the Usda wants the taxpayer to buy them GUNS

kind of vage wording. are you saying this is the 'goal' for government, or something only they can do??

again,this is pretty broad. Which institutions? It seems to me that leftists/liberals aren't too opposed to government corruption.

If you're talking about taking the power away from corporations, that's fine- But, it is my opinion, that when government has power over our lives, they take too much control. and, I don't believe there is a justification for having them.

This is not true. It's like you're saying "The government doesn't arrest people for non-violent crimes," Which, is obviously false.

Okay, there may not be a moral "compass," it's more like a moral "authority," that makes these choices for you. IE NO weed, alcohol OK- NO raw milk etc etc.

this is the biggest fallacy and lie, ever perpetuated through mankind, imo.

i disagree. I don't think the ends, justify the means. That is to say, you aren't asking people, to give you money for the rest of their lives, you're forcing them to do it.

why give up my idea of property?

This is not true. There is no consent to government services; We are forced to 'Consent,' being that we were born within their arbitrary lines on the map. This is different than actual consent. The US Federal Government relies totally on force, as their ability to steal from our paychecks, is force in itself.

It's impossible to opt out of government...

I don't think getting rid of the Federal Government, is anything of the sort.

Again, I don't think it's logical, to see what a forceful ad evil system the Government is, and assume they are a "necessary evil." So much so, that they are the "Nose" to our "face."

I disagree with that premise, and would compare them more to a cancer. War is the health of the State, so in America, the government and the military-industrial complex, has perpetuated this State of War, (by waging an endless war on 'terror,' which is now used to target/spy on political dissonance.)

Imo, there is no logical moral justification for the Government.They are part of the elite, and they push the will of the elite. So many people talk about "conspiracy theories," but, I think just a little bit of research, will show people that, many very big events throughout history, including: the fall of Communism, the Cold War, WWII and, even Marxism, was planned and accomplished through BIG money, from the very same elite, that control us today. Those who control our "Federal" reserve, and, those who paid Obama and Romney millions of dollars, just to take part in their little show...

It's funny too, cause it's not really a Conspiracy today. Today, there is a clear paper trail, to all of this.

Let me get this straight. You think me fighting Government is somehow going to help them? How's that?

IE What if they make it illegal to own guns, and they want everyone to turn them in, and I say "No way" in what way, would that help them more than me??

Imo, you're asking me to condone something I find reprehensible. or, that I have to deal with it, cause "that's how it is," however, I disagree with both.

very interesting you should bring this up at the very end. I assume you're mentioning this, due to the very few people, that get fed by government.

The problem I have with this argument, is that the Government can't give you anything, because they don't own anything. In order for the Government to give foodstamps to someone, they have to steal that money, from hard-working citizens first.


That is to say Government, all the Corporations who control the government and, the very poor class, are all living off of the working/middle class, and it's unsustainable, and the precise reason the middle class is going broke.

Wealth Redistribution is the reason why these elites that are tightly connected with government, know how to get rich. They are masters of deception, who know how to get people fired up for war, or, other governmental actions, but these are not true choices of the Citizens, they are perpetuated by the media, until they burn this fear into us, because fear and confusion is the easiest way to control the populace.

Now, that they are looking for "terrorists" guess who their targets are? People like me, who sees the Government as the Crime Monopoly it truly is.

finally, I just don't think government makes sense logically, nor do I believe that government force is any way to peace. Because, they have come to a point in this Country, where they literally believe they have the moral authority to tell you when and where, you could dance or, exercise your Freedom of Speech, which to me, is way too far for a simple reform.

Liberals say corruption in government is not wide-spread, but again, I believe the idea that an oligarch is above the laws they set forth for everyone else, is unamerican, and not only that, but it also shows a serious decline in our morals and Rule of Law, which will only lead to impulse-decisions, pushed by politicians, who are directly benefitting from bankers, who have acted like they own the world throughout history: Starting Revolutions, pushing wars and, playing all sides.

