Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: kgbsquirrel on September 20, 2012, 10:06:21 PM
-
So, while laying here I had a thought, it sligghtly paralels the old thought that only land owners should vote. Basic idea is thus: in a manner resembling the voting in a corporation where your vote carries a weight based on your total stock holdings, what if your vote, as a citizen, carried a weight based on your personal tax payments. Example: I paid 8000 roughly in taxes last year and person B paid only 800. My vote would carry 10 times the weight or affect of person B's.
My immediate thought is that it would make it difficult for people who pay nothing into the system to vote themselves government handouts (other peoples money). Thoughts?
-
Creating a wealthy ruling class is problematic at best. Rules and laws will be bent to benefit them only.
The true issue is that even a republic is still motivated by mob rule. When your representatives are elected by a simple majority of those who bother to vote and then laws are written by a simple majority of representatives.
Simple majority is mob rule.
-
Hmm...the unintended consequences could be interesting.
In the long run, it wouldn't create a wealthy ruling class per se that would enact laws to benefit them only, as they would need to pay proportionately more taxes to stay "in power" so the only way for them to benefit, and retain power to keep benefiting, would be to reduce the entire tax burden (less spending), which is good...right?
People want to pay less taxes, so the vote in people who will do so, eventually, everyone would pay the same minimal tax, and you'd have appropriate representation. If anyone passed laws raising taxes, they would be shooting themselves in the foot.
Of course, since the rich would pay more taxes, it would rapidly become an oligarchy...of course, the only way they could keep power was by paying taxes, which they don't want, so see above.
And then there is that whole constitution thing, and one could spin your plan as putting the rich in charge and disenfranchising poor people, which ironically, in the long run, it wouldn't.
Interesting thoughts though.
So last year there were I think like a trillion or so paid in income tax (not bothering to look it up, but I think that's within 50%), or about $3000 for every person, or about $4000 for those of voting age.
So basically, warren buffet would be equal to Santa Fe.
-
Everyone pays the same "citizenship tax" and gets one vote.
No tax, no vote.
Dot guv has to run on per capita tax.
-
Nope. No good.
Government doesn't only exist to keep taxes low.
-
Wait, so you're essentially saying that we should allow people to buy more influence in Government with their income?
How could that possibly go wrong!
We have a hard enough time as it is preventing economically powerful agents from violating the rights of the poor. A vote buying system will be a good ticket to de facto slavery.
-
Creating a wealthy ruling class is problematic at best. Rules and laws will be bent to benefit them only.
But the OWS crowd is sure that the wealthy are the ones not paying taxes.
-
Everyone pays the same "citizenship tax" and gets one vote.
No tax, no vote.
Dot guv has to run on per capita tax.
100% voluntary to pay the taxes, and I'd say we're getting somewhere.
-
The true issue is that even a republic is still motivated by mob rule. When your representatives are elected by a simple majority of those who bother to vote and then laws are written by a simple majority of representatives.
Mob rule is supposed to be avoided through our constitution. If it was just followed as written, the system would work pretty well.
I have often proposed more accountability for representatives. Right now, they can get away with about anything unless there happens to be a revolution while they are in office. As it is, they are pretty safe from torches-and-pitchforks action.
If a law is found to be unconstitutional, every representative who voted for it should be jailed.
-
Mob rule is supposed to be avoided through our constitution. If it was just followed as written, the system would work pretty well.
I have often proposed more accountability for representatives. Right now, they can get away with about anything unless there happens to be a revolution while they are in office. As it is, they are pretty safe from torches-and-pitchforks action.
If a law is found to be unconstitutional, every representative who voted for it should be jailed.
16th amendment proves the holes in the constitution.
-
16th amendment proves the holes in the constitution.
Being able to be amended is not a hole.
-
Being able to be amended is not a hole.
The Sixteenth Amendment (Amendment XVI) to the United States Constitution allows the Congress to levy an income tax without apportioning it among the states or basing it on Census results. This amendment exempted income taxes from the constitutional requirements regarding direct taxes, after income taxes on rents, dividends, and interest were ruled to be direct taxes in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. (1895). It was ratified on February 3, 1913.
