Generational theft is at the heart of big government spending because the cowards who serve in Congress don't have the spines to limit their largess to only what revenue-income covers, but have to appeal to ever greater constituencies in order to raise re-election funds via grateful donations from those whom their votes benefit.

So the fiscal result is that budget deficits are unavoidable because they have so many held-out hands to satisfy. Consequently, the generational theft is more than just shifting from the younger to the older in the present, it also includes the generational theft of transferring large portions of the wealth/earnings of future generations to the present generations which benefit at the cost of future tax-payers who will get stuck with a good portion of the bill but without having had a vote in the borrowing.

Taxation without representation is evil, whether it involves taking from ones contemporaries, or taking from the future. It's like the logic of smoking. The addict feels better and functions better with his/her nicotine fix, but with each puff they are stealing from their own future and shortening their own life. They don't pay today, but they sure as hell will pay tomorrow. We, as a nation, are just as selfish and unmindful of the consequences of our actions as are tobacco addicts. Just look at the non-existent federal budget and the unimaginable deficit spending. Why face a reckoning today when you can still just put it off for the future to worry about?

Exellent, Mr. Will.

Once again we hear that socialism does not work in a free market republic.

The new Democraps know this, but these leftists are not truely concered with the betterment of our society as did the last of the true Democratic party of JFK.

The great social experiments of Woodrow Wilson and FDR are long gone and have been proven miserable failures.

The new Democrap party is soley in it for power, control and - you said it - wealth. There is virtually no easier way that these vile, lying traitors can recieve the adulation to feed their enormous egos while they feast upon untold avarice.

Well said. What concerns me now is, how to undo the damage and turn the tide? The larger political machine is like a juggernaut, and many participants of all groups, voters, elected officials, and government appointees, will have to make sacrifices to bring about the changes we need. How can all of us find the motivation to make those sacrifices? What can be done?

George

Excellent

There is a simple problem here, and it was nailed by James Madison:

"But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself." –James Madison, Federalist 51

The problem is that there are those who insist today, as they always insist, that there are angels among men who should be in government "for the good of the whole," and that THEY are those angels who should have power and authority over the rest of us.

They go by many names, elitists, the anointed, but its the same group that believes they not only know better what is good for all, their eminence gives them the right to bend or skirt the laws made for the rest of us, even to the point of forcing us along their path to Utopia.

Oh, they are also called tyrants and rogues.

Just so we are clear on what we are dealing with.

God bless

Daniel Webster - “Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of power … it is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.”

I often feel sorrow for the grind that syndicated political commentators must endure to come up with "new ideas" on which to express opinions to avoid real issues which become quickly stale to the short attention spans of their readers.

I suggest that, instead of conjuring up the "ethics of coercive redistribution", those with the power to inform and to shape public opinion should first tackle the "ethics of public service", since it is evident that at the federal level those elected officials who are charged with representing the interests of their constituents have not the moral character to forego that which serves their own self interests.

This is a true tour de force for Mr. Will. In a few concise paragraphs he has absolutely eviscerated modern liberalism/progressivism.

There are many great lines in this article---one of the best is "People are less dissatisfied by what they lack than by what others have." Indeed, such envy is the very essence of liberalism.

Jeremy

What is amazing to me is how the Founders had this all figured out several hundred years ago:

"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If `Thou shalt not covet' and `Thou shalt not steal' were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free." --John Adams, A Defense of the American Constitutions, 1787

God speed

Sapient,

You are absolutely correct. The question for our times is whether we can figure it out. It really shouldn't be that difficult, given that we've got this thing called the Constitution that pretty much spells it all out in painstaking detail. The problem is that about 99% of the self-proclaimed intellectual establishment treats the Constitution with about as much respect as toilet paper.

Jeremy

Ditto.

We have yet to come to proper classifications so we can make proper decisions.

My suggestion: the law abiding v the lawless.

There have always been those who believed something about themselves put the above the law and they have an instinctive recoil toward any restraint...from "no trespassing" signs to "The Constitution." The instinctively must push the envelope, even when it doesn't matter.