It is those bankers who seek world domination. as I said, if you research this stuff, you will realize that it's in plain sight, although they've been trying to hide it for a long time.

I believe they are making a major push to bring us into a Global Oligarch (which already exists,) take away our Freedom and, make us like Europe, where the industrialists have profited greatly the past 200 years, through government force. England was the first one who would steal resources like Opium from one land, and push that opium unto another land, to get them addicted, and make large amounts of profits. This, with centralized private banks, formed the base of the Military-industrial Complex, which has directly controlled american policy since the 60's, and created many panics and conflicts before that in the US as well.

 

No I'm saying as I said in the beginning that the governments behavior is systemic not immoral. Things in motion tend or want to stay in motion.

Every human institution is a broad but not indistinct determination. Organic systems and that is to say also abstract systems administered by humans exhibit the prime directed behaviors of protect and extend. Which is why it seems reasonable to give personal rights to corporations.

How can government have too much control when their only control comes from agreement?

Huh?

What is "this".

Because social administration is required for record keeping. A patent office for example.

You want protection for your property.

Not if you give up your idea of property. Pay your taxes. Money is not property although you may buy property but that is laden with a bill of sale as well.

Organic systems are identified in terms of body. Everybody has a name, the department of justice for example, and every body must eat. In terms of the body of the department of justice it eats claims on justice. Every time you sue somebody or file a charge against someone you feed the department of justice what it eats. You have contracted for the existence of government.

 

frankly, i disagree. i think at it's core, government is a system of force. It is a leech, that is only able to survive, by sucking the citizens dry. to me, it is immoral at it's core.

the problem is, that, whenever you give power to one group of individuals, they always abuse that power.

How is it based on agreement? You totally cut out how I said, there is no agreement, we are FORCED to comply with government.

I said, that's like saying the government doesn't arrest people for non violent crimes. Because, they kick in doors, shoot dogs and people, all over non violent crimes, which to me is another huge immoral part of our government.

"This" is the lie that we "need" government. the same one you're pushing...

If it is something the people need, then, private companies will take over, if it's a system based on pointing guns at each other, and forcing compliance, it's immediately immoral imo.

Sure. as everyone should. however, 'property' includes the money i earn, weapons I may have and, my physical being. The government has no moral authority to take my money, decide what's ok for me to ingest or, spy on my emails. This is above and beyond, so much so, that it is actually putting us citizens at risk, way more than it's helping us.

in fact, I once was a Liberal, till I realized the Epa,Cia, Fbi and, other government organizations work for the very same corporate interests.

how is money not property? property is something that you've earned that belongs to you. i would argue that money was once based on gold, and had true value behind it.

Let me ask you a question-

do i own myself? do I own the fruits of my labor?

these are important questions in this debate...

i disagree, but, I have never sued anyone anyway. but again, you're jumping to the Liberal logic, that without government, no one could take care of these issues, and I simply don't believe that.

yes, I think people who cause force or harm on anyone else, should go to jail. But no, I don't think we need an institution with god-like powers to kill and maim. Plus, I think our government is a racket, made entirely for profit..

What I mean to say, is I believe we can have a peaceful society, without forcing others to comply..

 

Let me remind you what you said;

What looks like an abuse of power is a systemic certainty.

You totally forgot what you said earlier or you purposefully contradict yourself.

Why do they do those things?

You are mistaken that I am pushing government. I am commenting on phenomena.

So using guns to enforce your edict to stay off my land is immediately immoral.

What moral authority do you have to protect property?

You should realize you work for your own corporal interest.

Told you. Money is money and you can buy property with it or you can spend it on hookers. Money is a system of abstract evaluation. You can have a dollar and it not be worth ten cents.

Property is something you contend for while you can. Nothing stays where you put it unless you attend to it.

Go ahead.

No, you have being and even that is in contention.

Forcing others to comply implies we are not at peace.