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16th_amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16th_amendment)
That's what the 16th amendment did.
-
The true issue is that even a republic is still motivated by mob rule. When your representatives are elected by a simple majority of those who bother to vote and then laws are written by a simple majority of representatives.
Simple majority is mob rule.
Huh? The laws of our national government, and of 49/50 states, require that bills be passed by two legislative houses (not a simple majority), then signed by an executive (not a simple majority). (Unless, of course, a veto is overridden by a super-majority.)
Those bills can later be struck down by those most anti-democratic and un-mob-rule-ish of institutions, the courts.
-
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16th_amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16th_amendment)
That's what the 16th amendment did.
Yes. I'm failing to see how this is a 'loophole'.
-
Yes. I'm failing to see how this is a 'loophole'.
Even the amendment process is absolutely fallible. Without the 16th amendment, the states could tell the federal government to *expletive deleted*ck off.
Since the federal government controls the purse strings, it controls the states like little puppets.
When the national drinking age was raised several states held out and said no. So, the federal government withheld federal highway funds.
A country of gullible voters, a sprinkling of class warfare, and bam! the Federal government gets unstoppable power to tax and spend.
We act like class warfare is a new construct, but its EXACTLY how the 16th amendment came into being.
-
I've often considered the virtues of the plan outlined in kgbsquirrel's post . . . it really ticks me off that some parasite has the SAME say in how .gov spends MY tax dollars as I do. :mad:
Rich guys who use "loopholes" to avoid paying tax will dilute the value of their vote by doing so. People who are on the dole - welfare, food stamps, etc., and pay no taxes at all would get NO vote; I mean, why should people who contribute nothing - NOTHING! - have a say in how things are run?
The only real problem I see is that some of the "47%" really shouldn't be disenfranchised; the senior citizen who retired after WORKING for over 4 decades has, IMHO, EARNED a vote. Same for the low-ranking enlisted man in the military with a family who may pay little or no tax on his meager pay - would anyone say he's not contributing to his country?
-
One should be able to answer a few, say 5, questions having to do with the election that one is voting upon. As to whether that is "unfair" to the poor or those who can't read, I would counter with the fact that public education is free and if one did not take advantage of it, too bad.
-
Here's how I see this scenario playing out over a relatively short period of time:
1. laws will be made to significantly increase the level of income before any taxation can be collected.
2. Most taxes other than those that apply to high income earners will be abolished and replaced with 'fees' or 'surcharges' government gasoline 'fee', food 'fee', electrical service surcharge, etc.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would rather try a government model outlined in Heinlein's TMIAHM- All laws have to have a 2/3 supermajority approval from one house of representatives, and another house of congress is put in place with the purpose of repealing laws- 1/3 plurality is all that is needed to repeal any law. If a special project or program is wanted, the congressmen have to figure out a way to pay for it themselves.
-
I've often considered the virtues of the plan outlined in kgbsquirrel's post . . . it really ticks me off that some parasite has the SAME say in how .gov spends MY tax dollars as I do. :mad:
Rich guys who use "loopholes" to avoid paying tax will dilute the value of their vote by doing so. People who are on the dole - welfare, food stamps, etc., and pay no taxes at all would get NO vote; I mean, why should people who contribute nothing - NOTHING! - have a say in how things are run?
The only real problem I see is that some of the "47%" really shouldn't be disenfranchised; the senior citizen who retired after WORKING for over 4 decades has, IMHO, EARNED a vote. Same for the low-ranking enlisted man in the military with a family who may pay little or no tax on his meager pay - would anyone say he's not contributing to his country?
While it could be argued that the rich have more skin in the game and therefore would not vote more government power....lets consider this.
You make a million a year and pay 100,000 a year with deductions. 10%.
Joe the bank manager makes 100,000 a year and pays 10,000 with deductions.
He is a contributing member to society. Successful by most measures. Yet by virtue of being 10x wealthier than Joe, you get 10x the say. Even though Joe is not a leech.
1 person 1 say.
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?
I do not agree with means testing voting. But voting should be the reward of citizenship. Consuming without contribution is not citizenship.