Consider these two, from ol Thomas Jefferson himself:

"The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite." --Thomas Jefferson

"Where the principle of difference [between political parties] is as substantial and as strongly pronounced as between the republicans and the monocrats of our country, I hold it as honorable to take a firm and decided part and as immoral to pursue a middle line, as between the parties of honest men and rogues, into which every country is divided." --Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795. ME 9:317

Notice "into which every country is divided."

The "elite" ARE THE ROGUES.

From their ranks tyrants come, and sometimes the path tyranny is via anarchy.

God bless

George Washington Maxims:

"There is a natural and necessary progression from the extreme of anarchy to the extreme of tyranny; and that arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of Liberty abused to licentiousness."

Sapient,

You are absolutely correct. The question for our times is whether we can figure it out. It really shouldn't be that difficult, given that we've got this thing called the Constitution that pretty much spells it all out in painstaking detail. The problem is that about 99% of the self-proclaimed intellectual establishment treats the Constitution with about as much respect as toilet paper.

When children believe in Santa Claus, we allow them the delight and comfort in thinking that gifts will appear for them magically out of thin air. When adults believe in Santa Claus, we think they have disturbingly lost their grip on reality. Our political elite wants to be Santa Claus to those who they specially choose to support their power, granting gifts that seem to appear magically out of thin air. The beneficiaries of such gifts refuse to look at the reality from where these gifts are stolen.

Look at our healthcare system as a perfect example of magical thinking and its resulting profound injustices. Decades ago, our political elite thought it would be a swell vote-buyer to forego the requirement of payment for services rendered and force all of our emergency rooms to treat anyone who walks in the door, no matter what the ability to pay. At that time, the poor were treated at community charity hospitals - institutions that were supported by generous donors who provided reasonable funding for the poor to receive basic, sound health care.

With the forced opening of our ERs to all, instead of the poor receiving decent health care that was fully paid for through charity, our health care providers suddenly had to magically come up with the resources that our political elite mandated but neglected to fully fund. Where would such resources come from? We know now from sad experience that such resources are taken from every opportunity to steal from all those patients and their health insurers who do have money.

Our health care providers overtreat and overbill so notoriously and consistently that our health insurers must employ armies of claims examiners to try to separate out what is appropriately charged from what is inappropriate. To punish our health insurers for the impertinence of being honest, our political elite hamstrings our health insurers by not allowing them to raise premium rates to make up for the shifted cost of care that our Santa Claus political elite mandates.

Our health care providers charge exorbitantly high costs for their services because they know that only a very few patients will ever pay, yet we have a country full of freeloading patients who demand such services as a right promised and enforced by our Santa Claus political elite. Woe betide the patient who has no other financial protection and has nice fat assets: houses and businesses are seized with impunity to pay outrageously inflated medical bills charged by our health care providers who are otherwise beggared by our political elite if they don't.

Our Santa Claus political elite have taken the gifting of health care patronage to its ultimate form: Obamacare. Not a word is breathed about the real source of the magical appearance of free health care, which comes from the forced delivery of quality health care under the duress of law.

Obamacare is the permanent establishment of a machine that hands outs health care patronage to freeloaders. Lots of noise is being made about the accountable care organizations (ACOs), which our political elite say will fix the inefficiency and ineffectiveness of our current health care system. The advocates of ACOs argue that our doctors and hospitals just don't do their job well enough in delivering care, pushing this bogus reason as to why costs are so high.

ACOs are our political elite's method to disable any future attempt by health care providers to overbill or overtreat in order to acquire desperately needed reimbursement for mandated free health care. ACOs will place lots and lots of union dues-paying bureacrats in charge of our health care providers' ability to be paid, thus permanently imprisoning our health care providers as slaves to our political elite. This is how our once respected health care providers have been degraded and enslaved to serve the lust for power of our political elite.

Our health insurers will be forced to guarantee the issue of health insurance to all, with no lower premiums for those of us who are healthy for our lower use of resources. This is a terrific deal for those who are sick, while soaking the rest of us to pay for the massive burden of those freeloading sick voters who dearly love our political elite. What a wonderfully magic outcome for those who will trade their vote for whoever hands them this incredibly valuable free lunch. This is how our once respected health insurers have been degraded and enslaved to serve the lust for power of our political elite.

