^ Just realized that my entire post got cut off. I thought the whole thing was posted.

Well, I'm not going to re-write it, but will just end it here:

I don't have the time to explore this further in debate.

I do not disagree with anarchocapitalist theory. I do, however, reject anarchocommunist theory.

So, your anarchic ideas, for me, would depend on which side of the fence you are on, as to whether or not I would support (in theory).

But something I wrote that was cut off is that I think we are a LONG, LONG way away from getting there from where we are now.

For that reason, if no other, I think a better approach is to utilize the Constitution as our rock and foundation. We should insist on it being honored by those who take an oath to defend it.

I disagree that the Constitution is a social contract, since the common meaning of "social contract" is not what your definition is.

The Constitution is a trust, with the 13 States as trustors, the members of Congress, President, and Supreme Court Justices as trustees, and the People as beneficiaries -- who also elect and/or appoint the trustees, both directly and indirectly.

We, the beneficiaries, should enforce this trust agreement against the trustees who are abusing our fundamental rights by refusing to honor their oath.

One more thought: Although the federal Constitution is important, it is no more important than the State constitutions. Most of us should probably be utilizing that document (in whichever State we reside) as a starting place for getting things back on track.

Probably not 1 person in 10,000 has read their own State constitution. Therefore, they have no idea what their power really is.

^ Just realized that my entire post got cut off. I thought the whole thing was posted.

Well, I'm not going to re-write it, but will just end it here:

I don't have the time to explore this further in debate.

I do not disagree with anarchocapitalist theory. I do, however, reject anarchocommunist theory.

So, your anarchic ideas, for me, would depend on which side of the fence you are on, as to whether or not I would support (in theory).

But something I wrote that was cut off is that I think we are a LONG, LONG way away from getting there from where we are now.

For that reason, if no other, I think a better approach is to utilize the Constitution as our rock and foundation. We should insist on it being honored by those who take an oath to defend it.

I disagree that the Constitution is a social contract, since the common meaning of "social contract" is not what your definition is.

The Constitution is a trust, with the 13 States as trustors, the members of Congress, President, and Supreme Court Justices as trustees, and the People as beneficiaries -- who also elect and/or appoint the trustees, both directly and indirectly.

We, the beneficiaries, should enforce this trust agreement against the trustees who are abusing our fundamental rights by refusing to honor their oath.

One more thought: Although the federal Constitution is important, it is no more important than the State constitutions. Most of us should probably be utilizing that document (in whichever State we reside) as a starting place for getting things back on track.

^ Just realized that my entire post got cut off. I thought the whole thing was posted.

Well, I'm not going to re-write it, but will just end it here:

I don't have the time to explore this further in debate.

I do not disagree with anarchocapitalist theory. I do, however, reject anarchocommunist theory.

So, your anarchic ideas, for me, would depend on which side of the fence you are on, as to whether or not I would support (in theory).

But something I wrote that was cut off is that I think we are a LONG, LONG way away from getting there from where we are now.

For that reason, if no other, I think a better approach is to utilize the Constitution as our rock and foundation. We should insist on it being honored by those who take an oath to defend it.

I disagree that the Constitution is a social contract, since the common meaning of "social contract" is not what your definition is.

The Constitution is a trust, with the 13 States as trustors, the members of Congress, President, and Supreme Court Justices as trustees, and the People as beneficiaries -- who also elect and/or appoint the trustees, both directly and indirectly.

We, the beneficiaries, should enforce this trust agreement against the trustees who are abusing our fundamental rights by refusing to honor their oath.