 

i never argued to the contrary, I said the same thing, that force is inevitable, when you give the power to an oligarch.

I didn't contradict myself, I always have said, that you don't sign a contract with government. I never did, and, I don't approve of them putting arbitrary "laws" over me, that they themselves do not follow...

social control and money, i believe. they ban drugs, because the drug cartels and big pharm companies want them illegal. But, cops cant even get an address straight, and have killed regular citizens and little kids, "accidentally" many times...

you're not?

No, because that is not the intiation of force. If someone is on my property, or going to damage my property, I have the Right to defend myself, because they're initiating force, not me.

it's my property, i own it. The government has no authority to take it from me, unless you're making the argument that someone else owns my body, which I disagree with entirely.

why are you using army terms? That's also pretty interesting..

I may work for my interest, but, my interest is not paying into a huge pot, that's distributed to Israel, africa and, Jihadists. My interest is nothing like that of government.

Money merely replaces gold, in the idea of trade. It was made to be based on gold. Just because banks made it virtually worth nothing, doesn't mean it's not property. I bust my ass for the little bit I make, and for you to contend that I don't own that, is pretty offensive.

my being is myself,and I disagree, I'm not owned by anyone except myself. The government can try to mediate my behavior through arbitrary laws, but as long as I reject and resist the tyranny of government, I am not being controlled by the elite which imprison (most) of us into isolated bubbles.

Well, that's exactly my point; Government only has power through the use of force, and "justifications" that do not truly outweigh the damages the system of government has caused the US, and the world.

 

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. If you believe you have the power or are in the right, you as an individual are subject to corruption. You are projecting.

You count on institutionalized protections to be on your side.

Kind of a garbled response. They do it because right or might is on their side.

No I am suggesting don't feed it.

Defend yourself how, and how is someone being on your property a violation to you?

corporal
adjective
1.
of the human body; bodily; physical: corporal suffering.
2.
Zoology . of the body proper, as distinguished from the head and limbs.
3.
personal: corporal possession.
4.
Obsolete , corporeal; belonging to the material world.

Extends to incorporation

It is in your interest to pay taxes if they have the power to coerce you.

May as well kill me now. Must someone be responsible for your outrage? I think you are just being outrageous.

Your time here is borrowed from eternity, you can't take it with you. As far as value in life, having and being are the same.

 

By that logic you can say I just don't like the design of the human brain, because it tends to cluster people socially into one ideological camp VS another limiting the progress the species can have collectively.


Therefore this is as far as humanity can go.

 

I also want to play devils advocate here....with the idea of property and why it ties into the problems we see in corporations.


Let's say I a hypothetically founded the next big conglomerate. I worked my ass off for my business degree and went through the stress of an internship and many little jobs until I rose to the top as I did the entrepreneurial thing my business took off and now I make 17 trillion dollars in net profit.


STP, at what point are you to say I can't use MY hard earned money to influence the political system?

At what point given the concept of property and thus influence using the free market system to eventually gain the system because I bought all the land to the point where the rest of my species has to compete and backstab each other for whatever little land and food I don't buy.

If you make a stink and try to take my land that I bought because I was inherently smarter, or more socially connected, and rich, and you only step on my property I can now say you stepping on my land and being mad I've not left enough basic resources for you and your loved ones is enough of a threat to me and my hard earned $, that I can say under this constitution that you are infringing on MY rights.

At that point we stalemate each other, under the constitution of the USA, and I probably own a private machine army to shoot you using the 2nd amendment just because you stepped on my land.


What if I owned a strip of land north to south and private airspace that made it impossible for you to cross without stepping on MY PROPERTY?!

It's MINE I can do what I want whenever I want because I bought it.

----


Using the Constitution alone as it was written during George Washington's day, but with our modern technology....how do you solve such a dilemma for the little small town joe who is busting his ass at work trying to feed his family.

