Gyroscopic Investing

Excellent, but very unlikely to withstand federal tyranny.

Libertarian666 wrote: Excellent, but very unlikely to withstand federal tyranny.

By tyranny, I assume you mean the United States Constitution.

Ad Orientem wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote: Excellent, but very unlikely to withstand federal tyranny.

By tyranny, I assume you mean the United States Constitution.

No, I mean the United States government, which routinely ignores the Constitution.

That may or may not be the case (I tend to agree). But no state has the authority to unilaterally nullify any Federal law much less ALL laws dealing with any subject. And further to threaten with arrest, and by implication... violence, Federal Agents and employees executing the laws of the United States. If you don't like a law, go to court. This is incitement to insurrection.

Andrew Jackson, never a man to mince words, called Nullification treason. I can't say that he was wrong. These herbs are playing with fire to score cheap political points. And I say that as someone who is pretty strongly pro- 2nd amendment.

It would be treason if this were a union of force, where states had surrendered their sovereign powers.  Fortunately this is a voluntary union, where sovereign powers are delegated and can be recalled at any time.

(That's the theory, anyway; in reality, the states have been conquered by an occupying federal behemoth.)

Xan wrote: It would be treason if this were a union of force, where states had surrendered their sovereign powers.  Fortunately this is a voluntary union, where sovereign powers are delegated and can be recalled at any time.

(That's the theory, anyway; in reality, the states have been conquered by an occupying federal behemoth.)

From whence did Missouri gain this alleged sovereignty? It certainly is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. Only the original thirteen states can claim to have existed prior to creation by Congress. Article VI and The Fourteenth Amendment clearly establish Federal Sovereignty.

This bizarre neo-Confederate myth that keeps popping up whenever anti-Federal sentiment is on the rise, has no basis in history, law, or common sense. The very premise that a state can just arbitrarily decide when it will and will not obey Federal laws renders the entire Federal Government as little more than the political equivalent to tits on a bull. It defies reason. Worse, it is thinly disguised anarchism.

The Constitution is not a "if we feel like it" document. It is the basis for the rule of law. And the Federal Union is not what Lincoln contemptuously referred to as a "free love society."

I hope thousands of Missouri citizens submit individual secession intentions to the state of Missouri and see what Missouri does.  Hopefully scratching their heads and realizing the hypocrisy of a state denying sovereignty to the only truly sovereign entity, an individual.

Xan wrote: It would be treason if this were a union of force, where states had surrendered their sovereign powers.  Fortunately this is a voluntary union, where sovereign powers are delegated and can be recalled at any time.

(That's the theory, anyway; in reality, the states have been conquered by an occupying federal behemoth.)

Correct. Of course, the tyrannists never acknowledge the fact that the states would never have agreed to the Constitution if they had had the slightest inkling that the federal government would someday claim to be sovereign over them (in fact if not in word). And of course they never acknowledge the meaning (or usually even the existence) of the 9th and 10th amendments either, as that destroys their argument.

Ad Orientem wrote:The very premise that a state can just arbitrarily decide when it will and will not obey Federal laws renders the entire Federal Government as little more than the political equivalent to tits on a bull.

I disagree.  The Feds exist to provide common defense, to mediate disputes between states, all sorts of things that don't involve having states be vassals entirely under federal control.

Under your model, there's no point in having states at all.  So that's the one that doesn't make sense, and involves tits on a boar.

Ad Orientem wrote:The Constitution is not a "if we feel like it" document. It is the basis for the rule of law.

No, it isn't.  It's the basis for the federal government.

Simonjester wrote: the courts are supposed to be the check on (nullifyer of) the federal government, if the law (gun or otherwise) is unconstitutional then it should be struck down by the court and appealed until resolved or until it hits the supreme court.. there should be (or maybe are) ways to keep the fed from acting on those laws until those court cases are heard or settled.
this blanket nullification sounds iffy to me because it is trying to nullify ALL federal laws at once, which seems contrary to the way our legal system runs, i might accept nullification if used as as a second to last resort it being just shy of total secession... while i understand the sentiment i think they may have lost the plot...

That's entirely wrong.  The doctrine of judicial review was a later invention.  Having the SCOTUS be the final arbiter defies reason: the states, creating an entity to advance their common interests, would NEVER grant the power to define that entity to a subset of that self-same entity.  Totally nonsensical.  The federal government is to be kept in line by the states' representation in the Senate (which we've lost, unfathomably), then the threat of overstepping their bounds and having states nullify laws or secede. 

Also, this business of having the federal courts be the only judge of what's constitutional is insidiously dangerous.  EVERY federal officeholder swears to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.  So it's up to every one of them to do that to the best of his ability, not to farm that out to the courts.

