The Government Can

dubob wrote:

Let me start with the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012.

First, let me explain that this legislation has been around for 49 years. It’s not new by any stretch of the imagination. What are new in the 2012 version are some provisions not previously considered regarding detention of American Citizens. All three candidates do, in fact, support the NDAA 2012. And I agree with the reasoning for their support as stated. Is there a possibility of abuse of powers with the provisions as written? That has not been determined yet and there are legal arguments available supporting both sides of that argument. There has not been a definitive case made for either side – yet. The jury is still out on this one and I happen to agree with Romney’s take on it at this point in time. I’m free to change my mind on that point as more data is collected and analyzed that proves one side or the other in the future.

You are correct, the NDAA was first signed into law 49 years ago, and was then revamped after 9-11, and now adjusted once again in December 2011. I disagree with the original, and BOTH revised editions. But, lets focus on the one just signed into law. 1)It approves $662 BILLION...above and beyond the hundreds of BILLIONS already in the budget ......"for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad." When a nation is $15 TRILLION in debt, and climbing, how can such reckless spending be justified? 2)It imposes sanctions (an act of WAR) on Iran. I am wondering when/where sanctions have led to peace? And, who does it hurt the most, the politicians running the country, or the poor people of Iran already struggling to survive? How would America respond to sanctions, would we just grin and bear it, or would we respond with FORCE? That is a rhetorical question.... 3)It refocuses the strategic goals of NATO towards energy security. Now, why do we 'need' NATO in order for America to obtain 'energy security'? Seriously? IMO, NATO is one of the dumbest things this nation has entangled herself in. And now, we are funding NATO to obtain 'energy security'? Nonsensical. 4)Giving the government, regardless of who is running it, the authority to detain anyone them deem a threat, is beyond foolish. It is a sign that people value so-called safety more than liberty. As for trusting any of the presidential candidates to not 'abuse' this newly claimed power, remember the current regime has listed those who have organized and even merely attended Tea Party rallies as terrorists, along with ALL military veterans. The legal definition is anyone who is deemed a threat.....and that covers EVERY person on the planet! During the two world wars, citizens of German and Japanese decent were rounded up and sent to detention camps. Not exactly a high point in American history. But, that is nothing new, we rounded up the natives and put them on 'reservations'. Now, we are expected to trust the government to not abuse this new found power? This is eerily similar to what the Third Reich did....just saying. I do NOT care what the pundits say about this, nor lawyers on differing sides, this stinks to high heaven, and I don't need some 'intellect' to tell me conceding MY liberty to oppose certain policies is assured of an ending in tyranny! The Founders must be weeping and besides themselves as they witness the complete dismantling of what they risked their lives for. I can not look my children in the eye if I let such tyranny occur without a fight.

No rush, I still have to find time to respond to the rest of your points.........

Finally, a day off from my very busy retirement schedule of unlimited, daily ice fishing. I’m going to attempt a civil, factual reply to the points you made and I’ve listed below. I understand that you will not agree with some or all of what I will write, but please understand and accept that none of my reply will be intentionally derisive or condescending.

proutdoors wrote:

It approves $662 BILLION...above and beyond the hundreds of BILLIONS already in the budget ......"for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad." When a nation is $15 TRILLION in debt, and climbing, how can such reckless spending be justified?

With regard to your wondering how reckless spending can be justified, I’d like to point out that the problem is very much larger than just the National Defense budget. And please take note: I’m in no way trying to justify it to you, but rather trying to explain why it is so.

The Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (CBA74) was passed by the Democrat-controlled Congress in a response to then President Richard Nixon’s penchant to withhold funding to Federal Agencies which had been appropriated by Congress. Nixon deemed Congressional budget altering fiscally irresponsible.

Among other things the CBA74 did, it required the OMB to project federal spending for the upcoming fiscal year “based on a continuation of the existing level of governmental services.” This is what we now call baseline budgeting and what makes spending increases automatic. During the 20 years prior to CBA74, the federal deficit averaged just 1 percent of GDP. Today, that deficit runs at a nation killing 9.8 percent.

Let’s jump forward to the CBA85; the definition of “baseline” was amended so that spending would be adjusted to keep pace with inflation. Can you say ”snowball effect?” And this has an overall negative impact on each succeeding budget, i.e., an increase.