Trick question : there is nothing in the constitution other than eminent domain, to even the scales of how a rich man can use his property buying power to help the little guy.


^ unequivocal fact that isn't up for debate.

 

Might I also add that the Constitution is also nothing but an arbitrary piece of paper that you are born under against your will STP.

It's legal rights it grants you CAN be taken away.

God does not prevent genocide, rape, murder, crime, drug abuse, certainly it is an offense to do these things to another person, but reality says there exist people who don't agree and actually carry these things out.

The concept of slavery is one man has adopted and embraced almost worldwide and through the majority of our existence.

God not intervening like a superman to stop such violations of our "natural rights" is a God or higher power that does not care and is logically evil.

Which is a concept the philosopher Nietzsche and Thomas Hobbes embraced.

 

Natural animalistic law dictates I take what I want because I'm powerful enough too.

Civil laws like the Constitution or any other government body curbs or attempts to control that natural animalistic law. Getting rid of government does nothing to solve the corruption that you keep highlighting is governments fault.

Corruption and the nature of man which is the urge to take what you want because you can is built into the design of humans and how the human brain works.

Because the more you have the more likely is you spread your genetic material into offspring that survive because they are as cutthroat and a survivalist that you were as their parent. That also extends into critical thinking too, albeit not moral.

And one wonders why intelligence and sociopathy are commonly correlated.

 

I will say this any flaws in our social dialogue today that's as country stem from the incompleteness when the founding fathers of United States wrote The Constitution.

It failed to predict that free markets get too big to fail and therefore stifle small businesses wanting to enter an industry already dominated by a few corporate giants.

And they failed to address limits on the concept of Property, not because they knew slavery was wrong but because they played devils advocate and decided he lesser of two evils was to embrace slavery because without it the young Uncle Sam, would perish and be retaken by the Monarchy of Great Britain or by another power like Spain.

The picked the lesser of two evils just like we do everytime we go to the polls to vote if you vote.


So never think this world or it's people are this innocent thing.


You were born in a corrupt world and even if you were born innocent the moment you were born, you were corrupted.

Only the aborted remain pure because they demand nothing off this place we call Earth, and country.

This is what I think scripture meant about being born in sin.

---


And with that dark and morbid post for this discussion I'm off.

Any further comment by me here in this thread is redundant.

 

The innocent accept the gift of life that is offered. Go and sin no more.

 

I don't think any businesses, playing by the rules, have profitted quite that much.

just think 1 trillion is one zero more than 100 billion. So, to make that much money, you'd have to have some sort of "in" with the government or banks, or event something as historically significant as the internet.

however, for the sake of argument, i will play along...

if you're doing it to change/influence their policy, it's actually a bribe, so in that aspect, it's illegal. although, as a Libertarian, I am not trying to get money out of politics (that is a Liberal thing.) I'm actually happy, we can at least see today, which companies are controlling our politicians.

But, it is a legalized system of bribery, and without a centralized authority, we wouldn't have to worry about this at all.

you're making a mistake Leftists commonly make. I mean no offense, you're just not counting on any competition, which is only possible, if you have governments help...

In the freemarket, without government's help; It doesn't matter how big you are, there is always competition.

"I don't care about that little grocery store,"-CEO of Kmart, talking about walmart when they were first forming.


However, in the croney 'freemarket' we have today, government benefits have been used to manipulate the market, which has led to these people abolishing any of their competition. It has actually been said by the same banks that run our 'Federal' Reserve "Competition is a sin," because, it makes prices go down and, levels the playing field.

What we see today is not a result of true free market principles, it is a result of allowing banks to print money at will, and loan out 10X more money than they actually have. ("fractional reserve Banking.) This is a fraud, which goes unpunished due to government being in their pocket. it has nothing to do with the amount of regulations, I think these industries write their own regulations, to make it harder for small businesses, who don't get government benefits.

