove it either.  Go figure.
    
    MadMike

    In most parts of the country, it's not against the law to crap in
    public records.  If you attempt to sell your property (or transfer it
    to your children) then you'll find out that that's all you've done.
    
|   You leave out rulings like  "Case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
|   Matter has been ajudicated in common law venue."
    
    No, YOU leave out such rulings.  You've pointed to no such ruling.
    You've pointed to no tax resister who won such a case.  No "traveller"
    who won a case about driving without a license.  No "sovereign" who
    won clear title to land without paying a mortgage.
    
    NONE.  ZERO.  NADA.
    
    And you won't.
    
|   or, when the system simply "fails to respond" within the specified
|   time frame and loses by default.
    
    This is one of my personal favorites about your so-called "legal" theories.
    You insist that *you* have to affirmatively accept the "contract"
    the Constitution for you to renounce your "Sovereignty" but yet
    everyone else must bow before you, high master of crap in public
    records, by such and such an explicit date or else!
    
    								-mr. bill

    Ha.  I've seen it work.
    
    Crap in public records...  that ain't what happened.
    
    re: point out one case how 'bout:
    
    Newbill v. Union Indemnity Co. SW 2d. 658
    Thompson v. Smith 154 SE 579
    Barney (not the purple bastard) v. Board of Railroad Commissioners
    17P. 2d 82; Willis v. Buck, 263 P 982.
    Dickey v. Davis 85 SE 781
    
    Of course, motor vehicle is defined in 18 USC section 31, and we're 
    dealing with driving and motor vehicles now.  How we got here, I don't 
    know.  I though we were talking about citizenship, er, actually the
    Libertarian party.
    
    You want to talk about taxes, United States v. Long is pretty good. Of
    course, the United States lost.
    
    MadMike 

>   <<< Note 752.345 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE "when it's comin' from the left" >>>
>    No, YOU leave out such rulings.  You've pointed to no such ruling.
>    You've pointed to no tax resister who won such a case.

I can get you one, if you want to see it.

    
    
    	I for one would like to see that. Thanks.
    
    	jim

|   Newbill v. Union Indemnity Co. SW 2d. 658         
|   Thompson v. Smith 154 SE 579
|   Barney (not the purple bastard) v. Board of Railroad Commissioners
|   17P. 2d 82; Willis v. Buck, 263 P 982.
|   Dickey v. Davis 85 SE 781
    
    Ah, rock fetching time I see.  Well, you've "cited" a bunch of cases
    without a word quoted from them.  How nice.
    
    But since every one of those cases comes to us from a *single*
    "brief" found on the internut, why don't you spare us all a bunch
    of time and tell us how the "case" has done these past 10 years.
    Surely since June 10, 1986, the "case" has been resolved.  (Perhaps
    more than once, even?)
    
    ( See http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~karl/govt/driver.html )
    
    								-mr. bill

    I ain't typing all that <r.o.> in.  I'll go check out the
    web page and see what you're beefing about.

The only thing more fun than sending someone on rock fetching
expeditions is watching someone being sent on one...

I must say that normally, I have to go to gun shows to witness such
cool-headed non-paranoid rhetoric about the gummit.  Every time I manage
to convince myself that this is just some form of surrealistic
entertainment, I get the slightest notion that people are serious.

    
|       I ain't typing all that <r.o.> in.
    
    Because it's nothing but <r.o.>.
    
    Come on now, are you serious?  You've been claiming that you've been
    doing *FIVE* *YEARS* of research and you don't know how this case has
    gone?  I'm *SHOCKED*!
    
    								-mr. bill

From: 	[email protected][SMTP:[email protected]]
Sent: 	Monday, August 12, 1996 2:06 AM
To: 	[email protected]
Subject: 	On the Campaign Trail


                 On the Campaign Trail with Harry Browne

                               (Episode #16)

Nashville, Friday, July 19

The July 19 issue of the conservative weekly Human Events mentions my
candidacy in three different articles, and includes a nice picture of
Pamela and me. National Review includes a brief report on the LP
convention and my nomination. I call Karina Rollins, the National
Review reporter who interviewed me at the convention, to see whether
her article will be published. She says a full profile on my campaign
is tentatively scheduled for the August 12 issue.