I could go on and on, but I’m hoping you get the overall picture. And baseline budgeting is applied to each and every budget, not just the NDAA budget. Saying a reduction in the NDAA budget will reduce the National Debt is like saying chopping down one tree will raze the forest. Sorry, ain’t gonna happen. We need a lot more reduction than just the NDAA budget. Again, I’m neither defending the NDAA budget nor dissing it. I’m just saying it is only one part of the overall problem.

proutdoors wrote:

It imposes sanctions (an act of WAR) on Iran. I am wondering when/where sanctions have led to peace? And, who does it hurt the most, the politicians running the country, or the poor people of Iran already struggling to survive? How would America respond to sanctions, would we just grin and bear it, or would we respond with FORCE? That is a rhetorical question.

Let me first give you a definition of what sanctions are designed to do. The definition is from, what else, Wikipedia.

Quote :

Sanctions formulations are designed into three categories. The categories are used to differentiate between the political contexts due to the global nature of the act. First, Sanctions are designed to force cooperation with international Law. This can be seen in the sanctions placed on Iraq in Resolution No. 661on August 6 1990 after the initial invasion of neighboring Kuwait. The United Nations placed an Embargo on the nation in an attempt to prevent armed conflict. Resolution 665 and Resolution 670 were further added creating both naval and air blockade on Iraq. The purpose of the initial sanctions was to coerce Iraq into following international law, which included the recognized sovereignty of Kuwait.

The second category of design is those sanctions with the purpose to contain a threat to peace within a geographical boundary. The 2010 Iran nuclear proliferation debate is a contemporary example. The current United Nations Security Council passed on June 9, Resolution 1929 providing restrictions on missile and weaponry materials that could be used for the creation of destructive weapons. This principle of restriction is to contain the possibility of Iranian aggression with in the neighboring region.

The third category involves the United Nations Security Councils condemnation of actions of a specific action or policy of a member/non-member nation. The white majority declared a declaration of Rhodesian Independence on November 11 1965. The General assemble and United Nations in a 107 to 2 vote took to condemning Rhodesia on all military economic as well as oil and petroleum products. The international display of disapproval forced sanctions onto the Rhodesian people but without a clear goal as to a remedy for the economic sanctions. The three categories are a blanket explanation on the reasons sanctions are applied to nations but it does not go as far to say that voting members share the same political reasons. It is often the case for many nations to apply self-interests with one or more of the categories when voting whether or not to implement sanctions.

Did the sanctions on Iraq in 1990 create peace? I think so. Iraq didn’t gobble up Kuwait and Kuwait is still a sovereign nation.

I’m pretty sure you can see from the definition of sanctions that they are never applied to individuals or a small group of individuals, but rather are aimed at getting a whole nation to play by the generally accepted rules according to the rest of the planet. There isn’t really any consideration given to how the sanctions will affect any given subsection of the nation’s population, nor should there be in my opinion. The idea is to get a nation to change its ways and play nice with the rest of us.

proutdoors wrote:

It refocuses the strategic goals of NATO towards energy security. Now, why do we 'need' NATO in order for America to obtain 'energy security'? Seriously? IMO, NATO is one of the dumbest things this nation has entangled herself in. And now, we are funding NATO to obtain 'energy security'? Nonsensical.

That’s an easy one. It really doesn’t have much to do with the energy security of the USA. Please Google up a copy of the NDAA 2012 and go to Section 1233 beginning on page 339. You’ll find that this particular goal has to do with the energy security of the NATO alliance; not the USA. As far as the overall purpose and usefulness of the NATO pact and our membership in it, that should probably be left to a thread of its very own and I won’t go any further into it at this time.

proutdoors wrote:

Giving the government, regardless of who is running it, the authority to detain anyone them deem a threat, is beyond foolish. It is a sign that people value so-called safety more than liberty. As for trusting any of the presidential candidates to not 'abuse' this newly claimed power, remember the current regime has listed those who have organized and even merely attended Tea Party rallies as terrorists, along with ALL military veterans. The legal definition is anyone who is deemed a threat.....and that covers EVERY person on the planet! During the two world wars, citizens of German and Japanese decent were rounded up and sent to detention camps. Not exactly a high point in American history. But, that is nothing new, we rounded up the natives and put them on 'reservations'. Now, we are expected to trust the government to not abuse this new found power? This is eerily similar to what the Third Reich did....just saying. I do NOT care what the pundits say about this, nor lawyers on differing sides, this stinks to high heaven, and I don't need some 'intellect' to tell me conceding MY liberty to oppose certain policies is assured of an ending in tyranny! The Founders must be weeping and besides themselves as they witness the complete dismantling of what they risked their lives for. I can not look my children in the eye if I let such tyranny occur without a fight.

