Hypothetical: voting and taxes

[brimic]

I happen to think the Constitution is one of the most clever and nefarious instruments to empower the biggest government ever created on Earth. The Articles of Confederation were far superior in keeping a national government at bay.  But I am certain over time even that would have been suborned by government supremacists.

  See:  https://libertopiafestival.wordpress.com/2012/09/17/the-constitution-the-god-that-failed-to-liberate-us-from-big-government-by-bill-buppert-3/

  I will be preemptive with what I know is the inevitable riposte.  I think that Right and Left fails to yield any descriptive value as we see with the increase in the size of government under allegedly right wing prescriptions such as fascist states.  One can argue that Mussolini & Hitler were Right or Left.  A far more explicit descriptor is individualism and collectivism.  Either you think the former is more important than the concerns of the many or you agree with most governments today that the collective will always trump the individual.  In this you have the recipe for unlimited government no matter how you establish it.

  Finally, I would suggest that the Constitution was built from the ground up to put a gun in the hands of the national state and resist any encumbrances that limit its size and scope.

I would argue that the US Constitution, if followed to the letter, would lead to a weak federal government with most of the power to the individual states.
This was more or less the original intent, but the Marshall Court pretty much snuffed the idea out in its infancy. 200 years later, we are still acting on very specious if not outright perverted jurisprudence that has changed out form of government into the exact opposite of what it should have been.

[lysander6]

Folks have tried to kill me for my religious views. That is why I own firearms, and promote the legality and use of firearms. Without weapons, I would not be having this discussion with you. I would have been essentially lynched. Others decided they had some right to severely injure me, or even end my life. They obviously had their own philosophy, and subjective view of morality.

Who has tried to kill you for your religious views?  That is interesting.  I certainly want you to be able to defend yourself and your right to that predates the Second Amendment and is a natural right in my mind.

BTW, ALL morality is subjective because morality and virtue are actionable only at the individual level since mobs, groups and governments are hive-minds that cannot logically or epistemologically possess characteristics only an individual can.  The government can no more care for a human being than an octopus can do algebra.  This is also why from a religious standpoint, there are literally thousands of distinct Protestant denominations planet-wide.

[Jamisjockey]

Problem is that folks that do believe in the God Almighty tend not to agree on all the particulars of God's will. What if they believe owning firearms is only an inalienable right of the Faithful? Or that (insert other group) are heretical swine with no inalienable right to exist. Or that on the basis of some genetic condition, some folks have no inalienable right to reproduce?

All of these things have happened in this country. Some of them, quite recently. Like, "within our lifetime".  Sterilization of undesirables was occurring into the 1970s.

Religion is not the sole criteria of being able to make good decisions. Some ethical/moral framework is necessary for any society to exist. Religion origins or influence is common, but not inherently a sign that is a GOOD framework. See the Aztecs. I don't believe Aztec sacrificing unconsenting slaves is a good moral or ethical framework. Or are you trying to say that you believe only your particular religion can/does provide a valid moral and ethical framework? If so, why does Shinto Japan seem to exist just fine? Or Hindu India? Buddhist Bhutan?

X a billion.


Prohibition was passed by constitutional amendment.  (And promptly gave rise to organized crime in this country I might add)
The rights of some deprived from them by the so-called majority. 
The moral majority depriving others of freedom and rights. 
And if you think government prescribing what I do or do not injest into my body is okay, then you too are part of the problem. 

The true problem with our government is it leaves too much to a majority of legislators to rule upon. 

[lysander6]

I would argue that the US Constitution, if followed to the letter, would lead to a weak federal government with most of the power to the individual states.
This was more or less the original intent, but the Marshall Court pretty much snuffed the idea out in its infancy. 200 years later, we are still acting on very specious if not outright perverted jurisprudence that has changed out form of government into the exact opposite of what it should have been.

Please show me where it is not followed to the letter.  The Federalists intended for the judiciary to appoint itself as arbiter so the document could become a self-licking ice cream cone.  I think it was Tom Woods who discovered no major Federal intrusion into the private and economic lives of the citizenry has been over turned since 1935.  We can't simply blame the Supremes though because both the Executive and the Legislative branch have consistently diminished the citizen to expand the power of central government.  Look at Wickard v. Filburn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn) and its latest expansion in Robert's USSC opinion on the health "tax" (and read Thomas' dissent).