We are only one Supreme Court case away from our political elite trading our freedom permanently for their absolute power. Those who fervently believe in Santa Claus and remain deathly silent about the profound injustice of free health care hope that the Supremes will act as they have done for decades, and finally remove the last protection of our wealth and our self-determination from free-spending, patronage-gifting tyrants.

Our Founders fought and died to establish a country free from tyranny. Our political elite have since decided that their power is more important than our freedom. By corrupting a large number of selected privileged groups, our political elite makes adults believe in Santa Claus. By stealing from the rest of us, and demonizing those who dare to resist being fleeced, our political elite have become the tyrants our Founders hated deeply enough to die fighting against.

It is time to throw out the political elite who have successfully corrupted so many of us into accepting their tyranny. It is time to throw our government OUT of health care and never allow our political elite to touch it again. We cannot ever trust our political elite with anything that we can buy for ourselves - they cannot resist playing Santa Claus and pretending that the money they steal simply appears magically to those who love getting free stuff from the rest of us.

Jeremy

Ditto

There is a good reason, as you note, that Daniel Webster said this:

"We may be tossed upon an ocean where we can see no land nor, perhaps, the sun and stars. But there is a chart and a compass for us to study, to consult, and to obey. The chart is the Constitution."

Our task is actually easier than it sounds.

If we divide people into the lawful and lawless categories, we can begin to see people as acceptable and unacceptable. Anyone who is in the lawless category is automatically unacceptable. If they are not, then WE are the problem.

We look for those who push the envelope and in particular, those who will not be bound even by the plain meaning of words--called eisegesis--expanding the plain meaning of words into something far from what was written in order to give themselves some legal "justification" to do what was never said. We are talking original intent.

The Founders made clear statements on this for good reasons, not the least of which is THAT is how you recognize people who should never be entrusted with power--EVER!!!

"On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." --Thomas Jefferson

Once you have the lawless eliminated, you then look at who is left, dividing them between the honest and the immoral. The later are easy to recognize: they are the ones who insist there can be some compromise between honesty and dishonesty where honesty doesn't lose and dishonesty doesn't win.

Eliminate all the immoral who think that is possible.

Now you have the honest left to choose the best candidate from. HONEST MEN ONLY are acceptable.

If we do not insist on honesty, well, we are a rogue nation by choice, and historically that is not a good thing to be.

God bless your efforts

“We know the cause which we are engaged in… We fight not to enslave, but to set a country free, and to make room upon the earth for honest men to live in." - Thomas Paine

"People are less dissatisfied by what they lack than by what others have"

YES! Cal Thomas, in writing recently about OWS, had a great line about envy being the equally bad brother of greed.

"And when government engages in redistribution in order to maximize the happiness of citizens who become more envious as they become more comfortable, government becomes increasingly frenzied and futile."

Not only does government become increasingly frenzied and futile, but it also becomes increasingly corrupt and apt to resort to justifying any means to achieve an ever-unatainable end!

I am reminded of a sermon I heard on the radio not long ago, in which the speaker reminded his audience that we must keep in mind the difference between serving God and playing God. Maybe we could let the "progessives" know...

The problem with the elites is that they don't *think* their confiscatory redistribution policies are the right way to go, instead they *know* that they are, so anything that impedes their goals for "the public good" must be bad and even, perhaps, evil. In a mind-set of hypocritical righteousness they deem their opposition as doing the work of the devil while they are doing the work of the angels. But in reality they are stealing power from the governed, stealing resources and rewards from the producers and earners, violating the spirit and letter of our fundamental law, all the while securing a very profitable feathered nest for themselves and those close to them. When hypocrisy is as thick as a blanket, they must strive to keep the spotlight on those who "aren't paying their fair share" while never once demonstrating a willingness to openly define how much is enough. All their blather is purely for partisan political points which they hope will help guarantee that they remain in power and regain even more than they currently possess.

Once they are securely ensconced in their political seats they begin to feel equal to those who occupied similar seats in the first Congress after the ratification of the Constitution, and thus they feel equal to the men who served and who even wrote the Constitution. But being as they are so modern, educated, knowledgeable , and more savvy about so many things and issues that didn't exist at the birth of the nation, unavoidably they find themselves convinced that they not only are the equals of the founders but are actually their superiors since their experience is so broad and contemporary rather than limited and primitive by comparison. Hence they feel no compelling reason to defer to the Constitution or those who wrote it since they are superior in so many ways.