Saturday, July 20

11am: This is mainly a day off, but I do have an interview with Pat
Gorman's show in Phoenix. He is very supportive, and he says of me to
his listeners, "He needs your help to get as much press as possible."
This is primarily an investment show, and all the callers are
supportive.

Sunday, July 21

C-SPAN televises part of an interview it taped with Bob Dole. According
to an AP dispatch, in the interview "Dole also said he expects to
engage in debates with President Clinton and possibly third party
candidates as well. If the Reform Party, founded by Ross Perot, or the
Libertarian Party meet some 11 criteria that have been set for the
debates, 'they ought to be there,' Dole said." And I assume his word on
this is every bit as good as it was when he promised to repeal the
assault weapons ban and oppose a hike in the minimum wage rate.

Monday, July 22

6:50am: Seven radio shows and one TV show today -- starting at this
unhealthy hour. I awaken for the first show, then catch another hour's
sleep before the next one. The second show is a disaster -- a 5-minute
interview on the USA Radio network with two hosts who bombard me
steadily for the whole interview. Virtually nothing I want to say gets
said -- not even the phone number.

But the rest of the day goes very well. Host Joe O'Brien in Rochester,
Minnesota, says, "I think it would be a great thing for America if you
become part of the debates." Host Marty Malitz in Denver says, "Your
getting in the debates would be one of the most momentous events in the
history of the country." Billy Goodman in New London, Connecticut,
says, "We want to see you in the debates." And Howie Carr in Boston
congratulates me on several of my positions.

9pm: In Nashville for a 45-minute interview on a TV talk show. Pat
Reilly is an excellent host -- asking pertinent questions and
displaying a terrific sense of humor. During one commercial break, he
does an imitation of George Bush that's so funny I'm still laughing
when we go back on the air. The callers are almost all enthusiastic
about our campaign.

Tuesday, July 23

9am: Another big radio day -- seven shows. All the programs have
supportive hosts and enthusiastic callers. Before the start of the Alan
Stock show in San Diego, the producer says, "A lot of people at this
station are supporting you" -- a comment I hear often. On a day like
today, it's hard to understand why I haven't already been elected
President by acclamation. If the talk-radio audience were the entire
electorate, we'd have it made.

4pm: A half-hour interview with Harry Osbir in San Francisco. His
program deals primarily with environmental issues, and he's a member of
the Green Party. I expect the worst, but he asks me about the income
tax, Social Security, and how we'll get smaller government. I begin to
wonder whether he'll ever ask about the environment. He finally does
near the end of the show -- and he doesn't seem bothered by my position
that most pollution occurs on government property, and the answer is to
get the property out of the hands of the government.

7pm: On the Stan Solomon show in Indianapolis -- a right-wing show with
almost all right-wing callers. One of them says he was very impressed
with what he saw of the convention on C-SPAN. (I've heard this often in
the past two weeks.) But he's concerned that Libertarians seem amoral.
I point out that Libertarians are highly moral; they have principles
they won't sacrifice, they are by and large very concerned with honesty
and straight-dealing. But Libertarians believe we shouldn't use
government to try to impose morality on others -- because people
stronger than we are will then use the government to impose their
values upon us. What we need is a government so small that no one can
use it to impose his way upon everyone -- and then none of us will have
to fear that people with lifestyles or values alien to ours will get
control of government. I also bring the discussion back to basics by
saying the repeal of the income tax will make it possible to put your
child in a private school run by people who share your values.

8pm: The final show of the evening is a real winner. Dee and Russ Fine
in Birmingham tell me they watched the convention on C-SPAN, and they
loved what they saw. They viewed the convention with Dee's 81-year-old
mother who, according to Dee, has always been a "yellow dog Democrat."
The mother said, "If everyone voted the way their heart and soul
dictate, Harry Browne would win." At the end of the show, Russ says,
"We will keep beating the drums to get you into the debates."