Exact opposite?  How?  I don't want to expand on the point here because I wrote an essay on why the Constitution is an engine for big government elsewhere and the effective propaganda of parchment worship has robbed many observers of their critical facilities.  Here is the link again:  https://libertopiafestival.wordpress.com/2012/09/17/the-constitution-the-god-that-failed-to-liberate-us-from-big-government-by-bill-buppert-3/

I also recommend Kenneth Royce's book, Hologram of Liberty: The Constitution's Shocking Alliance With Big Government. See:   http://www.amazon.com/Hologram-Liberty-Constitutions-Shocking-Government/dp/1888766034/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1348247385&sr=8-1&keywords=hologram+liberty

Look, I know it is a hard red pill to swallow and I was a parchment worshiper most of my adult life until I started asking hard questions and drilling Socratically.  The bottom line is the Anti-Federalists lost and Hamiltonian Federalists won.  We lost our rights the day it was ratified (even though in the only popular vote in the process in Rhode Island, the Constitution lost 16:1!).  The thinking public saw that the Founding Lawyers were merely replicating the ossified and centralized system they had fought eight hard years to overthrow.

[Ron]

X a billion.


Prohibition was passed by constitutional amendment.  (And promptly gave rise to organized crime in this country I might add)
The rights of some deprived from them by the so-called majority. 
The moral majority depriving others of freedom and rights. 
And if you think government prescribing what I do or do not injest into my body is okay, then you too are part of the problem. 

The true problem with our government is it leaves too much to a majority of legislators to rule upon. 

and JJ destroys the strawman in a decisive victory over nobody!

Nobody in this discussion has advocated government regulation of anything.

[Jamisjockey]

oops, missed this post somehow.

I would contend that the decentralization of Christianity that occurred in the new world by Christians, who like you wanted government to leave them alone provided the necessary moral and ethical balance to those who created our founding documents.   

Considering the USA is the culmination of many streams of religious and political thought of the western world. I also would contend that the deity you are asking about is that God revealed through Jesus Christ.

Therein lies the rub: you're asking me to give my sovereignty to people who's religious beliefs are not my own.  And just trust them.

[MechAg94]

Therein lies the rub: you're asking me to give my sovereignty to people who's religious beliefs are not my own.  And just trust them.

I must have missed it.  Who is advocating a theocracy? 

[brimic]

The Federalists intended for the judiciary to appoint itself as arbiter so the document could become a self-licking ice cream cone.  I think it was Tom Woods who discovered no major Federal intrusion into the private and economic lives of the citizenry has been over turned since 1935.  We can't simply blame the Supremes though because both the Executive and the Legislative branch have consistently diminished the citizen to expand the power of central government.

I don't necessarily disagree with you. Robert's stance on Obamacare was a square kick in the nuts and a real wake up call. SCOTUS, in theory, should guard our rights and and should guard against power grabs by the other tow branches of federal Government, but historically almost always sided with more Federal power. Historically, SCOTUS and the entire judicial system has been 'helped along' to make the 'right' decisions for bigger government from the very beginning. Stacking the courts has been the strategy used since Marbury v. Madison.

[lysander6]

Stacking the courts has been the strategy used since Marbury v. Madison.

It was not merely stacking but the creation of a rubber stamp by the final arbiter.

Roberts' decision did not surprise me because I frankly could not see the Federal government giving in on Obamacare, it is one of the biggest power grabs since FDR started nationalizing everything back in the 1930s.  Another brick in the wall.

[Jamisjockey]

It was not merely stacking but the creation of a rubber stamp by the final arbiter.

Roberts' decision did not surprise me because I frankly could not see the Federal government giving in on Obamacare, it is one of the biggest power grabs since RedDR started nationalizing everything back in the 1930s.  Another brick in the wall.

I can only assume "reddr" means FDR?
Please see the forum rules on nicknames and then come back and edit your post.

[brimic]

It was not merely stacking but the creation of a rubber stamp by the final arbiter.

Roberts' decision did not surprise me because I frankly could not see the Federal government giving in on Obamacare, it is one of the biggest power grabs since RedDR started nationalizing everything back in the 1930s.  Another brick in the wall.

So is it a Constitutional flaw that has brought us so far down the rabbit hole or is it a long line of activist justices who have pulled decisions out of thin air?

Either way, I don't think it matters, there's no going back without some really painful adjustments.
If the reset button gets pushed, I hope I'm still young.

[roo_ster]

Due to GWB I've come full circle to where I started politically. Hopefully I'm done voting for the lessor evil.

Are you revoking evil's lease?

Because we are humans. Because it's better than the alternative. From our sentience.