There's no cure for this disease but all we can do is treat them like lepers and expel them from the body that represents the freedom-loving citizens of America. If that doesn't happen because they have secured a majority of government dependents to vote for them, then the ever growing bulldozer of government power over everyone will increase substantially. But it's doubtful that will happen since so many these days see the growing threat to liberty and will vote to oppose it. The problem is that the Constitution violators have turned their backs on the proper avenue of important change, which is the Constitutional amendment, and are fully committed to writing into law great changes that are either the result of mere majority votes or of liberal federal bureaucrats. So, like the supreme court, the balance can be tipped by just one vote in either house and at least one candidate can gain office via fraud in a tight election, as happened in the case of Al Franken and no doubt others.

The core of Will's essay is this: "The left's centuries-old mission is to increase social harmony by decreasing antagonisms arising from disparities of wealth -- to decrease inequality by increasing government's redistributive activities. Such government constantly expands under the unending, indeed intensifying, pressures to correct what it disapproves of -- the distribution of wealth produced by consensual market activities."

Quite compelling, until you look more closely.

1) There's absolutely no logical connection between a belief that a society should try to decrease antagonisms arising from wealth inequality and the idea the government of such a society must "constantly expand". The society could accept any fixed level of inequality, and if it really had the desire for this, could easily accomplish it.

2) The major push for reducing the "antagonisms" that Will describes comes in truth from those with more wealth, who recognize that in a system that works to their benefit, they will always be a minority. Faced with a the bleak option of a militaristic police state to ensure that those with less do not use violence against those with more (a social state that existed for centuries in many parts of the world, and continues to exist today), they chose a state that still exerts considerable control but seeks to avoid violence by ensuring that even those with less have enough to reduce the likelihood of violence and unrest. This is "redistribution", US-style, and its one of the best lies of the wealthy and powerful that this idea is somehow done in the ultimate interest of the poor.

3) There's no reason to use the term "disapproves" in this discussion. One can simply make a practical observation that a society filled with antagonisms tends to be less enjoyable for all, and that therefore finding some way to reduce them is a practical approach of benefit to all. You may want to disagree over the balance between the benefits and costs to particular groups of people, but surely the cause of reducing antagonisms is one that even the most ardent, hmm, would "patriot" be a reasonable term, could get behind? You can always kill the mob if you decide that's the best approach to such reductions ...

3) Its all very well to regard the redistribution of wealth that occurs in the contemporary US economy as "consensual market activities", but its also willfully ignorant of the way that economy actually works. I suspect that many adherents to the notions of liberty espoused in this publication would acknowledge as much (though they may differ in their explanation of the causes and details of the way it differs). So no matter whether it is government, or corporations, or simply rich and powerful individuals that twist the economy far from "consensual market activities", the fact remains that this is in fact how substantial wealth inequality has been generated, and is what drives the anger of so many not-rich and not-powerful Americans.

Nozick had an excellent thought experiment in one of his books in which a society with completely equal wealth distribution ends up creating its first millionaire as a result of a million people paying a dollar to see a skilled basketball player. Its clear that Will and many others who appeal to libertarian ideals have this model firmly in mind when they thing about wealth inequality and "consensual market activities". It would be foolish and churlish of the left to deny that such exchanges do in fact take place, but it would be equally churlish and equally foolish of the right to deny that greed and evil continue to exist today and that huge amounts of wealth are asymmetrically transferred between parties in ways that have no resemblance to Nozick's hard-to-object-to example whatsoever.

Will closes with: "Suppose society's wealth trebled overnight without any change in the relative distribution among individuals. Would the unchanged inequality at higher levels of affluence decrease concern about inequality? Surely not [ ... ]"

I see nothing inevitable about his answer whatsoever. There has never been any such "trebling of wealth without any change in the relative affluence of individuals". Indeed the capital class of the US has spent most of the last 30-40 years being incredible successful and planning and benefitting from changes in technology, investment and distribution that have in fact rendered almost the opposite change than this thought experiment posits. I find it quite easy to imagine both the USA as a whole, and the left specifically, reasonably at ease with the situation posited by this thought experiment, but what we have actually been delivered (supposedly by decades of left-leaning government) is a far-more-than trebling of wealth by the richest handful of American families combined with the evisceration of the poorest, and the general stagnation of those in the middle.

