DragonMaci

That is a pointless statement since it doesn't really say anything. You need to explain how it isn't.

So will that address replace the old one at some stage?

Cool idea. I wonder what the cost of a trip would be. More than a bus or train trip would be I'd imagine and maybe more than a taxi trip even, but probably worth it for the quicker travel. Those wanting to work in air traffic control will certainly love it.

Are you seriously suggesting that a government department requiring someone to fill in a form makes it law? Meaning that if, for example, the police requiring you to fill in a form it is the law that you have to do it? If so, that is just plain silly. The government (in other words the Senate and Congress/ Parliament/whatever) makes the laws not the departments.

Actually many such people have looked, including former IRS agents and they could not find the law. EDIT: Not to mention a court case where the jury said a man was innocent because the judge promised to show them the law requiring personal income taxes to be paid and the jury find it. They asked the judge for the law and he said they had all they needed. But the law was not in what they were shown.

It was 18 for me, mainly because I have not yet been able to afford carbon emitting things like a car or a decent sized house.

I wasn't rude or anything of the like, so you have nothing to complain about. I know they thought that. That is the mistake I am saying they made. Oh, of course. However, it could of prevented certain abuses or at least made them harder to bring about had they done so. Again you are trying to address a statement that does not exist. And again. You know when you try to argue against non-existent arguments all you achieve is making yourself look bad. For a reply to this see my second reply in this post. I agree with you 100% on that.

Not only that but any constitution could be replaced totally, or replaced with another, or altered anyway.

I disagree. At the least an Objectivist would be able to improve upon what the forefathers did by not including the crap about regulating interstate commerce and collecting taxes. No disagreement there. I am not sure if I have the inclination or - more importantly - time to do so, but where can I get that? I might decide to try make time to read it. Yes, that is impressive, but that doesn't wipe out the fact that crap like the interstate regulation and taxation stuff were included and that an Objectivist would not include such. I don't think that matters. It matters not how many people write the constitution. If one or 1,000 write it it doesn't matter' what matters is its contents. I am more interested in what their constitution did and didn't allow. That is all that matters to me. It doesn't even matter to me whether or not an Objectivist could of done better. All that matters to me is what a constitution does and does not allow. True, but I am not trying to do either of those. Yes, though it still leaves much to be desired (eg no interstate commerce regulation and no taxation). I think they would be very angry, especially if they heard comment's like Bush's statement, "The Constitution is just a God damn peice of paper." If so I think they'd be right. Sadly following government's didn't agree with them on that issue. But anyway, I am more concerned with what was allowed than what needed clarifying. I think allowing congress the power to tax and regulate interstate commerce caused more harm than the vague parts. That was a mistake. They should of worked on it until they were satisfied. Again, I am not sure if I have the inclination or - more importantly - time to do so, but where can I get them? I might decide to try make time to read them. Stopping when one still has doubt is a big mistake. That is a pretty big flaw.

Maybe, but that doesn't really matter. As I said, it isn't the government's job to provide welfare in any sense. You should try sticking to what I actually said, because that argument fails to do so. I never said it was altruistic. Not fully they didn't. If they had of fully understood the concept of rights they would never of granted congress the power to collect taxes and regulate interstate commerce. That was a big mistake. They should of defined what they meant so as to avoid having people not misinterpret them. It doesn't matter if it took 1 year or 1,000, what matters is that it happened and that it happened because they didn't explain what they meant so that it could not be misinterpreted. It also matters that by putting in the crap allowing congress to collect taxes and regulate interstate commerce. That crap allowed for a lot of the crap that exists today. No, they didn't or they would never of allowed congress the power to collect taxes and regulate interstate commerce. Of course. No one is saying otherwise. Yes, sadly that is true as a result of the way people mistreat language. Some of it, yes. Some of it, no. The parts allowing congress to collect taxes and regulate interstate commerce were not.

Yes, and I have even seen that same picture, but the problem isn't so much their size but rather the lack of pasture for them to live in. Besides, my goals involve the larger type of hors, not miniature horses. Besides. Radar is no longer the largest horse. A Shire horse in Queensland, Australia is now.