Your point is taken and understood. I’m still waiting for the jury.

dubob wrote:

proutdoors wrote:

It imposes sanctions (an act of WAR) on Iran. I am wondering when/where sanctions have led to peace? And, who does it hurt the most, the politicians running the country, or the poor people of Iran already struggling to survive? How would America respond to sanctions, would we just grin and bear it, or would we respond with FORCE? That is a rhetorical question.

Let me first give you a definition of what sanctions are designed to do. The definition is from, what else, Wikipedia.

Quote :

Sanctions formulations are designed into three categories. The categories are used to differentiate between the political contexts due to the global nature of the act. First, Sanctions are designed to force cooperation with international Law. This can be seen in the sanctions placed on Iraq in Resolution No. 661on August 6 1990 after the initial invasion of neighboring Kuwait. The United Nations placed an Embargo on the nation in an attempt to prevent armed conflict. Resolution 665 and Resolution 670 were further added creating both naval and air blockade on Iraq. The purpose of the initial sanctions was to coerce Iraq into following international law, which included the recognized sovereignty of Kuwait.

The second category of design is those sanctions with the purpose to contain a threat to peace within a geographical boundary. The 2010 Iran nuclear proliferation debate is a contemporary example. The current United Nations Security Council passed on June 9, Resolution 1929 providing restrictions on missile and weaponry materials that could be used for the creation of destructive weapons. This principle of restriction is to contain the possibility of Iranian aggression with in the neighboring region.

The third category involves the United Nations Security Councils condemnation of actions of a specific action or policy of a member/non-member nation. The white majority declared a declaration of Rhodesian Independence on November 11 1965. The General assemble and United Nations in a 107 to 2 vote took to condemning Rhodesia on all military economic as well as oil and petroleum products. The international display of disapproval forced sanctions onto the Rhodesian people but without a clear goal as to a remedy for the economic sanctions. The three categories are a blanket explanation on the reasons sanctions are applied to nations but it does not go as far to say that voting members share the same political reasons. It is often the case for many nations to apply self-interests with one or more of the categories when voting whether or not to implement sanctions.

Did the sanctions on Iraq in 1990 create peace? I think so. Iraq didn’t gobble up Kuwait and Kuwait is still a sovereign nation.

I’m pretty sure you can see from the definition of sanctions that they are never applied to individuals or a small group of individuals, but rather are aimed at getting a whole nation to play by the generally accepted rules according to the rest of the planet. There isn’t really any consideration given to how the sanctions will affect any given subsection of the nation’s population, nor should there be in my opinion. The idea is to get a nation to change its ways and play nice with the rest of us.

How did the sanctions against Iraq 'create peace'? I thought it was us bombing the hell out of them that caused Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait, and that didn't end in 'peace'. Ask the Kurds and those who openly rebelled against Sadam if there was 'peace' after the bombs. It certainly was NOT sanctions. All sanctions do is punish those already struggling, in many cases where America is calling for/enforcing sanctions she is sending aid to the same country(s). This is part of the flawed interventionist policies this nation has been employing for the last 100 years, we play both sides, then act surprised when the people of these nations dislike us. Again, give me ONE example of where sanctions got a nation "to change its ways and play nice with the rest of us", and when does America start to play 'nice' with the rest of the world instead of being the bully?

dubob wrote:

proutdoors wrote:

It refocuses the strategic goals of NATO towards energy security. Now, why do we 'need' NATO in order for America to obtain 'energy security'? Seriously? IMO, NATO is one of the dumbest things this nation has entangled herself in. And now, we are funding NATO to obtain 'energy security'? Nonsensical.

That’s an easy one. It really doesn’t have much to do with the energy security of the USA. Please Google up a copy of the NDAA 2012 and go to Section 1233 beginning on page 339. You’ll find that this particular goal has to do with the energy security of the NATO alliance; not the USA. As far as the overall purpose and usefulness of the NATO pact and our membership in it, that should probably be left to a thread of its very own and I won’t go any further into it at this time.