I would argue that when one recieves more benefit from their relationship with government then they contribute, then what rights to vote for more benefit do they have?
Here's how I see this scenario playing out over a relatively short period of time:
1. laws will be made to significantly increase the level of income before any taxation can be collected.
2. Most taxes other than those that apply to high income earners will be abolished and replaced with 'fees' or 'surcharges' government gasoline 'fee', food 'fee', electrical service surcharge, etc.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would rather try a government model outlined in Heinlein's TMIAHM- All laws have to have a 2/3 supermajority approval from one house of representatives, and another house of congress is put in place with the purpose of repealing laws- 1/3 plurality is all that is needed to repeal any law. If a special project or program is wanted, the congressmen have to figure out a way to pay for it themselves.
Do want.
-
The problem is not the constitution or the civil right to vote. The problem is the failure of our nongovernmental institutions, the family, religious and civic institutions. We have abandoned our cultural heritage and sold it for "a mess of pottage" in the name of "progress".
It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible.
George Washington
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” -John Adams
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.
Thomas Jefferson
There is no modern philosophy or political philosophy that would formulate a philosophy of individual inalienable rights. The best they got are social constructs that shift with the sands of time.
The foundation is gone, the rest is just history waiting to happen.
-
The problem is not the constitution or the civil right to vote. The problem is the failure of our nongovernmental institutions, the family, religious and civic institutions. We have abandoned our cultural heritage and sold it for "a mess of pottage" in the name of "progress".
There is no modern philosophy or political philosophy that would formulate a philosophy of individual inalienable rights. The best they got are social constructs that shift with the sands of time.
The foundation is gone, the rest is just history waiting to happen.
The road to hell is always paved with good intentions. Many people who promise morality simply deliver more government, more oppression and less freedom.
A government should be able to function without removing the rights of the people regardless of who is in power.
-
I've often considered the virtues of the plan outlined in kgbsquirrel's post . . . it really ticks me off that some parasite has the SAME say in how .gov spends MY tax dollars as I do. :mad:
Rich guys who use "loopholes" to avoid paying tax will dilute the value of their vote by doing so. People who are on the dole - welfare, food stamps, etc., and pay no taxes at all would get NO vote; I mean, why should people who contribute nothing - NOTHING! - have a say in how things are run?
The only real problem I see is that some of the "47%" really shouldn't be disenfranchised; the senior citizen who retired after WORKING for over 4 decades has, IMHO, EARNED a vote. Same for the low-ranking enlisted man in the military with a family who may pay little or no tax on his meager pay - would anyone say he's not contributing to his country?
The last paragraph shows the flaws. As an E1, I would essentially have no vote. If that ever happens, **** you (collectively, not any one person) and **** this country. In addition to sales taxes, income taxes, fees, tolls, FEAT, gasoline tax, excise taxes, tobacco taxes, I'd be very honked off about paying for a system that gave me absolutely no voice in it. I'd have even more right to be honked off than the folks who signed the Declaration of Independence.
No direct income tax payment != paying no taxes.
OTOH, if you had the Senate elected by some "tax dollars equal representation" and the House by popular vote, you'd avoid most of the problems. I just don't think it'd be worth it, when you could return to the original purpose of the Senate by the states electing the Senators instead of some Byzantine "purchasing votes" system.
As de Selby pointed out, there are inherent problems with being able to directly buy power. A judge once sat me down, and gave me a length of string. On one side of the string is illegal, the other is legal. He told me to pull it as tautly as I possibly could. He grabbed the middle of the string, and could still work it back and forth a bit. THAT is the real purpose of lawyers and courts. That fuzzy grey area. He told me the string was determined by the law itself, the prevailing attitude of the Court system, and society itself. Often in unspoken ways that no one consciously decides. Now, which way the string flexes is determined by circumstances, intelligence/skill and lastly, flat out money/power.
You need two out of three to be very likely to win in court. Of the three, money is the biggest because it can provide the rest. If you can hire a good lawyer that can provide intelligence and murkiness in the circumstances, you will never get the death penalty unless you are REALLY outside that flex space. Even then, it's unlikely.
