On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 3:37 AM, Chris Edes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If you read The Federalist, it details how under the Articles of > Confederation, the things of which I speak, such as the poor voting to > take the wealth of others, or religious oppression, were evident > injustices. This was why the Constitution was adopted. I am not > chasing ghosts; this is what actually happened before the Constitution > was put in place.
Good thing they took care of THAT, eh? <Guffaw!> seriously, though; interesting conversation. Thanks! >... > I think you are an intelligent and thoughtful person, Susan. Why, thanks. I think the same of you. > I used to > be a full-on anarchist. But as I think about how I'd actually go about > changing the world, and as I discuss the matter with others, I am > increasingly of the opinion that a minimal government is best. Well, you can have your government. Just keep it away from me :) > Perhaps > surviving on non-theft means is the best way to limit the size of > government. What if we could fund a government without theft? I'd be all over it. I just don't want to endorse a system of organized wrongness. And where I live, theft is wrong. > In any case, I believe that the best course is to work within the > existing framework here in the U.S., to shrink the size and power of > government. I think people are beginning to see the consequences of > runaway spending. If we're smart we may yet turn the tide. Ultimately, > the Constitution needs amendment to include new limits on federal > power. However, we first need to dismantle the machinery of dependence. Absolutely. Death to the grid! :) -- Susan Hogarth | Get Free! Libertarian for NC State House 38 http://hogarth4house.com/