No. Besides I have no interest in them. It is these that interest me.

If, so then using the word "welfare" was extremely poor wording. Instead it should of blatantly said such. But it isn't government's job to promote general welfare; its job is simply to protect us from the initiation of force and fraud, and to punish those that initiate force or fraud. No one in this thread has suggested they intended it. Quite the reverse; me and D'Kian were saying that the welfare system of today went against their intent. However, we are saying that their wording of their intent was flawed in such a way that a lie about it being constitutional was possible. With proper wording such a lie couldn't happen. Of course they could of made an amendment could of been made to make it constitutional even if such wording didn't exist. They do, but were unnecessary since you didn't need to prove the point to us.

Interesting idea, but sadly I could never go to such a place. I want to have a horse ranch and it is not possible to do so on a seastead.

No, it is fair because I am referring things that required hindsight, but rather things that required the right sort of philosophy. I am talking about holes that exist because of words they didn't define properly or didn't define at all. I am also talking about things that an Objectivist would not include at all because they are either not relevant or a bad thing to be included. EDIT: D'Kians examples of interstate commerce and welfare are good examples of what I mean and are things that didn't require hindsight not to include, but rather require the right philosophy not to include them. Permitting congress to legislate for and collect taxes is another example.

If all goes to plan by the time I have any children old enough to do that I will have a horse farm. That will mean I will need to get up early, too early for that to happen for me on Father's Day. I will need to have breakfast before doing the farm work of course. Aw, jow sweet of him.

I know many want to move to the USA. In fact I am one of the people considering moving to the USA.

Indeed. And a lot of people would see how the people of America benefit from such awesomeness and so many would move the the USA that the rest of the world would have few people left. Okay, there wouldn't really be so many people moving to the USA, but it would be a hell of a lot. Many people would want to be so well off.

There were similarities between their philosophy and Objectivism, but it was no Objectivism. Objectivists would of written up a better Constitution, one without so many holes that lead to the crap modern USA politicians pass. Also, as themadkat said Objectivism had not been formed at the times.

I am glad I have never had to deal with that.

Those that couldn't afford it could get water tanks. Those are affordable to many now and would be affordable to many more in a free market due to lower business costs thanks to 0 taxes and no government regulations raising business costs.

Ah, ok, thanks. So it isn't like Atlas Shrygged, which took me several months to read?

If you want something funny, then Terry Pratchett's Discworld series is a good read if you haven't already read the Discworld books. Strictly speaking the series has no end in sight other than Practhett's eventual death, but each book is a stand alone novel, so the problem with The Wheel of Time does not exist for that series. However, the series has what you could call a few "sub-series" (The Watch, Death (the seven foot tall skeleton in black robes), Rincewind (a wizard that cannot use magic), the witches, and maybe one or two others that I cannot recall right now. However, the novels in each "sub-series" are all stand alones in that the stories can be read as a series or alone and each plot is self-contained. Discworld also has some one-off characters and stories. All in all it is a funny series that is fast approaching 30 books. There is a spin-off series with 3 books, The Science of Discworld, The Science of Discworld 2, and The Science of Discworld 3. The series looks at real world science and religions through the eyes of some of the Discworld characters (namely the senior wizards at the major wizard college of Discworld, Unseen University). The series is very much pro-science and anti-religion and talks about the necessity of reason in both science and everyday life, though they do make some mistakes in their attempts to apply it.

Actually, it isn't finished. Terry Goodkind has said that there may be more books because there are other stories he'd like to tell in that world. Goodkind has confirmed only that the Imperial Order story arc is finished. Not to mention the fact that Confessor leaves thing open for more book via Richard saying that their may one day be other evils to arise. What do you mean by "IT's popcorn?"

Here in NZ only organisations with approved status for donations from the IRD (Inland Revenue Department) can be used as a tax deduction, so sadly New Zealanders cannot claim such a donation as a deduction.