Wednesday, July 24

Talkers magazine is a monthly trade journal for the talk-radio
industry. It surveys the talk shows in the top 25 cities to determine
what topics, events, and people are being discussed the most on talk
shows. Each issue reports "The Talkers Ten" most popular in each
category. In the July issue, I am listed as the fifth most popular
person being talked about on talk radio -- after Clinton, Dole, Perot,
and Lamm, and ahead of Benjamin Netanyahu, Hillary Clinton, Jean
Houston, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Paula Jones.

8am: Five radio shows and a TV interview today. On one, a caller
suggests our campaign slogan should be, "It's the subsidies, stupid" to
point out that the subsidies are standing in the way of our being free
of the income tax forever. At the end of another show, I ask the host
whether he wants me in the debates, and he says, "Absolutely!" -- and
his co-host calls out, "I second that!"

2:30pm: A TV reporter and cameraman arrive at our home from the local
NBC station. She interviews me for close to an hour -- getting footage
for future broadcasts -- and then they film me doing a radio show with
Scott Lonsberrry in Albany. After the radio show, the TV reporter says,
"I certainly hope you do get into the debates" and the cameraman says,
"I do, too!"

It takes great patience for Libertarians to work to build the support
we need to make an impact. The national media -- the TV networks, the
wire services, and the news magazines -- won't pay attention to us
until I'm showing up in the polls. In the meantime, we have to reach
people through other means -- talk radio, daily newspapers, and TV
interviews on local stations and on some national talk shows. That
means you don't get to see or hear much recognition of the campaign
unless you happen to catch me on the radio or see an article here or
there.

I wish you could listen to all my radio and TV interviews -- to hear
over and over people calling in to say, "I was a Democrat [or
Republican] and I've never voted Libertarian before, but I'm going to
do so this year." Or to hear talk-show host after talk-show host say,
"I will do everything I can to get you into the Presidential debates."
Or to see, as Pamela often does, people cheering in the control room at
TV shows when I talk of repealing the income tax or getting the
government's hands off Social Security. Or to see the reporters who
intend to interview me for half an hour or so, but extend the
conversation to an hour or more -- because they're finally talking to a
candidate who has ideas to discuss.

I have no idea what the final outcome will be. But I know without
question that we're following the right strategy. There is no simple
way to vault into the national spotlight. The national journalists are
obsessed with personalities -- not parties. So I have to build name
recognition, one show at a time, in order to get into the public
opinion polls -- to make the national press pay attention.

The process is a slow one. But everything we do has an impact that adds
to our cumulative strength. Even if we don't win the presidency this
time, even if we don't get into the debates, even if our vote total
isn't what we want it to be, every interview will have brought more
people to our side, more people into the party, more strength to build
the foundation that will elect Libertarians to Congress in 1998 and a
Libertarian President in 2000.

9pm: My last show of the day -- with Ernie Brown in Dallas. Most of the
calls are from people who intend to vote Libertarian, including one who
says, "I joined the party after seeing your convention on C-SPAN."

Thursday, July 25

2pm: A show in Charlottesville, Virginia. A caller tells the host, "As
you know, I called in yesterday and said I was going to pull the level
reluctantly for Bob Dole; but after hearing Harry Browne today, I will
vote for him -- and enthusiastically." Later in the same show, another
caller says that seeing us on C-SPAN converted him to a "born-again
Libertarian."

1am: The last show of the day is with Steve Malzberg on WABC, New York.
During the show I explain our strategy for getting in the debates. And
I mention there probably are a hundred talk-show hosts who are either
supporting me or who have said they want to see me in the debates --
and that I hope that by the end of the broadcast there will be 101.
And, sure enough, at the conclusion, he says, "Go ahead and add me to
your list. I think your being in the debates would make a big
difference in politics -- whether in this election or future
elections."