More importantly and in short, I have rights because I'm willing to defend them. The philosophical stuff is nice, and I like it. But at the end of the day, folks are (thus far) not willing to pay the price to take them from me.

That is the true answer at the end of the day. Because it works, we like it, and we're willing to kill to keep it.

"Might makes rights" sounds catchy, but it is incorrect.  Rights have inherent in them ethical and/or moral content ("Despite might, this is right because of xyz.").  Might is power and has no ethical content.  If you have the power to make something happen, in the absence of ethical fetters, you may do so.

And God save me from His followers.  Morality does not stem from God.  It stems from peaceful reflection into ones own being and his method of fitting into this world.  Our shifty-eyed enemies in that sandy place 10,000 miles away demonstrate how strict adherence to Godly Paper ends up playing out. 

Sorry, but that is absurd.  Both in assuming humans required (or had much) peace to think philosophically and that any philosophy developed in the West after the birth of Christ can have recognizably moral content and not be derivative of Christianity.  Tell me, how many of the increasingly popular neo-pagan groups actually execute their rituals as they were in pre-Christian times?  Humane/humanist philosophies are derived from Chriatian Humanism, which was derived from Christian thought & morality.

In the case of many/most in western civ nowadays, morality is a shadow of a man on the doorstep who has been shoved outside.  They can see and describe the general outline, but the detail is gone and the reason for it remains unseen.

Our classical form of government as built in the 18th century has more in common with Plato's Republic and the philosophical libertarian discourse of the day than any anecdotal government or moral code reflected in the Bible or other sacred texts.

[or_not]Which is why they rejected a gov't of limited powers in the COTUS and set up G Washington as the first of many Philosopher Kings.[/or_not]

Also, there was no "libertarian" discourse.  There was classically liberal discourse, but they are not interchangeable. 

I purposely chose three founders who were different enough from each other to properly illustrate how important an ethical right thinking populace was critical to a republics success.

All of the significant Founders were either Christian (the majority), Christian derivatives (Deists & suchlike), or thought that for the sake of civil society and their own well being that the vast majority ought to be Christian (Franklin).

They realized that absent self-discipline, discipline would have to be imposed.

The declaration of independence and constitution were, and once again are revolutionary because they proclaim our natural rights are derived from natures God. We have rights because that is the way God created us. Natural law is discoverable because the law giver has created a rational universe.   

The Diests and Theists of that day were philosophical or theological derivatives of belief in the Jewish and Christian God.

Power only respects great power.  If everyone, no matter how powerful, must answer to Nature's Creator (or believe they will have to do so), the reach of the powerful may be limited.

[MicroBalrog]

They realized that absent self-discipline, discipline would have to be imposed.

This is precisely the welfare-statists argument:

"Since they do not behave in the manner which I find rational, we will enforce rationality by the sword."

[RevDisk]

This is precisely the welfare-statists argument:

"Since they do not behave in the manner which I find rational, we will enforce rationality by the sword."

I would respect any welfare-statist who did in fact attempt to enforce their opinion with a sword.

If you have to be evil and oppressive, at LEAST show some style. See Putin vs Obama. Sure, both are evil and incompetent. But DUDE!

[roo_ster]

This is precisely the welfare-statists argument:

"Since they do not behave in the manner which I find rational, we will enforce rationality by the sword."

Not hardly.  It is an argument from human nature.  Humans require some sort of order, since they are social critters.  If it doesn't exist, they create it or seek it out.

The more folks discipline themselves and comply with the social norms of a single culture, the less gov't is needed...or clamored for. 

[Jamisjockey]

I must have missed it.  Who is advocating a theocracy?

The insistence that the only source of moral leadership is through people who believe in god and Jesus Christ. 
That doesnt leave much wiggle room for non believers.  There is no other inference but some level of theocratic rule.

[Strings]

>true religion<

Please define this. I think this would be a major point to the discussion.

>Sorry, but that is absurd.  Both in assuming humans required (or had much) peace to think philosophically and that any philosophy developed in the West after the birth of Christ can have recognizably moral content and not be derivative of Christianity.  Tell me, how many of the increasingly popular neo-pagan groups actually execute their rituals as they were in pre-Christian times?  Humane/humanist philosophies are derived from Chriatian Humanism, which was derived from Christian thought & morality.<

Wow... you might want to look into the actual contributions pagan Europeans made, instead of just cheering for your own faith.

Yes, "Christian thought" was a major foundation of Western Civilization. So was "Classical Greek thought", "Pagan Norse thought", "Celtic thought", and many others

[DittoHead]

For me, the water muddies when one is 100% dependant on the government for their existance.  You live on Welfare, Chip, food stamps and section 8 housing?  What then is your contribution to society?  Breathing? Consuming resources?  

