There are other problems with the alleged authority of the government in DC. For example, read carefully Article VII of the Constitution. Its clause purports to state the law about “Establishment”. Well, when was that clause established so that it would be legitimate to put it to its intended use? The correct answer, I believe, is never. For that clause to state the law it must have acquired authority independently of and prior to the other six articles having done so. Apologists, however, have neglected for more than 220 years to give a clear explanation of when and how A7′s clause was estabslished. I think it appropriate to conclude that the Constitution is a hoax.

Let’s assume for a moment, however, that the Constitution is not the tool of a hoax but instead has the authority claimed for it by its authors and apologists. When and how did the government it sanctions acquire the authority to propose an amendment, the 13th, that would outlaw private slavery but sanctify enslavement by the government? It is no good response to say that justice permits enslavement. It doesn’t follow that government has or should have authority to enslave. Still worse, it’s a simple matter to pass statutes that contradict the exercise of even basic rights such as the right to ward off pirates, plunderers, and thieves such as those who, about 210 yrs ago, claimed to have purchased the Lousiana territory from the French. You know, or should know, that the Constitution itself was intended to empower those who wanted to supress this basic right, yet, like Dan Mitchell, you are a tax ideologue who rationalizes the organization of brigandry under the color of law. And why the rationalizations? Because you see in government a means to coerce other people to provide you with the militarism that you love more than justice, truth, and civility. And you seen in militarism the means to maintain your enjoyment of luxuries and other material things that came or will come into your possession through dubious means.

You need not worry, however, much about the possible demise of your beloved govenment. It has a lot of intertia, an enormous arsenal of fearsome weapons, and widespread support from at least a hundred million people who see it as a tool to coerce others to provide them with a living. And now comes an army of angry collectivists, mostly centrist and leftwing, who want to place in that government a monopoly upon the possesion of small firearms. That community of compassionate fools would be happy to enslave you in situ for the crime of resisting, but if that doesn’t work they’ll use the 13th alleged amendment as a license to put you and Dan in your place.

It’s by the way that the foreign aggressors you mention are basically like you and Dan in terms of their eagerness to perpetuate a particular type of organized crime. If they come, welcome them in with open arms. If they are thirsty, give them something to drink. If hungry, give them something to eat. Through so doing you will begin the process of heaping hot coals on their heads.

You may wish to take a look at this correction by the British Daily Mail newspaper. It’s billed as the “Best Correction Ever”…

http://www.jumbojoke.com/best_correction_ever.html

I agree with the first part of your statement regarding the popular prejudice in favor of governmental protectiveness. However, do you really believe that Daniel “pretends to oppose” it?

Could it be that there is no such thing as a correct amount of government protectiveness? And no such thing as authority to establish a government of the type in question?

Could it be that a popular prejudice in favor of governmental protectiveness is itself a deep root of a problem that you’re still just pretending to oppose, like a person who craves the reconciliation of contradictories that will never cohere?Could it be that you suffer from a “fatal conceit” that is “an especially common affliction in Washington”?