Now, folks that say money can buy anything are also wrong. It provides advantage, but not an absolute one. You can blow millions on lawyers and still lose, if you are WAY outside of that flex space. Or you're stupid and the circumstances are bad.
Same goes with politics. Heck, Whitman spent $144 million trying to buy the California governor election. Some elections are just plain decided before the ballot box is open. Things are too far outside the flex space. Within that flex space, ayep. Circumstances, intelligence/skill and money do matter. And again, money can, but does not always, buy the other two. And money is not necessarily the best determination of a person's ability to make good political decisions.
While I agree, it's less than optimal that a person with poor decision making abilities that is a significant net tax loss (say a stereotypical "welfare queen" or dodgy CEO on corporate welfare) has an equal vote. But the alternatives tend to be much much worse.
"Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are wiser than one man. How's that again? I missed something.
Autocracy is based on the assumption that one man is wiser than a million men. Let's play that over again, too. Who decides?"
- Robert Heinlein
-
A government should be able to function without removing the rights of the people regardless of who is in power.
According to whom and why?
Where do these supposed rights come from?
What is more important? The individual or the collective? Why?
We have abandoned the ethical and religious base that provided the correct answers to the above questions.
Our society by and large has adopted an ethic or what I call an anti-philosophy (philosophic materialism) that when asked the above questions will answer them differently than those who hold more traditional and classical views of reality.
A dirt poor ethical human with no property who believes that God Almighty has imbued all humanity with inalienable rights generally can be trusted to vote.
A dirt poor human who believes morality is situational and that we are nothing more than a step away from the chimpanzee is not a reliable vote for liberty.
-
According to whom and why?
Where do these supposed rights come from?
What is more important? The individual or the collective? Why?
We have abandoned the ethical and religious base that provided the correct answers to the above questions.
Our society by and large has adopted an ethic or what I call an anti-philosophy (philosophic materialism) that when asked the above questions will answer them differently than those who hold more traditional and classical views of reality.
A dirt poor ethical human with no property who believes that God Almighty has imbued all humanity with inalienable rights generally can be trusted to vote.
A dirt poor human who believes morality is situational and that we are nothing more than a step away from the chimpanzee is not a reliable vote for liberty.
Says you. Personally I have no belief in god nor need for a god, and yet I find myself craving more freedom then the average "moral and religious" type is willing to allow.
Progress is not always a bad thing. I would argue that the average "progessive" we are fighting against together is in fact devolving society, not evolving society. Human freedom should be the next step in human evolution, yet at every step it is stymied for "progress" or "morality".
-
According to whom and why?
Where do these supposed rights come from?
What is more important? The individual or the collective? Why?
We have abandoned the ethical and religious base that provided the correct answers to the above questions.
Our society by and large has adopted an ethic or what I call an anti-philosophy (philosophic materialism) that when asked the above questions will answer them differently than those who hold more traditional and classical views of reality.
A dirt poor ethical human with no property who believes that God Almighty has imbued all humanity with inalienable rights generally can be trusted to vote.
A dirt poor human who believes morality is situational and that we are nothing more than a step away from the chimpanzee is not a reliable vote for liberty.
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?
-
I'd just as soon abolish all forms of thugocracy that we call taxation via government, and go with no taxes.
Fee-based services. Don't consume government? Then you don't end up supporting it. And make it impossible for buggy-whip bureaucracies that outlive their usefulness to compel their own survival via regulation or dipping into other tax pools.
If our government actually acknowledged some sort of "leave-me-alone-ism" I'd be a happy man.
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.
God might aid in that peaceful reflection into one's self and role. But he is not a pre-requisite.
-
Modern Protestantism and much of Roman Catholic thought have themselves abandoned (or never accepted) the classical principles our nation was founded upon.
Reference my first post, I did not blame government or call on government to install a moral/ethical system on anyone.
What I pointed out was that our founders believed the system they created with the constitution would not work without a moral/ethical people or those ignorant of the principles and basis of liberty.
Neither of you have provided answers to the questions I asked. Instead you want to hijack the principles of freedom and try to graft them into a philosophical system that would never bear the fruit of liberty. That is a recipe for cognitive dissonance because humans always ask why?