I don't really get where you're going with all of this,but, I'll answer as well as I can; I don't think this justifies an excuse, for an institutionalized gang of thugs taking your property, and, "giving it" to me, if that's what you're suggesting.

I don't know that it is possible to own that much property. I mean, the biggest land owner in the US is Ted Turner, and he's a Liberal, who believes in the redistribution of wealth. Moreover, if you really look into it, Communism was brought up and sponsored by the Rothechilds and, other very wealthy bankers. They were even playing both sides in the Cold War, and nearly every other war of the past 200 years.

But, they knew Communism would fail, because it puts all the money in the hands of government, and their immediate circle, and no one else. Capitalism is actually much fairer than communism. In communism, you pay 90% of your paycheck to government, and only get whatever services they're willing to give you...

I never said people should shoot anyone who steps on their property. But, if you're breaking into my home, and putting me or, my family at risk- yes, I should be able to protect my own property.

However, I do think you're dragging it to an utter extreme; the only way to get that rich, is to manipulate the stock market through government. So without government power, corporations wouldn't be able to do anything.

Yes, there are corporations that rich and powerful now, but, 99% of people that rich, didn't earn it legally and fairly. Which means, ideally, all that stolen tax money, or as much as possible, be returned to the taxpayer.

Therefore, I think you're using possible corruption, to justify the state of total corruption we're in today. and, I'm sorry, but I don't believe it's possible to have that much money/power without governments help.

You're missing my argument. The 2nd amendment is the right to a militia, for the "security of a free state." This means, to ensure that Government is not above our Rights. Moreover, originally, this militia was government. They fought for what they viewed as "Freedom;" I, have many moral objections to what they viewed freedom as, but mainly, the fact that they instituted a New Government to "get rid" of the corruption of the old one, yet, six years after the Constitution was drafted, it became a crime to criticize the president. I think this shows that governments are based on force, and can't protect our Human Rights, because they inherently desire more and more power and control.

I believe if we must have an oligarch of power, they shouldn't violate our Human Rights. However, I don't think we truly need an oligarch of power, and I feel like arguments to the contrary, typically argues for the State, by citing something they see as morally justified, without including the terrible things the State does, along with that explanation.

In other words, government defending the constitution was my argument like 2 years ago, and probably the common Libertarian argument. Yes,
I would like for the government to do that, but really what I'd like, is for people to realize, we don't need government at all.

again, I feel like you are using a very extreme case, to act as though society needs government.

Honestly, to be that rich, you need to know how to make money. If you can buy a strip of land that big and expensive, you're probably wanting to profit from it; Which means, you build roads, charge a small 80 cents per person, and profit from a service that helps people.

However, i'll go along. If someone had trillions of dollars to blow without government help, and used it to buy property, to keep people out of; Planes would still be able to go to the south, as would ferries and boats. Therefore, it wouldn't bar people from the south, it would merely change their travel plans.

However, I also believe it takes a concious consumer, who does not financially support morally objective business practices.

Well,this is true. There is no force or, coersion, in private purchases; whoever you bought all that land from, agreed to trade you their land, for your money. That is all non-violent interaction, and doesn't deserve a punishment- Just as the rich don't deserve to be punished for manufactoring and distributing products, that people willfully buy.

But, the Liberal suggestion, is that for some reason, we need a mediator to point guns at people, and forcibly steal this property, against your consent- and again, I don't think there is any realistic justification for this force. 99.9% of people, just want to live life, and don't want to hurt anyone, therefore, to have this oligarch control our money supply and lives, in the name of "keeping us safe" while, killing us by 'accident' and, over non-violent crimes, makes virtually no sense, and, is something as primitive
as the dawn of society itself.

----

"The Constitution as it was written in George Washingtons day," is not what i'm suggesting, so the question is redundant.

You're basically talking to yourself, as i am not justifying the institution of government, at all. it is you doing that. You Liberals are the one's saying we need the Institution of Force. I believe it is just that, and we don't need it. but, since it has been force upon us, they should at least follow their own Rule of Law.

