AdamLanes

Yes. I work and save money. The government issues more money through the help of the Federal Reserve Bank. Now with this increase in money, prices rise, and therefore the money I have saved is worth less (has less purchasing power). The issuance of new money is the cause of inflation. It is a transfer of wealth (and a form of taxation) primarily from people who have saved money to the people who the government gives the new money to first. Also, since most people only get any of this new money through the form of higher wages much after prices elsewhere have already gone up and while the government is issuing even more money causing even higher prices, there is a transfer of wealth from everybody to the people the government is issuing the new money to. It is simple supply and demand economics. If you increase the amount of money available to buy goods and services in the market, the prices of those goods and services will rise to reach equilibrium. As for the 16th Amendment and the income tax, all you need to do is to look at how fast your wealth can accumulate because of compound interest when the money that you save is put to work, and the money made off that money is put back to work to make even more money, all while the original money is making more money. Instead of what we have today where the government uses violence to tax your income at every step, and for every dollar in profit you keep 66% (or whatever your tax rate is), and for every dollar in losses you have, you lose 100%. Also your ability to save in the first place is limited by the rate of your taxes. Back to the stimulus packages of today where you have the government taking money from profitable businesses to give it to unprofitable businesses to "stimulate" the economy is stupid (also violent and evil since the government collects taxes through the threat of violence). If I have two businesses, and only one is profitable, I would surely go broke if I took the money out of the profitable business to spend it on the unprofitable one. And if you don't believe that the government collects taxes through violence, just look what happens when you stop paying your taxes. They point guns at you, throw you in jail, and if you try to escape they will shoot at you. Violence is evil except in self defense. Since taxes are collected through the initiation of violence (or threat of violence) by government, the government is therefore inherently evil. If you are robbed in the street, and the mugger says to you "I'm going to give this money I'm stealing from you to charity." Do you think that justifies your mugging?

Well no actually I'm not. the part of my original post in this thread that you didn't quote in your reply helps to explain it. The Federal Reserve Act and the 16th Amendment of the US Constitution has a crippling effect on an individuals ability to accumulate capital which therefore restricts the individuals ability in EVERYTHING. Including defending freedom from government oppression, indoctrination, and propaganda.

You do realize of course that you need permission from the government for almost everything you do. Want to work in a certain profession? Better get a license. Want to start a business? better get a license. Want to get married? Better get a license. Want to build a home? Better get proper zoning, permits, and have the government sign off on it. Want to do anything with your real estate? There´s probably some regulation covering it. Want to own a car? Better have an address to furnish to the government that they can track you with, pay your registration, and get your tags. This list can go on and on. Want to not have your kids subjected to government indoctrination by the dept of education? Good luck. Of course two of the biggest threats to our freedoms occurred in 1913 with the passage of the Federal Reserve Act and the Sixteenth Amendment to the US Constitution. Both of which have the effect of crippling your ability to accumulate capital, and therefore protect the status of the rich and powerful from competition. The Federal Reserve is also a mechanism for the transfer of wealth, the so called ¨hidden tax.¨ Oh yeah and something about $11,000,000,000,000.00 in current government debt.

Please help spread the word about Jury Nullification. If you are called for jury duty, please GO, and consider not only the facts of the case as they pertain to the law, but help decide the law itself by refusing to convict individuals of unjust laws.

That is one of the most ignorant statements I have ever read in my entire life. The founding fathers of the United States of America were well educated and informed about democracy. They founded the USA as a republic, not a democracy, for this reason. Direct democracy is something to be feared since it is nothing more than mob rule. Under a system of direct democracy there is nothing to prevent the majority from voting away the rights of the minority. The individual is the smallest minority. Yes, let people make decisions for themselves. Not for others. The rights of individuals to their life, liberty, and property, must be protected. What are you basing these claims on? Do you really think that the mental capacity of the average person has increased over the last couple of hundred years in the United States of America? I think the average person today doesn't know what is going on in government, if they did they would probably be outraged.

What is wrong with the safire-2 150? Why do you want to get rid of it after only 50 jumps?

I've heard that the gold medals are only supposed to contain 6 grams of gold as per olympic standards.

N/A

When was the last time the US Government did anything honest?

So the situation yesterday was the guy in front of me was by the door with no one in front of him. He had his legs stretched out in front of him and he was leaning back crushing my legs. I told him to sit up or move forward. The (main) problem is not being touched by you smelly mother fuckers, its your obese weight that is crushing the life outta me. Don't put your weight on the person behind you! If you sit on me, you may or may not get a warning before you find my foot up your ass (pretty ladies excepted).