I totally agree. Not stop spending my children's retirement on your silly impetuous illegal wars!

All you who praise Will for this article, did you read it and compare it to reality? Will's rant on redistribution forgot two major things; Republicans participated in most of the items he describes as redistribution, and Republicans insistence on essentially reducing taxes on the rich and corporations to zero is the most blatant redistributionist act one can think of.

Remember, and I know facts are soooo liberal, the overwhelming majority of those on welfare are white and very close to half are employed or to old or disabled to be employed!

So, Mr. Will, an excellent and succinct explication of left-right principles of government and their logical conclusions; and so now please lay out a sure-fire recipe that will persuade a left-leaning voter that his best interests will best be served by his supporting a politician mired in 200 year old political thinking.

One who votes cannot help but vote his best immediate interests. Those who "have" vote to preserve their "have." Those who "envy" vote to get at least some of the "have", because it is, well, "fair to share." And that "envy" voter's notion of what is "fair" is found in the latest, loudest voice for "equality of opportunity", which, except for sporting events, comes to "equality of performance". Guaranteed. By the Constitution of the United States. Says so. Right there. "Right to ... happiness." Those very words.

So what does one say to the "envy" that will induce him to "have" so that he may in turn be envied?

I personally, as an owner of second-tier rent-property, have much evidence of the malicious and delicious envy of the left-leaning voter. A rental contract to him was never the memorializing of a mutual promise to perform; it was at best a minor task to get out of the way and onto taking possession and thereafter manipulating events to his favor. "Fair" soon fled.

So, Mr. Will, you are correct. But how do you instill in a voter, many of whom have yet to accept the existence of negative numbers, the self-important pride in himself as an individual who has no right to anything beyond what he produces and that anything else from any source is either gift or theft?

In truth, the conviction of the founding fathers that an educated citizenship would conduce to an informed electorate which would anchor itself upon the principles of a mere piece of paper was grounded in a far more educable citizen-base than now dwells in the U.S.

Now to that recipe...

Exactly. Ever larger government also means ever less freedom and every poorer economic decision making. I do not see how to reverse it, as the “muscular factions” will continue to seek to enlarge the parts that benefit themselves, thus enlarging the whole. I fear we are close to fiscal collapse, followed by political and social collapse. What will emerge from that will be the small government of the local tribe—or the large government of local tyrants. I will link to this from my Old Jarhead blog.

Robert A. Hall

Author: The Coming Collapse of the American Republic

All royalties go to help wounded veterans

For a free PDF of my book, write tartanmarine(at)gmail.com

Liberalism is reactionary and perverse. Liberalism promotes all the seven deadly sins, in this case envy of the successful. Related sins promoted are greed for what others have earned (85% of millionaires are self-made), pride/arrogance that their redistribution prouncement is the "right thing to do", anger at those awful successful people, and sloth - being to lazy to create success for themselves and thus for others. Of course, liberalism admires lust and gluttony, too, but could not fit them into the attack on American success stories.

TJS

Ditto Sir

Socialism, and many other political philosophies appeal to the basest side of human nature.

Some, these days, call license "liberty."

That was hardly the view of the Founders who insisted VIRTUE was the crucial element in a Republic based on "self government."

"There is a natural and necessary progression from the extreme of anarchy to the extreme of tyranny; and that arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of Liberty abused to licentiousness." -- George Washington Maxims

They feared anarchy as much as tyranny and knew they were intimately connected. INTIMATELY.

God bless

"

But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself." –James Madison, Federalist 51

It doesn't really matter how the politician is labeled because they are all in it together to remain in power. It is just one big pool of corruption with lip service to the public about how bad the other side is.

It makes for fine theater but any real change in our government is going to have to come from revolution by the people against the corruption that has become commonplace in our political system.

XCpt

Ditto Sir

Fortunately, "revolution of the people" is built into our system with the ballot and the amending process.

