Comments on: The freedom to freely practice

By: Leslie

Leslie — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 17:30:31 +0000

Great post, great video! Thanks for sharing. :)

By: Matthew Warner

Matthew Warner — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:40:36 +0000

And in our US constitutional republic…it is not the congress that has created laws limiting its power. The constitution created the congress – not the other way around. The congress does not limit itself – although it could in theory. It is limited by the constitution. It has no legal authority to simply destroy these limitations on its own. And it certainly is not just as easy as with “Kings or any other system” when it does come to creating and destroying laws.

I’m curious as to your reasoning being a monarchy being ideal and also the easiest to reform?

By: Matthew Warner

Matthew Warner — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:23:49 +0000

Actually, in socialism the government doesn’t “own” everything – they just own and control the means of production and distribution.

And the definition of a true monarchy is where supreme (100%) power is held by a single person.

Douglas, you say:

“Regardless of type of government, there always has to be a a single body which has 100% governing power whether it is an individual or a group or a majority.”

That’s not true at all. Our current US government has a very limited “governing power.” It only has jurisdiction over certain aspects of our lives. The rest is left to the states/localities or to the individual.

By: Douglas Naaden

Douglas Naaden — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:40:26 +0000

This vid is a little foggy when it says that monarchy is 100% government. Yes, socialism and communism is because the government owns everything, but under a monarchy that is not the case. Regardless of type of government, there always has to be a a single body which has 100% governing power whether it is an individual or a group or a majority.
Congress can create laws which limit it’s own power, just as easily as they can destroy them. That is true of Kings and any other system.

This video says “the essence of freedom is the proper limitation of government.” (17:04) By this definition, where there is no government, there is no freedom. This definition of freedom has no meaning on an individual level, only on a societal level. Such a thing as “inner freedom” would have no meaning.

I like much of the message of this video, though.

In any case my choice of government is a [benevolent] monarchy. Monarchy is the best because it is the easiest to reform.

By: A Tired Democracy and Despotism

A Tired Democracy and Despotism — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:52:30 +0000

[...] Not only because we think that it can fix everything, despite the overwhelming historical evidence against that idea. But also because we have this very warped idea that it should fix [...]

By: The American Health Care Reformation and the irresponsible support for bad reform

Fri, 07 Aug 2009 16:30:26 +0000

[...] to give up, or at least forget, the basic principles of limited government that have secured our freedom to freely practice for so long – the freedom that allows real charity to exist in the first place. And they do [...]