So, why is there anything regarding NATO in this Bill? And, in reality who funds the bulk of NATO? So, IMO, this is just an end run, with the result being the same.

dubob wrote:

proutdoors wrote:

Giving the government, regardless of who is running it, the authority to detain anyone them deem a threat, is beyond foolish. It is a sign that people value so-called safety more than liberty. As for trusting any of the presidential candidates to not 'abuse' this newly claimed power, remember the current regime has listed those who have organized and even merely attended Tea Party rallies as terrorists, along with ALL military veterans. The legal definition is anyone who is deemed a threat.....and that covers EVERY person on the planet! During the two world wars, citizens of German and Japanese decent were rounded up and sent to detention camps. Not exactly a high point in American history. But, that is nothing new, we rounded up the natives and put them on 'reservations'. Now, we are expected to trust the government to not abuse this new found power? This is eerily similar to what the Third Reich did....just saying. I do NOT care what the pundits say about this, nor lawyers on differing sides, this stinks to high heaven, and I don't need some 'intellect' to tell me conceding MY liberty to oppose certain policies is assured of an ending in tyranny! The Founders must be weeping and besides themselves as they witness the complete dismantling of what they risked their lives for. I can not look my children in the eye if I let such tyranny occur without a fight.

Your point is taken and understood. I’m still waiting for the jury.

When will the jury rule, when American citizens are being detained on a regular basis? Isn't such a tactic a recipe for failure and lost liberty? We must stand vigilant, ready/willing/able to defend liberty against ALL enemies foreign and DOMESTIC. Waiting until people start being rounded up will be giving up liberty without a fight, in my view.

Thanks for the reply back. I hope we both, as well as others on here, benefit from this type of dialogue. I hope to get to responding to the rest of your previous post later tonight.

proutdoors wrote:

WOW! Bob is so mature he can't direct comments to a person, and he has lowered himself to the point of name calling. Bob, is that because you are far smarter than me? I am sorry no one else is as enlightened as you. How silly of me to actually take the Constitution seriously. I realize you are willing to compromise your principles, if you have any at all, but I am NOT. You say my views are set in cement, but that is being intellectually dishonest at best, intellectually void being more likely. I was once as blind/ignorant as you are hell bent on staying, then I woke up. I credit fatbass will assisting my 'progress' BACK to the Constitution and the Principles within it and admonished by the Founders. Sadly, I once supported wars of intervention, I once supported the Patriot Act, I once supported Gitmo, and I even once thought there were differences of substance between republicans and democrats at the national level. Then I educated myself, I studied the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, the writings of the Founders, I educated myself on economics, on human nature, and on history....yes it actually can teach us things....

It's been wonderful watching you educate and enlighten yourself over the last couple of years, pro. Seeing you transform from a neocon into a true Constitutional scholar has been very satisfying. Go on with your bad self, brother!

Damn it BASS!!!! He's all your fault!!!

voiceofreason wrote:

Damn it BASS!!!! He's all your fault!!!

Absolutely not. I simply helped him understand the true meaning of liberty and that the Constitution only pertains to the federal government by defining its limits.
How you progressives have been brainwashed into thinking your gov't shackles are gold bracelets and that the rest of us must have them as well is simply baffling to me.

dubob wrote:

It’s very evident that you and I see this differently. I see it this way. The sanctions came first. Iraq was given a set of sanctions which included consequences/penalties for any violations on the part of Iraq. The consequences included bombing the shit out of them. Sanctions don’t work unless the party being sanctioned knows for certain that there will be penalties for violations. Saddam got that message I believe.

As far as why people of other nations don’t like us being a result of our interventionist policies I would say you are wrong. It may be a minor excuse to promote the hatred towards us, but the real root of the hatred stems from fanatical religious and cultural beliefs. In their mind, anybody that promotes ANY other religion should be executed. In their culture, women are chattel and can be executed for reasons beyond comprehension to any civilized society. That ideology is diametrically opposed in the rest of the civilized world and their fanaticism dictates hatred and retaliation at any cost. They lust after our life style and freedoms but are unwilling to let go of their fanaticism to attain it. Bombing the shit out of Iraq didn’t change or create that attitude even a little bit.