Why do we have rights? Why are they inalienable? Where do they come from?
-
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.
God might aid in that peaceful reflection into one's self and role. But he is not a pre-requisite.
Talk about fantastical utopia talk.
Where is this land of liberty established by peaceful reflectors other than in your skull, lol.
-
It is also instructive to see how we bastions of liberty here at APS are brainstorming ways of limiting the civil right to vote.
It must be the religion causing that, right!
-
What I pointed out was that our founders believed the system they created with the constitution would not work without a moral/ethical people or those ignorant of the principles and basis of liberty.
Why do we have rights? Why are they inalienable? Where do they come from?
OK, what major world faith provides these answers to what are the principles and basis of liberty?
What rights does $deity say I have? When does $deity allow other men with fancy titles to abridge my rights?
-
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.
-
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.
And a limited government republic will not stand once the moral and ethical rot infects a majority of the populace.
Morality and ethics come from sound philosophy and whether you guys like it or not, true religion.
-
Even the amendment process is absolutely fallible. Without the 16th amendment, the states could tell the federal government to *expletive deleted* off.
Since the federal government controls the purse strings, it controls the states like little puppets.
When the national drinking age was raised several states held out and said no. So, the federal government withheld federal highway funds.
A country of gullible voters, a sprinkling of class warfare, and bam! the Federal government gets unstoppable power to tax and spend.
We act like class warfare is a new construct, but its EXACTLY how the 16th amendment came into being.
I think the states also lost a lot of political wallop when we decided that senators should be elected through the popular vote rather than appointed by state representatives as was the Founders' original design.
The income tax of course didn't help . . . . . . . . .
-
Neither of you have provided answers to the questions I asked. Instead you want to hijack the principles of freedom and try to graft them into a philosophical system that would never bear the fruit of liberty. That is a recipe for cognitive dissonance because humans always ask why?
Why do we have rights? Why are they inalienable? Where do they come from?
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.
It is also instructive to see how we bastions of liberty here at APS are brainstorming ways of limiting the civil right to vote.
It must be the religion causing that, right!
And the overwhelming majority explains, in logical reasoned detail, why it is not a good idea.
Nothing wrong with brainstorming anything, even if it is a bad idea. I often brainstorm how to break into a house (or bank), or cripple infrastructure, or illegally enter a network. It does not mean I'm a criminal. It means you have to consider situations from all perspectives if you truly want to understand it.
-
And a limited government republic will not stand once the moral and ethical rot infects a majority of the populace.
Morality and ethics come from sound philosophy and whether you guys like it or not, true religion.
And how are the writings of Bastiat, Locke, Paine and Rousseau insufficient for that?
Or those of Huxley, Orwell and Rand?
Or those of Von Mises, Spooner and Rothbard?
-
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.
And the overwhelming majority explains, in logical reasoned detail, why it is not a good idea.
Nothing wrong with brainstorming anything, even if it is a bad idea. I often brainstorm how to break into a house (or bank), or cripple infrastructure, or illegally enter a network. It does not mean I'm a criminal. It means you have to consider situations from all perspectives if you truly want to understand it.
All you are saying is "might makes right" and not really offering much of an argument that we could use to convince the other side to come over to our way of thinking.
-
And how are the writings of Bastiat, Locke, Paine and Rousseau insufficient for that?
Or those of Huxley, Orwell and Rand?
Or those of Von Mises, Spooner and Rothbard?
Pretty sure I covered that base in my first post here in the thread #19 .
The anti religion anti God reaction completely ignored my inclusion of those who are not orthodox but correct in their thinking. I even included the Jefferson quote to help make that clear.
-
Someone please give me an historical precedent of a limited government. The entire notion is a chimera and a cheap talking point for folks who think that they don't like big government yet most of these folks simply want to trim the Federal Leviathan instead of a wholesale rendering, reduction and elimination of the beast.
And if the Federal government is so sacrosanct and America would not be the same if it broke apart, why not press for world government if consolidation and central planning are so dandy?