I read an interesting tid bit from Noah Webster the other day...see what you think:

“When you become entitled to exercise the right of voting for public officers, let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you to choose for rulers, just men who will rule in the fear of God. The preservation of our republican government depends on the faithful discharge of this duty; if the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office – the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made, not for the public good, so much as for selfish or local purposes; corrupt or incompetent men will be appointed to execute the laws; the public revenues will be squandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the citizens will be violated or disregarded. If a republican government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect their divine commands and elect bad men to make and administer laws.”

The unequivocal proof that it is the ever so vocal ones, callig themselves true Conservatives, who are evermore in reality the real guilty ones, because the USA is going down the hill ever faster, is the very fact that it is the Republican Party who treats Ron Paul like he is the greatest criminal ever; instead of making sure that he takes over and turns America around, immediately from the present road to hell like all previous Empires. Every single one of the other bunch who aspire the Presidency are nothing but corrupt Militaristic Imperialists who would want to continue to shoot the world to pieces and even doing so by constantly saying: God Bless America. Yes, asking God to bless America while making the devil, smiling and dancing all they long? Yes, while America's military are and have been circling the globe for a long time, another nation of illegals has peacefully settled in even with the help of so called conservative citizens who still keep hiring them because they love money more than their own America. Yes, Republicans keep using Ron Paul to destroy the very USA, which was invented so long ago by the Founding Fathers! Ron Paul is the only one that is the real voice of the Founding Fathers, I conclude as a legal immigrant now going on 56 years and who soon fell in deep love with the Founding Fathers! Sadly I find, that most born Americans know so very little about them! I rest my case hoping that my Republican Party will wake up and do the right thing and not just be party of the destruction of the USA which is now the case everywhere one looks!

Sapient,

Mr. Webster is on par with any seer or oracle for his clarity of vision. Thanks for sharing that bit of wisdom.

XCpt

You are most welcome.

Just between the two of us, those guys were near uncanny.

Abigail Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson something that I have hanging in my study:

“These are the hard times in which a genius would wish to live. Great necessities call forth great leaders.” –Abigail Adams in a 1790 letter to Thomas Jefferson.

Know what my friend: she was writing to us in our day as well.

Never doubt that you are in the right place, with the right drives, the right concerns, the right zeal, the right courage, the right conscience, that is needed for OUR times.

God bless

"4 Now the word of the LORD came to me (Jeremiah) saying, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,

And before you were born I consecrated you;

I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

HD Schmidt

Re: the Republican Party who treats Ron Paul like he is the greatest criminal ever; instead of making sure that he takes over and turns America around, immediately from the present road to hell like all previous Empires.

While I appreciate your zeal, may I suggest you do some research on Dr. Paul? In particular, start with a video titled "Ron Paul is a voluntaryist" at the Mise Institute (founded by Paul's former chief of staff): http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/25612.aspx

Read the caption:

"In this video, using Ron Paul's own words from his books and interviews, it is shown that Ron Paul's goal is voluntaryism. He adopts limited-government positions and appeals to the U.S. Constitution as part of a long-term strategy for achieving a completely free society, absent any State."

And, make sure and read the comments, at least on the first page where the interact with the author.

Read about this video "outs" Ron Paul as a voluntaryist--a branch of the anarchist movement where all laws are voluntary.

Read about how the "We the people types" are considered antithetical to Paul's real vision for America.

Note: this is not his enemies, but his friends.

The "anarchist bomb" was going to be dropped they say anyway after all the real thinkers got on board.

So, to paraphrase Jesse Jackson "Just because the cat has kittens in the oven don't make em biscuits."

Well, just because someone uses the word Constitution and liberty doesn't mean they are of the Founding spirit.

Talk about the way Empires end? Well, see what the Founders said:

"There is a natural and necessary progression from the extreme of anarchy to the extreme of tyranny; and that arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of Liberty abused to licentiousness." -- George Washington Maxims

"Democracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy, such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man's life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable cruelty of one or a very few." --John Adams, An Essay on Man's Lust for Power, August 29, 1763

Noah Webster - “In democracy … there are commonly tumults and disorders … Therefore a pure democracy is generally a very bad government. It is often the most tyrannical government on earth.”

James Madison - “Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”

Anarchy, is even worse.

Good luck