Friday, July 26

9pm: An unusual long (two-hour) broadcast with Roger Fredinburg, who is
syndicated to 130 stations nationwide. He ends the program by saying he
may vote for me -- and he certainly wants me in the debates.

Saturday, July 27

6pm: My day off. So what am I doing on the radio? Well, why not? It's
Alan Tumpkin, on WXYT, Detroit, and he says, "We're going to work to
get you in the debates." Two callers say they will vote Libertarian
this year for the first time.

Sunday, July 28

12:30pm: Lee Mirabel on KMPC, Los Angeles, says she's 95% libertarian.
I'm supposed to be on for one hour, but it doesn't go too well. I can't
seem to get the broadcast honed in on the key issues; we keep getting
bogged down in non-essential matters. So when she asks me to stay a
second hour, I accept. Things get better -- then much better. I get
control of the broadcast and hammer home the income tax, Social
Security, the Insane War on Drugs, getting me into the debates, the
phone number. When it's over, I'm thankful I was given a second chance
with the second hour.

Monday, July 29

8:20am: Another full day of broadcasts. More talk-show hosts saying
they want to see me in the debates -- Craig Wright on WFIR in Roanoke,
Virginia; John Duane and Chris Kelly on KIDO in Boise; Dick Reichman on
KCHU in Valdez, Alaska. I continue to receive compliments for the
Libertarian Party from people whose first exposure to it was seeing the
convention on C-SPAN. One man in Boise says he bought my book as a
result of seeing the convention. Others say they will vote Libertarian
this year for the first time.

4pm: The last show of this day -- in Duluth, Minnesota, with liberal
Duke Skorich and mostly liberal callers. I'm supposed to be on for 30
minutes, but I stay for an hour at the host's request. Some of the
callers are discourteous, some are angry, some call me names. But the
show still goes well -- and should help to rally to our cause any
closet libertarians listening. And at the end, the host says, "Although
I disagree with you on a lot of things, I think you should be in the
debates; your point of view needs to be represented." As the show ends,
I realize there haven't been any commercials -- and I ask the host
about it off the air. He says, "We bunched them all up in the preceding
and succeeding hours so that we could spend the entire hour with you."

Tuesday, July 30

5pm: The highlight of a day full of radio shows is host J.R. Reynolds
on KOH in Reno saying, "You have my vote."

8pm: An Associated Press reporter and photographer come to our home for
an interview. Apparently, they want to have a full background on my
life and views -- to be on file whenever an AP reporter needs
information about me.

Wednesday, July 31

8am: Talk-show host W. Adam Clatsoff in Coral Springs, Florida, begins
my day on a nice note -- by saying I'm his choice for President.

3pm: Mary Matalin begins her CBS radio network show saying I'm the most
frequently requested guest, and the person most often mentioned in the
e-mail she receives. She ends the show chanting "We want Harry Browne
in the debates." Mary Matalin is the Republican operative who almost
went to work for the Bob Dole campaign earlier this year, and who is
married to Democratic operative James Carville. There's no question
she's a libertarian at heart, and I hope we bring her around to
becoming a big-L Libertarian soon.

5:30pm: Chaos! Disorder! From a Libertarian revolution? No, from a talk
show in New Jersey. Thirty minutes with two hosts who oppose me -- each
of them fighting for the right to interrupt me. It's ulcer time. They
keep reciting cartoon summaries of my positions, and ask whether I
think the right to keep and bear arms includes people owning
surface-to-air missiles. When it's over, I can feel the acid in my
stomach. Is it worth doing shows like this? Yes, because I stand my
ground and demonstrate that my ideas have been more thought-out than
the naive criticisms they're making, I do get in our phone number a
couple of times, I keep coming back to the income tax, I deliver the
Great Offer twice, and I let a lot of people who should be on our side
know there's a real alternative available. But it's also true there are
other shows with audiences that would be more valuable to us -- people
who would work hard to get me into the debates. (Incidentally, I answer
the surface-to-air-missile question with, "You know and I know that's
not a real-world problem; it's merely an attempt to divert the
conversation from important questions of how we're going to have huge
tax cuts now, huge spending cuts now, and a balanced budget now.")

