6 ms·

It's true that today's population is complacent. Many should take another look at how flimsy the reasons were why Americans fought a war of independence.

ceilingcorner 6y ago
I’ve always thought that if the Revolution happened today, you’d have big media corporations like The NY Times writing hit pieces on George Washington everyday.
- Macha 6y ago
  You say this like it wasn't the case that media outlets wrote anti-revolution articles then: https://allthingsliberty.com/2014/03/james-rivington-kings-printer-patriot-spy/ https://allthingsliberty.com/2014/03/james-rivington-kings-p...
- dogma1138 6y ago
  The American Revolution used the social media of the time, what do you think the federalist papers were all about? A lot of the established press was against it and they did constantly published “hit pieces”. History is written by the victors if the American Revolution didn’t succeed the US would likely eventually gained independence but it would’ve been a commonwealth nation. The Revolution isn’t the reason why you have freedom today, Canada is free so is the UK. The world would look quite different than it is today but not as different as you might think.
  - ceilingcorner 6y ago
    Canada and the UK developed in the same post-American Revolution world as America itself did. The idea that the Commonwealth would have automatically become free is historical revisionism.
    - dogma1138 6y ago
      I didn’t said it automatically would be, but I would put my money on the west developing in a similar fashion as far as form of governments goes than not.
      - ceilingcorner 6y ago
        Considering that the West almost ended up being ruled by the Nazis, I’m not sure how this is remotely likely without the US existing as an independent powerhouse.
bko 6y ago
Sadly it's more than today's population. Take for instance Wickard v. Filburn (1942), a law was upheld that prevented farmers from growing food in order to prop up food prices. An Ohio farmer was forbidden to grow wheat to feed his own livestock, not even sell it. > An Ohio farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat to feed animals on his own farm. The US government had established limits on wheat production, based on the acreage owned by a farmer, to stabilize wheat prices and supplies. Filburn grew more than was permitted and so was ordered to pay a penalty. In response, he said that because his wheat was not sold, it could not be regulated as commerce, let alone "interstate" commerce (described in the Constitution as "Commerce... among the several states"). The Supreme Court disagreed: "Whether the subject of the regulation in question was 'production', 'consumption', or 'marketing' is, therefore, not material for purposes of deciding the question of federal power before us.... But even if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.' [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
- pas 6y ago
  If a new Constitution would be written would people want this in it or not? Is this consistent with self-determination or not?
  - MockObject 6y ago
    The commerce clause was intended to create a free trade zone between the states, which at that time were engaging in trade wars with each other. Then it was misinterpreted in Wickard to permit nearly limitless power to Congress. So yes, in a new Constitution we would want a commerce clause, and we would want it never to be interpreted in such a manner.
- MockObject 6y ago
  And as awful as that logic was, the absurdity was surpassed in Gonzales v. Raich [1], when the SC leveraged Wickard to conclude that the commerce clause also allows the federal government to ban activities that could affect prices in illegal markets, too. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
unityByFreedom 6y ago
Lol you're reaching. This is not the issue that divides us. Rather, we enjoy seeing winners and losers in the market.
- psychlops 6y ago
  No, I don't like seeing winners and losers in the market. I like to see winners, it's not a zero sum game. There are no divisions on this board, everyone is against the Power that is being exhibited right now. TD, Interactive Brokers and Robinhood have bent the knee to enrich the rich at the expense of many.
  - scruple 6y ago
    And all of it under the guise of "protecting the little guy."
    - unityByFreedom 6y ago
      Why do you think it's a guise to stop buys on a ridiculous valuation? You can still sell.
      - wizzwizz4 6y ago
        By that logic, nobody should be allowed to buy and sell Bitcoin, because there's no way a currency with such a low GDP can be worth that much.
      - cbozeman 6y ago
        I can't remember the movie. Can't even remember the actor, but... "What. the fuck. are you talking about?!" Tesla's price-to-earnings ratio is 1660. Why didn't TSLA buying get shut down? OH yeah, because a shitload of institutional investors have shares.
        unityByFreedom 6y ago
        B/c TSLA shenanigans all occurred under a completely corrupted admin whose agencies will need time to rebuild. Can't believe I need to write that. It's no secret a con man was at the helm.

ceilingcorner 6y ago

I’ve always thought that if the Revolution happened today, you’d have big media corporations like The NY Times writing hit pieces on George Washington everyday.