When does the USA start playing nice with the rest of the world? Are you serious? Do the words “foreign aid” have any meaning at all to you? We could cure the national debt problem tomorrow if we stopped ALL foreign aid being given to other nations. If shelling out trillions upon trillions of good old American tax dollars to every Johnny come lately with his hand out isn’t playing nice, then I don’t know what is. We’ve been playing nice to the tune of an astronomical national debt for way too many years.

So, you agree that sanctions are an act of war. And, since the sanctions were 'enforced' with bombs, the sanctions did NOT work! The bombs were what caused Iraq to pull back from Kuwait, NOT the sanctions.

Why do the Muslims hate America more than the rest of the Infidels....outside of the Jews of course? Are you certain our meddling in that region for 60+ years has nothing to do with it? We helped topple the Iranian government in 1953, and then again in the 1970's, and then we gave them arms and BILLIONS of dollars in the 80's, while we were doing the same with Iraq. Less than two decades later we were attacking Iraq, TWICE, and we are still there. Now, our warmongering government has targeted Iran and the new 'threat' of the decade. Notice how this nation, ever since the turn of the 20th century, has had enemies that 'must be dealt with'....from Germany/Italy in the first World War, to Germany/Japan/Italy in WWII, to the USSR from the early 1950's until the late 1980's, to the Chinese/North Koreans, to the Chinese/Vietnamese to Lebanon, then Somalia, then the Falkland Islands, then Bosnia, then Iraq, then Afghanistan, then Iraq, and now Iran.....and wrapped up in there...Cuba/Columbia/Venezuela/Libya/Argentina and I am sure a host of other nations. For being a peaceful/friendly nation we sure don't act like it!!!

As for foreign aid, yes, we BRIBE nations with aid....aid that is funded by borrowing from nations that do NOT like us. And to boot, we fund all sides; Israel and her sworn enemies, that way we get to call the shots when one thinks about doing what they deem best for their citizens. Iran and Iraq. Pakistan and India. Good hell, during the Cold War we were giving BILLIONS to the USSR while supposedly fighting against them! No, we are NOT playing nice, we are being bullies and trying to make one world government, with our 'leaders' calling the shots.

dubob wrote:

proutdoors wrote:

So, why is there anything regarding NATO in this Bill? And, in reality who funds the bulk of NATO? So, IMO, this is just an end run, with the result being the same.

You lost me on this one Pro. You know as well as I do why NATO is in the Defense budget and everybody knows that the good old USA pays the freight. Yea, I know; they were rhetorical questions. But “end run” around what and the result being the same as what? Sorry Pro, but I don’t have a clue.

That's my point, funding NATO to obtain 'energy security' is a smoke screen....so its as I stated, why are we funding 'energy security' with a supposed national defense bill?

What a relief..........................

dubob wrote:

Next, I’ll give you some research data I found that refutes your assertion that ALL the candidates support TARP. First is Romney’s stand on the issue. In March 2009, Romney told Reuters, "The TARP program, while not transparent and not having been used as wisely it should have been, was nevertheless necessary to keep banks from collapsing in a cascade of failures. You cannot have a free economy and free market if there is not a financial system. The TARP program was designed to keep the financial system going, to keep money circulating in the economy, without which the entire economy stops and you would really have an economic collapse." I agree with that assessment based on empirical data I have studied in the past and recently. You, of course, are free to disagree based on whatever your research or gut feeling tells you about the truth of the matter.

In December 2009, he said "And by the way, TARP has served its purpose. TARP ought to be ended. We've got hundreds of billions of dollars there that is being used as a slush fund by Secretary (Timothy) Geithner and the Obama administration. Stop the TARP recklessness at this point and get ourselves back to creating jobs by encouraging businesses to grow, expand their capital expenditures and hire." Again, I agree that it had served its intended purpose and the time was right (in 2009) to discontinue the program.

Now Gingrich had a different take on the issue. He informed a crowd in Davenport, Iowa that, “I was very biased against it [T.A.R.P.] and had opposed it all the previous week. I had a number of very, very successful businessmen who called me and said that you need to understand, this system is on the edge of total meltdown. These were people who weren’t politicians. They weren’t liberals. Some of them were very right wing. But they said this is a true crisis. This is like having a heart attack, this is a true crisis.” He ended up being convinced by business folks that the threat was real. I too believe it was real. You again can disagree, but the business community by and large will not be supporting your understanding of the issue.