“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”- Lysander Spooner
-
OK, what major world faith provides these answers to what are the principles and basis of liberty?
What rights does $deity say I have? When does $deity allow other men with fancy titles to abridge my rights?
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.
-
The last paragraph shows the flaws. As an E1, I would essentially have no vote. If that ever happens, **** you (collectively, not any one person) and **** this country.
I can't argue with that . . . but I will point out that during WWII, Korea, and earlier wars, there were a lot of men, 20 or younger, who were DRAFTED and sent off to war, even though they were considered too young & stupid to vote. And IMNSHO, that was a travesty.
But it's also a travesty for society's parasites - able bodied adults of sound mind who choose to be on the dole - to be enfranchised as well.
Does anyone think that Obama's nearly doubling of the food stamp rolls is anything other than a strategy to give people "free stuff" which they'll vote to keep by voting for Democrats? Offer parasites free bread and circuses, implement a grain dole, and they'll vote to keep them; politicians have been doing this at least since ancient Rome, and it always seems to contribute to a civilization's downfall.
-
Someone please give me an historical precedent of a limited government. The entire notion is a chimera and a cheap talking point for folks who think that they don't like big government yet most of these folks simply want to trim the Federal Leviathan instead of a wholesale rendering, reduction and elimination of the beast.
And if the Federal government is so sacrosanct and America would not be the same if it broke apart, why not press for world government if consolidation and central planning are so dandy?
“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”- Lysander Spooner
The seeds of destruction were always there. Not in the constitution only but in human nature.
If there is a next time around the limitations and chains on government must be spelled out more clearly and forged stronger.
-
The problem is not the constitution or the civil right to vote. The problem is the failure of our nongovernmental institutions, the family, religious and civic institutions. We have abandoned our cultural heritage and sold it for "a mess of pottage" in the name of "progress".
It is impossible to rightly govern a nation without God and the Bible.
George Washington
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” -John Adams
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.
Thomas Jefferson
There is no modern philosophy or political philosophy that would formulate a philosophy of individual inalienable rights. The best they got are social constructs that shift with the sands of time.
The foundation is gone, the rest is just history waiting to happen.
2/3 of your selected quotes mandate an adherence to the Bible. 1/3 is from a self-confessed Deist that tended to stay away from organized religion.
And I take great exception with John Adams, on just about every level. Probably my least favorite of the Founders. [The Constitution] is wholly inadequate [to govern] a non-religious people? Hardly. It may be true that the Constitution is wholly inadequate to contain the malignant tumor of "government mission encroachment" and that it is wholly inadequate to provide penalties to malicious lawmakers, but it is perfectly effective in governing free men, regardless of their faith. The weakness of the Constitution is how it deals with Statists with a fetish for State Power. Not in how it lays out the free association of free people. Adams betrays his own Statist tendencies here.
And a limited government republic will not stand once the moral and ethical rot infects a majority of the populace.
Morality and ethics come from sound philosophy and whether you guys like it or not, true religion.
This post appears to take a dismissive attitude towards 19th and 20th century philosophers. That somehow only the Bible has answers to govern a nation. That Constitution thingy that you like so much is rather dismissive of official state religions. The Constitution draws much more from Bastiat than the Bible.
-
Ron,
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/ (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.
-
Two words: earned stake.
-
There is no modern philosophy or political philosophy that would formulate a philosophy of individual inalienable rights. The best they got are social constructs that shift with the sands of time.
The foundation is gone, the rest is just history waiting to happen.
2/3 of your selected quotes mandate an adherence to the Bible. 1/3 is from a self-confessed Deist that tended to stay away from organized religion.
And I take great exception with John Adams, on just about every level. Probably my least favorite of the Founders. [The Constitution] is wholly inadequate [to govern] a non-religious people? Hardly. It may be true that the Constitution is wholly inadequate to contain the malignant tumor of "government mission encroachment" and that it is wholly inadequate to provide penalties to malicious lawmakers, but it is perfectly effective in governing free men, regardless of their faith. The weakness of the Constitution is how it deals with Statists with a fetish for State Power. Not in how it lays out the free association of free people. Adams betrays his own Statist tendencies here.