Macha 6y ago
You say this like it wasn't the case that media outlets wrote anti-revolution articles then: https://allthingsliberty.com/2014/03/james-rivington-kings-printer-patriot-spy/ https://allthingsliberty.com/2014/03/james-rivington-kings-p...
dogma1138 6y ago
The American Revolution used the social media of the time, what do you think the federalist papers were all about? A lot of the established press was against it and they did constantly published “hit pieces”. History is written by the victors if the American Revolution didn’t succeed the US would likely eventually gained independence but it would’ve been a commonwealth nation. The Revolution isn’t the reason why you have freedom today, Canada is free so is the UK. The world would look quite different than it is today but not as different as you might think.
- ceilingcorner 6y ago
  Canada and the UK developed in the same post-American Revolution world as America itself did. The idea that the Commonwealth would have automatically become free is historical revisionism.
  - dogma1138 6y ago
    I didn’t said it automatically would be, but I would put my money on the west developing in a similar fashion as far as form of governments goes than not.
    - ceilingcorner 6y ago
      Considering that the West almost ended up being ruled by the Nazis, I’m not sure how this is remotely likely without the US existing as an independent powerhouse.

bko 6y ago

Sadly it's more than today's population. Take for instance Wickard v. Filburn (1942), a law was upheld that prevented farmers from growing food in order to prop up food prices. An Ohio farmer was forbidden to grow wheat to feed his own livestock, not even sell it. > An Ohio farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat to feed animals on his own farm. The US government had established limits on wheat production, based on the acreage owned by a farmer, to stabilize wheat prices and supplies. Filburn grew more than was permitted and so was ordered to pay a penalty. In response, he said that because his wheat was not sold, it could not be regulated as commerce, let alone "interstate" commerce (described in the Constitution as "Commerce... among the several states"). The Supreme Court disagreed: "Whether the subject of the regulation in question was 'production', 'consumption', or 'marketing' is, therefore, not material for purposes of deciding the question of federal power before us.... But even if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.' [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

pas 6y ago
If a new Constitution would be written would people want this in it or not? Is this consistent with self-determination or not?
- MockObject 6y ago
  The commerce clause was intended to create a free trade zone between the states, which at that time were engaging in trade wars with each other. Then it was misinterpreted in Wickard to permit nearly limitless power to Congress. So yes, in a new Constitution we would want a commerce clause, and we would want it never to be interpreted in such a manner.
MockObject 6y ago
And as awful as that logic was, the absurdity was surpassed in Gonzales v. Raich [1], when the SC leveraged Wickard to conclude that the commerce clause also allows the federal government to ban activities that could affect prices in illegal markets, too. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

unityByFreedom 6y ago

Lol you're reaching. This is not the issue that divides us. Rather, we enjoy seeing winners and losers in the market.

psychlops 6y ago
No, I don't like seeing winners and losers in the market. I like to see winners, it's not a zero sum game. There are no divisions on this board, everyone is against the Power that is being exhibited right now. TD, Interactive Brokers and Robinhood have bent the knee to enrich the rich at the expense of many.
- scruple 6y ago
  And all of it under the guise of "protecting the little guy."
  - unityByFreedom 6y ago
    Why do you think it's a guise to stop buys on a ridiculous valuation? You can still sell.
    - wizzwizz4 6y ago
      By that logic, nobody should be allowed to buy and sell Bitcoin, because there's no way a currency with such a low GDP can be worth that much.
    - cbozeman 6y ago
      I can't remember the movie. Can't even remember the actor, but... "What. the fuck. are you talking about?!" Tesla's price-to-earnings ratio is 1660. Why didn't TSLA buying get shut down? OH yeah, because a shitload of institutional investors have shares.
      - unityByFreedom 6y ago
        B/c TSLA shenanigans all occurred under a completely corrupted admin whose agencies will need time to rebuild. Can't believe I need to write that. It's no secret a con man was at the helm.