Bryan Moss wrote:
> Billy Brown wrote:
> > Since I can see I'm not having much luck getting my point
> > across, I'm going to go back to square one in this post.
> > I'd like to start by briefly outlining the kind of scheme I
> > would actually be in favor of. This will hopefully serve
> > to reassure those of you who have decided I'm some kind of
> > closet fascist, and it should also serve as a reference
> > point for comparing what is possible under anarchy to what
> > is possible under a minimal State.
>
> When you propose 'limited government' as compromise between anarchy
> and another quantity of government you're bound to have problems
> convincing anarchists. This is for a very simple reason; a coherent
> anarchist viewpoint comes from considering ever more minimal forms of
> government and then being hit by the sudden realisation that no
> government is the only viable option. Thus when an anarchist comes
> across a proposal for a limited or minimalist government it is all too
> easy to discard the idea - been there, done that.
>
> Government breads government. Any government will be imperfect. Given
> that there are certain things (a constitution, for instance) that the
> government cannot challenge, the only way for the government to 'fix'
> an imperfection is outward growth. Anarchy does not have this problem,
> it is not ideologically driven, and there are no base morals or
> ethical imperatives inherent to the system. All the ideology, morality
> and ethical imperatives are left to the people.
>
> BM
Any law can be added, changed, modified, or deleted, upon majority votes in both the House and Senate and the President's signature, barring the President's signature (a veto) requires a 2/3 override vote. The Constitution can be amended:
"Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary,
shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of
the legislatures of
two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing
amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and
purposes, as part of this
Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the
several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or
the other mode of
ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment
which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight
shall in any
manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the
first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived
of its equal suffrage in the
Senate. "
(http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/const.html, 4/8/1999)
Flag burning, not to start a fire, is Constitutional, and the correct way to destroy an old flag. It is an emblem that can never be destroyed by those that disrespect it.
The "Wireless Privacy Act of 1999" which essentially outlaws some scanners, is unconstitutional, and is not any kind of adequate protection of privacy. The adage about guns and outlaws applies.
Federal agencies currently enjoy non-Constitutional wiretap laws, for which they are un-American and culpably liable. The warrant system for invasion of personal privacy is effectively proven as Constitutional, as far as I know. Citizens of the United States are to be considered innocent until proven guilty, and that, among other things, exposes certain sectors of government fascism and illegal activity.
An educated voting populace is the only way to ensure democracy.
Ross F.
-- Ross Andrew Finlayson 202/387-8208 http://www.tomco.net/~raf/ "C is the speed of light."