Outlaws who commit crimes (such as mass murder) should be punished, should they not?

In addition, is force in retaliation of force not rational and justified?

As such, how would going after the individuals responsible for the September 11th attacks not be the right course of action?

This of course differs dramatically from the course of action actually taken immediately following 9/11.

You claim it could result in even more terrorism, but I don’t see how it could create any less than doing nothing at all would invite.

This is akin to a mentally insane individual attacking you with a machete, and then stepping aside and asking him not to do so again.

It will just invite more, as the person is well beyond reason at that point.

So, yes, we shouldn’t stir up trouble (as we certainly have), but neither should we ignore reality.

In this sense, I don’t believe the US should leave the middle east and “forget it ever happened”, but leave immediately and hope for the best, while preparing for the worst.

As for taxation, I’d be interested to hear your differences with what I wrote.

thanks for joining the discussion

-Anthony

However, your response to Drew’s question about 9/11, though quite patriotic, is tunnel-visioned to the extreme. I also do not support these illegal wars and never have, but even just chasing the perpetrators would damage America in the long run. The way to beat terrorism is to act in a way that does not engender, well, terrorism. As I am sure you know, we as a country have been in the middle east for decades giving them plenty of reasons to hate us. Sending troops to chase Al-Qaeda around the middle east could not possibly do anything but give them more reasons. I would argue that a better use of funds would be to amp up preventative measures so as to stop further attacks.

I really liked the part on the draft. Also, the bit about taxation was thought-provoking, though, due to ideological differences, I do not 100% agree.

Thanks for yet another well-written post.

If I have a right to my body, I have a right to own private property.

If I have a right to own private property, I have the right to the privacy of that (private) property.

The government can choose to protect that privacy (as was was originally intended by the founders) or it can choose to protect the privacy (secrecy) of government.

I choose the former, unalienable, non democratic option, and stand behind that the same as I stand behind the immorality and illegal nature of the draft, and attempted force on my wealth and life to purchase a private product as described in the post.

Hope this helps.

-Anthony

ps- the judicial branch of government is equally capable of tyranny as any other branch, collective organization, or individual for that matter.

You said:
“I have a right to my life, liberty, property, and privacy. It is the governments job to protect these rights.”

I don’t believe the authors of the Constitution believed personal privacy to be a fundamental right, as “privacy” is found no where in the document. A person is protected from unreasonable searches and from testifying against themselves. But the fact that these narrow distinctions are outlined makes me think they did not intend the government to protect personal privacy in a broader sense. The Supreme Court has ruled in favor or personal privacy in some circumstances . . . I guess they felt privacy was “implied” in the Constitution. Who knows?

I, personally, am not convinced personal privacy is an absolute right that can be reasonably ensured in a civil society.

joe

>>>The “draft” is important to me on principle. In this sense, the possibility of military conscription in my lifetime is not relevant, the same way it’s not relevant whether I am “innocent” or not when a law enforcement officer is interested in entering my home.

“If your innocent why does it matter?”

It matters on principal. I have a right to my life, liberty, property, and privacy. It is the governments job to protect these rights.

By the same token, those rights cease to be protected when a government wants to force me from my home, family, and career, and ship me many thousands of miles away. Even if I happened to agree with the current political machine, my right to life would cease to exist. I would be the property of a collective organization, unlike those who currently serve in the military, voluntarily.

Even if the mainland united States were under attack, a military draft is the anti-thesis of a free society. Would we really be short of people willing to voluntarily defend their country in that situation? If we would be, there wouldn’t be much left to defend anyway.

Going further, why we don’t currently have a military draft in effect should be taken into consideration for why I chose to write about it first and more than any other topic in the post.

We don’t have a “draft” at the moment because

A. The united States government has not yet “officially” expanded the war into other areas of the middle east, namely Iran.

B. The government of the united States has not expanded global war elsewhere (eg North Korea).

C. Last I read, the US government employs tens of thousands of mercenaries world wide, with billions of dollars they don’t have.

This is perhaps the most sinister part. The money is created via the Federal Reserve, or borrowed from abroad. This is money that simply doesn’t exist, and is never going to be paid back. This, especially the Federal Reserve part, undermines our fiat currency, and brings us closer and closer to hyper inflation – we are already experiencing inflation.

Inflation in this sense is an underhand tax. We are paying for mercenaries, unknowingly, and unwillingly. We don’t have a say in it. The Fed prints it, we pay for it in a drop in the value of our currency.

In this sense, a draft has been avoided, as without tens of thousands of mercenaries being paid for by the devaluing our dollar, there would have been a draft years ago.

…

All in all, I wanted to make it clear in this post that I am serious when I say that I will take all steps necessary to ignore, avoid, and if necessary, violently resist any individual enforcing illegal military conscription.

A bit long winded, but I believe this addresses your question.

-What are you referring to as genocide?

>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War

Documented deaths exceed 100,000. The highest estimate is around 1.4 million dead – and that’s just the people of Iraq.

Perhaps more important for our discussion, the war with the state of Iraq was undeclared by the congress, making it unconstitutional, and illegal by our own law. What’s more, Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with September 11th. This was a war of aggression, that has now become perpetual, and has no end in sight. It has cost us hundreds of billions of dollars, that never existed, and will never exist. It has accelerated the economic collapse of the united States.

-You’re president on September 11th…course of action?

>>>I would do what Ron Paul voted for – go after the criminals and outlaws that were behind the crime – not carelessly stir up a middle eastern bees nest of perpetual, unconstitutional, illegal war that resulted in the deaths of thousands of Americans and millions of people native to the region.

-Why do you spend so much time speaking against conscription when there is no real danger of reintroducing the draft?

-What are you referring to as genocide?

-You’re president on September 11th…course of action?

you can also check worldfreemansociety.org

your real name -Anthony Paul
……. allegedly of the clan Johnson