Let me ask you a question…do you think that Obama is purposely blighting the nation so that he may institute his plans? I mean, do you think he actually goes to sleep at night thinking, ok no one will use my socialized health care system if they are prosperous, so what moves am I going to take to blight the country tomorrow. Or do you think he’s a well-intentioned guy who actually thinks his policies will benefit society.

We all no what the outcomes are, I am just curious what the general opinion is with regards to his/Pelosi/Clintons etcs’ motivations?

It is the question of the century.

Let me ask you this. Do you think Hitler went to sleep every night thinking: Oh, I can’t believe they are all buying into this “jews are an inferior race” nonesense, or did he actually believe his own propaganda?

I honestly don’t know. But it is amazing that all that he [Obama and his staff] is doing and claims to believe in is in direct opposite of what the “austrians” are saying. You would think that at least some things he would do that we can agree on, but no! There is nothing. Everything that he claims to be the solution, we regard as the problem.

It’s as if they took Henry Hazzlit’s “economics in One Lesson” and religiously followed it chapter by chapter, so that they can do all that Hazzlit is trying to argue against.

Amen!

Money controlled by the State ties the values of products and services to anti-market forces. Indeed, the liberty of which you speak is inherent in the Individual. The right of the Individual is above that of the State. Therefore, monetary policy is a means of the State to degrade the Individual and destroy liberty. Isn’t it interesting how the so-called captains of industry are lining up to present their case to the State much like a certain motley crew shuddering before the Wizard of Oz? Those overpaid beggars are contributing to the decline and destruction of liberty. Whose money is it anyway? Let’s put it another way…shouldn’t we care that the stroke of a pen can devalue your very being?!

Good points, gentlemen. Gene, I think it does matter for the following reason; we need to know what we are dealing with. If Obama /Pelosi/Clinton etc are doing it on purpose then this is a battle and may the best people win. If they are well-intentioned and trying to find the right answers than the goal will be to explain our ideas so it makes sense and they put them into practice…it becomes a matter of intellectual enlightenment.

Even the character of Che Guevara was shocked by her thirst for power.

Robert, yes I agree… obviously actions are actions regardless of intent. However, look at the way that American earned their Republic vs. the way that the Whigs in Britain earned theirs. In America, it was clear that the British played to win. Therefore, revolution was necessary. In Britain, the Anglo-Scottish Enlightenment was just that…an intellectual enlightenment where the ideas of Smith and Paine defeated the socialist ideas of coming out of France and Germany without a violent revolution.

We oft sound like slaves pondering if Master means well, if we are better off petitioning, or if we are justified in slitting his throat. We can never know the true thoughts of our captors, only what they do. And they ain’t be freein’ us here.

What to do? We have already established the criminality of the state and that we have a right to defend ourselves. But what about the moral ambiguities?

Even if many people in the government believe they are doing the right thing does that give them a right to step on us?

The question is not about whether or not to use counter force- but about choosing the right kind of force that is effective and ethically proportionate given the ambiguities.

Yes, it is high time that the government is met with force. That being said, I would rather go about it without shedding blood if possible- even if the bastards have murdered, reeked injustice, and stole large chunks of our very future.

It is safer and less ambiguous to advocate passive resistance like not paying taxes. Easy said. But tax evaders get hunted down like escaped convicts. The very difficulty in tax protesting evidences the government’s death grip on our liberties.

We can also aid and abet those young people who want to avoid National Service and the coming drafts.

The next level gets a little funner:

Knowing that the government has stolen from us would it be okay to take stuff right back? Well, I say go for it. (Not that I have room for an F-22 Raptor in my yard.) I confess I do not know how to work out the proportionality here.

When it comes to further escalation, like mirroring the enemy so to speak, it becomes a much trickier question. I would advocate preparing heartily and sneakily, but doing so with the realization that Leviathan is heavily armed and bloody gigantic. And unlike the King of England’s forces during the American Revolution, the enemy’s forces are right here among us. And some of them are our brother’s sisters, friends etc.

How do you evaluate the soldier that killed innocents overseas but then came home and rescued babies as a fireman, then raised a kid that grew up to be a doctor?

Then what good is meeting violence with violence to the cause of liberty? Aren’t the enemy’s forces too intertwined with the forces of right and justice? At the end of the day the enemy is the idea that government is or can be just. It should go without saying that changing ideology is by far the best way to win any conflict in the long run.

However, you live today and have every right to be free.

So, gentlemen…what do we do. What is the plan?

“If we want to look back even further to find better examples of how to handle recession, we can look at 1920 and 1921. The less the government did, the better the results long term.”

Surely the results of this depression were a massive boom in the 20s, followed by the massive bust which was the great depression? The “better example” of 1920/1921 is hardly an ideal example with this in mind?