The person behind you is not a recliner chair! What happened to common courtesy? Sit up in the plane and quit crushing the person behind you!

What if you caused the accident? Maybe you should reinforce the windshield and windows on your car if you are worried about things like this. Its kind of sad really. Using your same logic and reasoning I can argue why skydiving should be outlawed: If I own a home and people are jumping out of airplanes above me, there is a possibility that someone (or piece of gear) could come crashing through my roof endangering me, just so somebody else can get their "kicks". Or I may be working or driving in the area so no dz is safe.

And that would be their right to make the rules for their own businesses. Maybe there is a market for people that want to fly without seatbelts. Just because you don't want to fly on an airplane where someone is allowed to not wear a seatbelt, doesn't give you the right to mandate that no one can make their own decisions on whether they want to fly on a plane where people are not required to wear seatbelts. Maybe the airlines would all mandate seatbelts, that would be their right. Here is a simple analogy for you. I am sure there is a market for smokers who want to smoke while they fly. We do not need laws against smoking on the airplanes! I don't smoke, and I don't want to be stuck breathing second-hand smoke on a 10 hour international flight. Thats why I would book a flight on a non-smoking flight. Áirlines could cater to the smoker crowd by offerring specific flights that allow smoking. Yes I will dispute that. Insurance companies can decide who, what, where, when, and how they cover insured parties. They can very simply choose not to offer insurance to somebody that chooses to not wear a seatbelt,. Alternatively they can charge higher premiums to people that they consider to be higher risk. Its all about what is written in the contract. If you think you are paying higher premiums to compensate for others, maybe you should start looking for a new insurance company. Of course you would have more choices for insurance if the government didn't have so many regulations prohibiting potential insurers from entering the market.

Now I remember why I stopped logging in to this stupid forum for the last five months. If you go back and re-read my post, you will clearly see that my point is that the choice to wear seatbelts on an airplane or not should be left up the aircraft owner, pilot, dzo, NOT THE GOVERNMENT. If the aircraft owner, pilot, dzo, etc, decides not to have a rule mandating seatbelts, then individuals can decide for themselves to wear seatbelts, and then you can decide for yourself whether you want to jump with those dumbasses or GO SOMEWHERE ELSE where they do require seatbelts!!! There doesn't need to be a fucking law for it, you get to decide for yourself what your "safety level" is.

I am against the law requiring seat belts for takeoffs and landings. People can decide for themselves whether they want to wear a seatbelt or fly in a plane with people who may not be wearing a seatbelt. We don't need the government making decisions for us! Obviously if there was no law mandating you to wear a seatbelt for takeoff and landing, then your DZ, pilot, skydiving club, will step in and have their own rule. That is their right to run their business, and to make their own rules. If they don't have a rule mandating seatbelts then you can go jump at another dz if you prefer everyone to wear seatbelts. Yes, I think it is a smart idea to wear seatbelts and I always do.

Was that meant to be funny?

The government requires me to have insurance even if I stay off the roads. I take offense to FlyingJ who is trying to dictate the terms of other peoples insurance. If I choose to buy insurance, that is a contract between myself and my insurer. If you don't like the terms of your insurance, that is your problem.

Imagine the sun explodes tomorrow.

I think you and the government need to stay out of other people's business.

The rest of the world needs to stop being a bunch of pussies and stop letting the US push you around. Seriously. Non-violence is the key (don't push back). Ron Paul is America's only hope.

I agree that smoking crack is not good.

With freedom comes responsibility.

An interesting thing to note is that most if not all crackheads also drink alcohol or smoke tobacco. I wonder if ever a mother existed who smoked crack during pregnancy but otherwise had regular prenatal care.

You are missing the point. Freedom is the individual's right to his/her life. Anarchy is where people do whatever they want. Freedom does not give you the right to infringe the rights of others. Government has a role in a free society to protect these rights, but the scope of the government must be limited and power dispersed. Compromise your freedom and everyone loses.

The original post and article is about a kid who is handicapped because his mother apparently was an alcoholic and drug addict who happened to be receiving welfare. So the kid wants a bill passed to drug test welfare recipients, presumably to prevent what happened to him from happening to other children. The flaw in this logic is assuming that receiving welfare is a determining factor in whether someone is a alcoholic or drug addict. A drug addict or alcoholic can always find a way to get their fix. Taking away welfare is not the solution to his problem. My post was not intended to argue for or against welfare, as that is a separate issue. The reason why you don't hear about crack babies anymore is because it was a "myth." Don't believe me? Google "crack babies." Then look up fetal alcohol syndrome. Why don't the presidential candidates piss in a cup?