The fact that they can't do that, to me, is a manifestation of what government is at it's core. It is a false god, that has received it's power through deception. "The majority" gives government the authority to kill, steal, rape and maim, (many times, it's own citizens) in the name of "keeping peace."

I believe america should be a free country, but any concentration of power, that takes from an individuals ability to live free, is acting to the contrary of that freedom. In other words, the dumbest thing our founders did, was create an institution with power above the rest. It is my opinion, that without government, all these things we know to be immoral today, would've died a natural death, due to mankind expanding and learning. Endless war only profits the bankers and industrialists, that's why we spend 48% of the total world military spending.

I believe those of you who still believe we need government, should look into the fact that they've killed 260 million people in this last century. They burn the fear of "terrorism" into us, to steal our money, but Liberals don't think they're doing the exact same thing with regards to Humanitarian Spending, nor, do they think there is anything wrong with militarized police, kicking in doors over non-violent crimes.

Government is not justified imo, at all.

 

being correct doesn't give you power. yes, it may feed the movement of people who are sick of the current system.

no I don't. i'm not a supporter of any government system. Liberals typically try to push that misconception of me across, however, although I believe we should be able to keep our own property, I don't think it's a good enough reason to institute another government. I think people should be free, as long as they don't hurt others. Which is why I believe, individuals own their body, and are responsible for their own choices and consequences of their decisions.

I think I erased some of it. Right, is definitely not on their side, as they are using extreme force, to combat peoples personal decisions, and it's total BS. the government is not supposed to be our mother, and, when you really look into it- our safety isn't their goal. Their goal is to spread into every aspect of our lives, till we have a system that is a merge of capitalism and communism, and, this system would mean maxium profits for the military industrial complex.

Don't feed it, how? It's impossible to not pay taxes, as I said, you can't opt out.

there are many different ways of self defense. It depends on how you're being attacked. But, if you, or your families life is at risk, I believe you should be able to use whatever means you can, to defend yourself. Including a gun.

My dictionary said 1: a low-ranking military officer.

That's a joke. I think it is in my best interest to get out of this stranglehold placed on society, and convince the rest of society, that you can breathe better, without the government strangling everyone.

It is in my best interest that my kid can grow up, without getting shot by a militarized police force, who are taught that 'everyone's the enemy.'

Outrage? I said it's 'pretty offensive,' that you're sitting here telling me, that I don't own myself, my time or, my work ethic. That is pretty offensive, because you're insinuating that society or the government owns this, which is basically like saying I'm a slave to these institutions.

at least you're being honest about what government actually means, it's just discouraging to hear you take that position, as a justification for government, when, I think it highlights the illogical part of having a monopoly on force to begin with.

This is not really a political argument. Government is not "eternity," and nothing is "borrowed" from them, in fact, they don't really own anything, cause everything was stolen from us..

 

Natural animalistic law dictates I take what I want because I'm powerful enough too.




Civil laws like the Constitution or any other government body curbs or attempts to control that natural animalistic law. Getting rid of government does nothing to solve the corruption that you keep highlighting is governments fault.




Corruption and the nature of man which is the urge to take what you want because you can is built into the design of humans and how the human brain works.




Because the more you have the more likely is you spread your genetic material into offspring that survive because they are as cutthroat and a survivalist that you were as their parent. That also extends into critical thinking too, albeit not moral.




And one wonders why intelligence and sociopathy are commonly correlated.



^ I reiterate my last two posts.



And we don't disagree on the overt level of leveraging that's going on STP, and I think I've communicated in the past that campaign finance reform needs limits.


And that an amendment needs to occur for the first Amendment to place equal limits on what individuals can donate for a campaign that is reasonable to what a middle class family can contribute.


Unfortunately bribery is NOT a concept the founding fathers listed as a crime in this country.

Instead how one spends their money as it stands today, is a form of free speech.