While I don't think it's the point you're trying to make, this makes it sound like you think the only way someone could possibly "contribute to society" is through paying taxes. That seems to fall in line with lefts' line of thinking - paying more taxes means contributing more to a better society.

I think that if 47% of Americans aren't paying federal income taxes, that's great we're almost half way there! Lets work in getting rid of those taxes for the other 53%

[Jamisjockey]

While I don't think it's the point you're trying to make, this makes it sound like you think the only way someone could possibly "contribute to society" is through paying taxes. That seems to fall in line with lefts' line of thinking - paying more taxes means contributing more to a better society.

I think that if 47% of Americans aren't paying federal income taxes, that's great we're almost half way there! Lets work in getting rid of those taxes for the other 53%

Nope not quite what I was saying.  Contributing to society is not sucking resources without producing something.  Many of Mitt's famous 47% are lower wage earners with deductions.  The real numbers to be concerned about are those who take take take take take. 

[roo_ster]

>true religion<

Please define this. I think this would be a major point to the discussion.

>Sorry, but that is absurd.  Both in assuming humans required (or had much) peace to think philosophically and that any philosophy developed in the West after the birth of Christ can have recognizably moral content and not be derivative of Christianity.  Tell me, how many of the increasingly popular neo-pagan groups actually execute their rituals as they were in pre-Christian times?  Humane/humanist philosophies are derived from Chriatian Humanism, which was derived from Christian thought & morality.<

Wow... you might want to look into the actual contributions pagan Europeans made, instead of just cheering for your own faith.

Yes, "Christian thought" was a major foundation of Western Civilization. So was "Classical Greek thought", "Pagan Norse thought", "Celtic thought", and many others

I am quite aware of the contributions of those you listed.  They contributed many & varied things, but their contributions in the realm of ethics and morality (the main point of the post) were minor relative to Christianity, which changed the basic character & behavior of great swaths of Europe. 

Take, for example the Vikings.  Once they became Christianized, they were no longer Vikings, since "viking" is really a verb roughly equivalent to "adventuring."  Which they stopped, butt cold, after Christianization. Of course, the northmen and their culture put their own spin on their particular form of Christianity, but it was a variation on the tune piped by Christianity.

[MicroBalrog]

I would respect any welfare-statist who did in fact attempt to enforce their opinion with a sword.

If you have to be evil and oppressive, at LEAST show some style. See Putin vs Obama. Sure, both are evil and incompetent. But DUDE!

The fursuit did it for me too.

[Strings]

I still want Ron to define what he means by "true religion".

And I think you can discuss whether or not the Norse quit going viking because of Christianity, or that some other cultural shift caused both the end of the viking era, AND made their conversion easier.

Please remember: Christianity has been changed by almost every culture that it has encountered. If you were to bring say, Paul, to the present via time machine, he would NOT recognize most of what y'all do...

[roo_ster]

I still want Ron to define what he means by "true religion".

And I think you can discuss whether or not the Norse quit going viking because of Christianity, or that some other cultural shift caused both the end of the viking era, AND made their conversion easier.

Please remember: Christianity has been changed by almost every culture that it has encountered. If you were to bring say, Paul, to the present via time machine, he would NOT recognize most of what y'all do...

Oh, yeah, I think quite a bit is debatable.  That is what makes it fun.  Were we to discuss it a while more, I would not leave it at, "After Christianity, therefore because of Christianity...My work is done here."

As for Paul, I think you do him a disservice.  Dude was more than willing to take on and shuck off cultural baggage that he felt had no bearing on the central message.  He would recognize those denominations/churches that kept the meat & taters and never mind the gravy.  And granted, there are some that have gone "off message." 

[Strings]

I dunno... some of the things I've been catching on History have been... interesting. There are some folks doing some serious work in the ME

[Perd Hapley]

The insistence that the only source of moral leadership is through people who believe in god and Jesus Christ. 
That doesnt leave much wiggle room for non believers.  There is no other inference but some level of theocratic rule.

Far from being the only inference, it is actually a different discussion than what Ron and the quoted Founders were having. The point is not to make sure there are enough religious voters to keep all you heathen in line with your private lives. The point being made is that, in order to have a working republic, the voters have to have the moral character to resist the temptation to use government for their personal interests.

Also, don't jump to the conclusion that any religiously-motivated politics is anti-freedom. A religion could just as easily preach against government intrusion as for it.