10pm: The day ends with two one-hour radio shows -- a day that included
seven radio shows and an interview for an article to appear in the Dow
Jones Financial Advisor. The first of the final two shows is with Joe
Elliott in Louisville. I hear my favorite music -- Joe saying he wants
me in the debates and two callers saying they will vote Libertarian for
the first time this year. Then it's Lowell Ponte's syndicated show --
with callers from Kentucky to Alaska. Almost every caller appears
supportive and enthusiastic about the campaign.

It seems that good things have to happen when so many people react so
positively to the Libertarian message. And yet, I know we're still
reaching only a fraction of the population. So much work still to do
and so little time. But for now, it's time for bed.

Thursday, August 1

9:30am: Pamela and I drive from Nashville to Memphis. On the way, I use
a cellular phone to call a TV station in Denver for a taped interview
with TCI's "Race for the Presidency" -- in which my picture will be on
the screen while I talk with the host on the phone. They aren't ready
for me, and only when I call a third time are they ready to tape what
amounts to about 5 minutes of air time.

Later, I read a report from Larry Hoffenberg of the Colorado LP, who
sees the show. According to him, former Reagan cabinet secretary Donald
Hodel, when asked whether third-party candidates should be included in
the presidential debates, quipped: "If I were Bob Dole, I'd like to
have Harry Browne sit in for ME!"

4pm: I give a speech to about 60 retired people who are on the Delta
Queen steamboat, docked for the evening in Memphis as part of a 10-day
cruise on the Mississippi. Speaking seems like an uphill battle. I
insert a joke here and there just to see whether they're listening --
and get little response. A few heads nod now and then, but little
reaction. At the end, there are a number of challenging questions. And
then when it's over, lo and behold, there's a line of people wanting me
to autograph copies of Why Government Doesn't Work bought from the
bookseller who came on board. And other people wanting me to know they
agree with a lot of what I've said.

6pm: Pamela and I have dinner on the boat -- sitting with PBS
luminaries Mark Russell, Paul Duke, and Charles McDowell (the latter
two from the political show Washington Week in Review) and their wives.
McDowell shows a good deal of interest in the campaign -- and indicates
that he's aware of the LP and my candidacy. He also makes an important
point: whereas I have believed the anti-government revolution began
about 30 years ago, he thinks it started with the advent of television.
What he says makes sense -- that faith in government started going
downhill once people began to see the politicians, realize these were
mere fallible humans to whom they were turning over control of their
lives, and learn visually how government actually operates. Of course,
the revolution has accelerated since C-SPAN has been showing the actual
innards of government.

Memphis, Friday, August 2

4am: After the festivities on the Delta Queen, we got to bed at
10:30pm. Now we have to get up to be at WMC by 5:15 -- for a live
interview on the morning TV news and a 5-minute interview on the sister
radio station. Both go well, and the radio host says he wants to see me
in the debates.

9:30am: The day continues with more radio and TV shows, an interview
with a reporter from the Commercial Appeal, the city's largest
newspaper, and then finally the drive back to Nashville. The day ends
with a phone interview for a TV show in New Jersey -- with a host who
says she wants to see me in the debates.

Nashville, Saturday, August 3

5pm: After doing two shows on my "day off," Pamela and I go out to
dinner. We've heard that some private Tennesseans erected a campaign
billboard on Highway 40, just outside of Nashville. So we drive out to
look at it. It is a beautiful, full-size billboard, modeled after our
bumper stickers. On three lines it says "Vote / Harry Browne /
Libertarian for President" with the LP's phone number and the majestic
Statue of Liberty towering on the right side of the billboard. Tens of
thousands of drivers will see it every day on their way into the city.