When Santorum was asked how he would have handled the bailout of General Motors and Ford, he said he was greatly opposed to all of the bailouts over the last year including the Troubled Asset Relief Program, the bailout of Bear Stearns and coming to the aid of the two ailing motor vehicle companies. In fact, although Santorum said he respects President George W. Bush a great deal, he said Bush let the country down by listening to individuals like Ben Bernanke and Henry Paulson the head of the Treasury Department when they advised him to sign off on a $700 billion bailout of Wall Street toward the end of his presidential term.

Suprisingly, I do indeed disagree that TARP was 'needed'. It is true a collapse of the banks would have caused grief and pain, but the grief and pain WILL come at some point. Do we tear the band aid off quickly, or do we pull it off slowly? Me, I prefer one quick yank, getting it over with so I can move on. TARP did nothing to address the problems that lead up to the banks being in dire straits, so how could it be a cure? It was government regulations, mandates, meddling that caused the banking industry to be so upside down. And yet, 'smart' people like Mitt Romney think MORE regulations, mandates, meddling was/is the answer. And then this guy wants to be considered a conservative, and someone who is for less government and free markets? I suppose he agrees with the DUMBEST statement by a sitting US President in this nations country: "I've abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system, to make sure the economy doesn't collapse." Only a progressive or a total moron, or BOTH would utter such a statement. I credit this comment with being the single biggest factor in my transformation from a dyed in the wool republican to a libertarian leaning independent. I was at a seminar with a good friend, learning about the free market in a hotel conference room on the day Bush said that, the day was December 16, 2008. I remember that day as strongly as I do 9-11, as it was a major wake up for me. I stand corrected on Rick Santorum's position on TARP.

As for the 'majority' of businesses that supported TARP. That means very little to me. What matters to me is adhering to correct and sound principles, and bailouts are NEITHER! One cannot "abandon" the free market in order to "save" it. That is impossible and nonsensical to even consider. That is akin to saying, "I've abandoned freedom in order to save liberty." Pure insanity! Tyranny comes at the hands of the minority and the majority, but most often at the hands of the majority. That is why this nation was NOT set up as a democracy!!!!

dubob wrote:

Lastly, let’s take a look at Climate Change. Granted, you said Climate Change Mandates, but if one does or does not support Climate Change then it can be assumed that they will or will not support the mandates dictated by the alleged Climate Change. That said, Romney was clearly saying he is anti-climate change in my mind when he said “My view is that we don’t know what’s causing climate change on this planet. And the idea of spending trillions and trillions of dollars to try to reduce CO2 emissions is not the right course for us.”

Next, one of the issues Newt Gingrich is most vigorously defending on the campaign trail is his position on climate change, following the advertisement he filmed several years ago for Al Gore‘s nonprofit organization alongside Nancy Pelosi. Gingrich has said repeatedly over the course of this campaign that he considers the ad the biggest mistake of his political career, but his opponents are still using the video in their attack ads.

And finally, Santorum has made it quite clear he thinks global warming is "junk science" and "a beautifully concocted scheme" created by the left.

Finally, you missed the boat completely on Climate Change (and by default, mandates). None have ever been for it.

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/01/04/397760/mitt-romney-debates-mitt-romney-on-climate-change/?mobile=nc

http://grist.org/election-2012/2012-01-04-mitt-romney-climate-change-energy/

Which Romney do we believe/trust? Me, NEITHER!

http://motherjones.com/environment/2012/01/newt-dumps-leading-climate-scientist

So, ol' Newt was a supporter of climate change until it became politically inconvenient....kind of like Mitt....

Once again, I stand corrected in regards to Rick Santorum. He is the least progressive of the above mentioned three, except when it comes to social issues and war, and then he is the biggest proponent of government intrusion.

Have fun ice fishing this week, that is yet another thing we disagree on..... I will be enjoying time in the saddle, as well as on the tractor....so I will be doing what I enjoy.

I'll just leave this here:

"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If 'Thou shalt not covet' and 'Thou shalt not steal' were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free." --John Adams, 1787