Without campaign finance reform the ones in power in government and in the private sector win.


And he's the idiotic thing about those at the top, they might be rich and therefore powerful, but gold is a metal money is just paper, they are a means to an end to help make life more enjoyable for the entirety of humanity.

There isn't a single thing a rich person gains by adopting a policy to reduce the population and destroy infrastructure of a country.

 

Point is you fight for your rights. You feel empowered by your own sense of justice.

Do you own property?

How?

What makes property meaningful in modern society are the protections of government. Otherwise you face the specter of someone bigger or with more resources just coming and taking your stuff. I am not suggesting instituting another government.

What are you going to do about people hurting others?

You are under no compulsions if you give up your ideas of property.
Don't work. Don't drive. Don't bank. Don't file for unemployment. Don't file for food assistance. Don't file for health coverage. Be self sufficient in all things.

I asked specifically what threat someone trespassing on your property posed?

Just showing there are other uses of the word and in context to what I said it is obvious I am not talking about military rank.

You think it is better to have an ideal world but the joke is on you.

If you find offense from the insinuation that society or government owns this or you are a slave to these institutions then I am not the offender because that is not what I insinuate. I am talking from an energetic standpoint.

I am not justifying government. The reason such things as property rights exist is because of government.

No it is not a political argument but a practical one. They don't own anything either.

 

You might need to say: one of the largest
1. John Malone, 2.2 million acres
2. Ted Turner, 2 million acres
3. The Emmerson family, 1.86 million acres
4. Brad Kelley , 1.5 million acres
5. The Irving Family 1.25 million acres
6. The Singleton Family, 1.1 million acres
7. The heirs of King Ranch, 911,000 acres
8. Stan Kroenke, 848,571 acres
9. The heirs of Pingree lumber and wood-products company, 830,000 acres
10. The Reed family, 730,000 acres

(= to approx 2% of total)

 

As members of each others' community, the time is ripe for paying for self-defence, But city folks cannot judge the times and the wherefores of that upcoming issue. That's more practical in a sustainedly developing community. My cities practicality is to pay less taxes.

 

Also contrary to what you might believe STP, bribery IS LEGAL.

Even the beloved libertarian of these forums, has been guilty of using the same legal loophole that makes the bribery possible.

A recent "60 Minutes" just explained how it was all done and politicians both Democratic and Republican are all guilty of it, and the outrage is that it IS LEGAL.

Immoral? Yes. Illegal? No. There's nothing on the Constitution about outlawing bribery in regards to how it's being done now because Congress gave consent to itself per view of:

Article I, section 9, clause 8

No title of Nobility shall be granted in the United States:
And no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall,
without the consent of congress, accept any present, Emolument, Office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.


Politicians have family members who run or manage their campaigns every election cycle, and they get paid for that.


The son, daughter, spouse, cousin, close family friend, isn't the politician so the Constitution doesn't restrict the funds THEY receive, and that's what makes it legal.

By proxy, bribery is legal, and it is very hard to see without campaign finance reform, how this problem get solved.


There are bills in the House of Representatives, that does address and close some of these loopholes, but the Speaker of the House makes sure that those bills never see the light of day, and so the Bills that address this issue dies.


I will respect any politician that will make a classic filibuster with another honorable politician to force such a Bill to become law, but the fact is that it takes more than the Senate to make this become law.

And unfortunately any "libertarian" politican, decides not to raise this issue, but instead use soundbytes like "lower taxes, and abolish the IRS" as if the IRS was the driving force behind all the corruption.




The corruption stems from our inability to close and manage the campaign finance corruption from the revolving door between politicians and lobbyists.




It's so bad, the only way to break the cycle of private sector influence on the politicians is to seize not the common man's property, but the corporation's wealth on a specific legal framework addressing the issue of wealth hording.

 

Well, truly liberal people are feeling satisfied in a property collective of decision. Islam, instead being conservative, lives under the privilege of individualism.