Sunday, August 4

A day with no shows. I get to catch up on correspondence, articles,
staff e-mail, and the like. Pamela talks by phone with her mother in
Charlotte, North Carolina. She says the daily Charlotte Observer had
two letters in it this past week plugging our campaign. One mentioned
my Social Security proposal; the other asked why the paper gives
coverage to Richard Lamm but has no editorials about Harry Browne.

It is this kind of activity that will get us into the press sooner or
later. The more people who write letters to editors, call into radio
and TV talk shows, post messages on the Internet, and talk up the
campaign at every turn, the more the press will realize this campaign
is for real -- and the greater the chance I'll get into the debates.

There are only 42 days until the Debate Commission decides whom to
invite to the debates. Times a'wastin'.

-- 
Harry Browne for President                         [email protected]
http://www.HarryBrowne96.org/                               fax: 202-333-0072
2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100, Washington DC 20037     voice: 202-333-0008


--------------39746B634663--

    

    re: Note 752.352 by PERFOM::LICEA_KANE
    
    I'm not interested in driving unlicensed, that's not what I focus
    on.  I'm also not interested in giving the local tax man the finger.
    
    I'm interested in setting up the groundwork, so that *IF* anything
    comes my way (and it has a time or two) I can win.  Or I have a
    good chance of winning.  The only people who've called have been
    the IRS, and they seemed reasonable.  They admitted I was right and
    left me alone.  I could have started beefing about the free white
    sovereign freemen.... and got assaulted by the gov't and got kilt.
    But it didn't happen.  Oh yes, I also had an out of state banker
    approach me on something.  I stuffed their paperwork up their rear-end.
    Legally.  They were the ones chitting in a public forum.  I mearly
    pointed out that fact.  So, be shocked all you want.  I don't have
    time to try and avoid spending $4 for a "drivers license".  I got one.
    Can I beat a ticket?  Maybe.  Here's another tip.  I don't make a
    habit of being stupid (driving 80mph around town, slamming into
    people, etc...).
    
    Crashed and burned.  Probably someone who was reading internut too
    much and jumped in with both feet not knowing what he was doing.
    
    MadMike

    He'd like to drive like that, but is too busy.
    
    I have cases, too.  Sometimes they simply go away, because there was
    no "case" to begin with, and as such, no case to end.
    
    Generally they die in the process of service.  The ones that get beyond
    that are flawed.
    
    Also, there is no proper defense for somebody who is actually doing
    something wrong.  Crooked's crooked.  The problem is that everybody in
    this country breaks laws, even when they did nothing wrong.  If you
    haven't done something wrong, you should have a defense, and do, and
    it's spelled out in black and white in the constitution.
    
    OOoops!  I just branded myself as a whacko...

Re: .337 MadMike

OK, I'm back.

>We have a terminology problem.

Yes, I think so.

I take strong exception to your statement earlier that "United States"
refers to just the federal government while "United States of America"
refers to the entire country.  I believe that depending on the context,
"United States" can refer either to the federal government or to the
entire country.

In the Preamble, I believe that "We the people of the United States" refers to
the entire country.  No, the entire population didn't write or approve the
Constitution, but in a legal sense they did because their elected
representatives wrote and approved it on their behalf.

Let's look at the 18th Amendment.  If "United States" means just the
federal government, then it reads this way:

	All persons born or naturalized in the United States federal
	government, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens
	of the United States federal government and of the State wherein
	they reside.

Doesn't make much sense, does it?  I believe that "United States" in this
amendment refers to the entire country:

	All persons born or naturalized in the United States of America,
	and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
	United States of America and of the State wherein they reside.

In this interpretation, the "jurisdiction" being spoken of is the jurisdiction
of the entire country, not just the juridiction of the federal government.
In other words, the jurisdiction of the U.S.A. as opposed to the jurisdiction
of the United Kingdom or France.

				-- Bob

Re: .340 Tony

>    I believe the 14th ammendment created a brand new citizenship in the 
>    following sense.  For the first time, a person who was not an elected
>    official into the federal government and who did not live in a federal
>    possession (such as D.C. or Guam, etc.) could be a "U.S. Citizen."
>
>    Its that simple.