It's legislators' DUTY to vote against laws which they believe to be unconstitutional, not to pass them and let the courts sort it out.  It's a President's DUTY to veto a law he believes to be unconstitutional.  (See George W Bush signing campaign finance reform, while declaring that he thought it was unconstitutional, but that the courts would sort it out.)  It's a President's DUTY to refuse to enforce duly passed laws which he believes are unconstitutional, regardless of what the courts say.  (See Eisenhower sending troops to forcibly integrate that school, even though he believed it was wrong.)

Xan's arguments make a lot of sense to me.

Simonjester wrote:absolutely.. it's every officials duty who takes an oath to defend the constitution, but they don't... i don't think the supreme court should be the "only" arbiter but they are unless i am mistaken the "final" arbiter.  should all officials and and the system of checks and balances you describe fail, and then if the supreme court fails to uphold there duty, nullification and  secession are what remains. maybe i am wrong but i think the people using nullification have gotten the steps out of order... or maybe its gotten so bad we have come that far...

Fair enough, Simon; I think I can get behind all that.  What's a shame is that the step is missing where the states weigh in on federal law.  Since they lost their Senate representation via the 17th amendment, they don't have so much as a platform where they can stand up and make a speech!  The governments of Mexico, Estonia, and Madagascar have official representation in Washington, DC, but the states of Texas, Oregon, and Rhode Island don't.

Xan wrote:

Simonjester wrote:absolutely.. it's every officials duty who takes an oath to defend the constitution, but they don't... i don't think the supreme court should be the "only" arbiter but they are unless i am mistaken the "final" arbiter.  should all officials and and the system of checks and balances you describe fail, and then if the supreme court fails to uphold there duty, nullification and  secession are what remains. maybe i am wrong but i think the people using nullification have gotten the steps out of order... or maybe its gotten so bad we have come that far...

Fair enough,Simon; I think I can get behind all that.  What's a shame is that the step is missing where the states weigh in on federal law.  Since they lost their Senate representation via the 17th amendment, they don't have so much as a platform where they can stand up and make a speech!  The governments of Mexico, Estonia, and Madagascar have official representation in Washington, DC, but the states of Texas, Oregon, and Rhode Island don't.

1913 was a very bad year for the cause of liberty.

Libertarian666 wrote:

Xan wrote:

Simonjester wrote:absolutely.. it's every officials duty who takes an oath to defend the constitution, but they don't... i don't think the supreme court should be the "only" arbiter but they are unless i am mistaken the "final" arbiter.  should all officials and and the system of checks and balances you describe fail, and then if the supreme court fails to uphold there duty, nullification and  secession are what remains. maybe i am wrong but i think the people using nullification have gotten the steps out of order... or maybe its gotten so bad we have come that far...

Fair enough, Simon; I think I can get behind all that.  What's a shame is that the step is missing where the states weigh in on federal law.  Since they lost their Senate representation via the 17th amendment, they don't have so much as a platform where they can stand up and make a speech!  The governments of Mexico, Estonia, and Madagascar have official representation in Washington, DC, but the states of Texas, Oregon, and Rhode Island don't.

1913 was a very bad year for the cause of liberty.

1917 was a far worse year.  Inflation and taxes are easy enough to avoid if you have half a brain.  The draft is not.

Inflation, being a general rise in the price level:

Don't engage in long-term nominal fixed income contracts, but engage in as many long-term fixed expense contracts as you can.  Hold as few nominal fiat assets as possible, but instead hold a lot of commodity money, business interests, and real estate.


Taxes:

Don't engage in behavior that will lead to the higher forms of taxation.  Live a more modest lifestyle.

I'm sure men breathing in German mustard gas in trenches would have been astounded at those old men back in the US bitching about the federal reserve and income tax.

You're right... We don't have the draft anymore... Which means that 1973 was one of the greatest years for liberty we've ever had. 1913 was a pretty big hit for liberty, but nothing on the scale of what we've seen done elsewhere by government.

moda0306 wrote: Inflation, being a general rise in the price level:

Don't engage in long-term nominal fixed income contracts, but engage in as many long-term fixed expense contracts as you can.  Hold as few nominal fiat assets as possible, but instead hold a lot of commodity money, business interests, and real estate.


Taxes:

Don't engage in behavior that will lead to the higher forms of taxation.  Live a more modest lifestyle.

I'm sure men breathing in German mustard gas in trenches would have been astounded at those old men back in the US bitching about the federal reserve and income tax.

You're right... We don't have the draft anymore... Which means that 1973 was one of the greatest years for liberty we've ever had. 1913 was a pretty big hit for liberty, but nothing on the scale of what we've seen done elsewhere by government.

So in other words, there is no way of avoiding taxation or inflation.
Thanks for clarifying that.

Libertarian666,

So the ways I mentioned are impossible?  What are you trying to say?

moda0306 wrote: Libertarian666,

So the ways I mentioned are impossible?  What are you trying to say?

Quoting you:

"Inflation and taxes are easy enough to avoid if you have half a brain."

I am saying that those "ways" do not accomplish the goal, which is avoiding, not minimizing, those types of theft.