Sorry, Tony, but I still think you're wrong.  In order to become a
Representative you must have been a U.S. Citizen for seven years *before*
being elected to Congress.  Clearly, not everyone elected to Congress for
the first time was living in D.C. or Guam for seven years prior to their
election.

No, the U.S. citizenship that is referred to in Article I. and in the 14th
Amendment is the same citizenship that you and I gained when we were born.

				-- Bob

    re: Note 752.357 by GRIM::MESSENGER
    
    #1: Stated simply:
    
    The "United States" is a body politic.
    The United States of America is a geographic location.
    
    Legally.  The 2 have been interchanged for so long that everyone
    thinks they are one and the same, but if contested in a legal setting,
    they are not.
    
    Next up: Jurisdiction:  Read from Article 1, Section 8 forward.
    The interesting part is:
    
         To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over
    such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of
    particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of 
    Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over 
    all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in 
    which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, 
    dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; -- And
         To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying
    into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this
    Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department 
    or Officer thereof.
     
    The federal government controls federal stuff.  It has to BRIBE the
    states to play along, because legally, they can't do jack to any
    state UNLESS IT'S SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED IN SECTION 8..  Otherwise,
    the federal gov't can do whatever the hell they please in WASHINGTON
    DC and all federal territory.  This is why the federal gov't is
    back dooring their way into so many things.  To increase power.
    Call on the 10th Amendment and it would deflate the federal gov't
    immediately.  This will never happen.  Our monetary system for one
    is too tight.  I suppose the way to fix it is to ADMIT this.  Then
    Stop all fluff crap,  Then tackle the hard stuff.  For example
    Our banking system sits on top of some very touchy statutes,  This may
    not be able to be fixed.  I can live with this if it's admitted, and
    the majority of the problems are corrected. 
    
    I believe the VAST majority of our (federal) government exists due to
    the War and Emergency powers act, and if our "state of emergency" were
    ever ended, most of the federal gov't would be shut down.  I mean
    SHUT DOWN big time.  Cabinet posts and whole agencies exist because
    of this "law".    This is why the problem won't be "fixed".  It'll 
    fail sometime down the line, or there will be an open revolt.
    
    MadMike 
    

    re: .358
    
    Interesting you mention "your ciitizenship when you were born".
    
    When my boys were born the (federally sanctioned) hospital where
    they were born took it upon themselves to automatically issue
    birth certificates that were filed with the DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
    in Washington DC.  I don't know about you, but I ain't makin cows,
    or sheep.  I made a human being (ya, y'all can shut up about
    "hatching" - laura's normal).
    
    Anyway, this also facilitates the "enrollment" into the Social Security
    system.  All I gotta do is sign by the X authorizing the hospital to
    do this for me.  I didn't sign any of the documents to release my children 
    from the hospital.
    
    Furthermore, I filed (there I go again, chitting in public records)
    "live birth affidavits" to correct any misconceptions.
    
    You may think I'm crazy.  Look in your local paper.  Notice even
    today they announce births and marriges.  Today people do this because
    of the status, or "it's in". Na na, my daughters getting married.
    In the old days this was LEGAL NOTICE of the event.  That is what
    made it so.  I SAID I WAS MARRIED PUBLICALLY, therefore I am.  I didn't
    need to apply for a license and go through all this state sanctioned
    BULL<feces> prior to getting hitched.  Nor did I have to give my
    children to the state either.
    
    You see how <r.o.> up stuff is?
    
    To expand on this marrige deal, that's why you have to go to court
    to get divorced, cause the state has a say in what happens since they
    are a party to your marrige.  And they want a cut of the spoils.  It's
    in the fine print in that license you applied for.  Quick tip: You don't 
    need a marrige license to be LAWFULLY MARRIED.  Anywhere.  The only 
    person who ever asked to see mine was the preacher before my wedding.  
    
    MadMike