This post appears to take a dismissive attitude towards 19th and 20th century philosophers. That somehow only the Bible has answers to govern a nation. That Constitution thingy that you like so much is rather dismissive of official state religions. The Constitution draws much more from Bastiat than the Bible.
I do dismiss a lot of 19th and 20th century philosophy, because a lot of it is anti philosophy. The guys I like are probably a lot of the same guys you do.
state religion = straw man, where did you think I supported that?
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.
Bastiat probably drew a lot of ideas from those that influenced our founders as well as being influenced by our constitution. You put the cart on the wrong side of the horse.
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.
-
Ron,
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/ (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.
Due to GWB I've come full circle to where I started politically. Hopefully I'm done voting for the lessor evil. My second presidential vote ever cast was for Ron Paul in '88. Every vote thereafter I compromised myself. Even now the temptation to vote for Romney as the lessor evil is strong.
There isn't a human institution I trust on the planet. Purposely I attend a tiny church with weak official structure. The only thing keeping my church afloat is the members all care for each other. We currently don't even have a pastor.
Not sure how we get to small government from here. Short of total collapse and separation of the component parts after the fact into areas of like minded governing philosophies I don't see a path.
-
I think the states also lost a lot of political wallop when we decided that senators should be elected through the popular vote rather than appointed by state representatives as was the Founders' original design.
The income tax of course didn't help . . . . . . . . .
This. Direct election of senators was probably the most damaging in the long run to the representative federal government intended.
-
Bastiat probably drew a lot of ideas from those that influenced our founders as well as being influenced by our constitution. You put the cart on the wrong side of the horse.
You're correct. I got my timeline mussed up in my head a bit.
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.
I used to use this same argument, but it falls apart in the face of empirical reasoning and scientific process. It's final justification lies in "because I think so." It's subjective rather than objective.
The objective truth is closer to Rev's line of reasoning: I have rights because I say so. Want to take them away? You better come with all you've got and have some will to back it up.
Or, a local activist by the name of Ed Vallejo here in PHX often says:
Rights are like muscles; you must exercise them to keep them fit, or they will atrophy and die.
I suspect he lifted this from somewhere else, but I am unsure as to the source.
Due to GWB I've come full circle to where I started politically. Hopefully I'm done voting for the lessor evil. My second presidential vote ever cast was for Ron Paul in '88. Every vote thereafter I compromised myself. Even now the temptation to vote for Romney as the lessor evil is strong.
There isn't a human institution I trust on the planet. Purposely I attend a tiny church with weak official structure. The only thing keeping my church afloat is the members all care for each other. We currently don't even have a pastor.
Not sure how we get to small government from here. Short of total collapse and separation of the component parts after the fact into areas of like minded governing philosophies I don't see a path.
You and I aren't too far apart. Much more in common than disparate.
-
Not sure how we get to small government from here. Short of total collapse and separation of the component parts after the fact into areas of like minded governing philosophies I don't see a path.
Ron,
I think the inevitable economic collapse in America will usher in a break-up of the US similar to the same thing in the USSR in 1989-91.
I understand your notions in voting about a preference for evil which is why I became a non-voter b/c I don't have a preference for evil, period. My reasons are more philosophical but Carlin gives a brillaint rejoinder to those who say if you don't vote you can't complain when the shoe is actually on the other foot: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIraCchPDhk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIraCchPDhk)
There is a whole raft of essays on non-voting here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/non-vote-arch.html (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/non-vote-arch.html)
Bill
-
All you are saying is "might makes right" and not really offering much of an argument that we could use to convince the other side to come over to our way of thinking.
I did not say "might makes right". Might does make rights, however. A subtle but important difference. I said, "I have rights, because I and plenty of folks before me are willing to kill to keep them." Talking and reason are much more preferred. I don't think violence should be the first line of discussion, and I don't want to live in a society that believes so. I am always willing to keep it as the last line of discussion. Anything else ranges from foolishness to suicidal.
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.
So, yes, I have the freedom of religion and the right to not be killed because I was very handy with a rifle. This is unfortunately based on empirical evidence. Perhaps your rights are based on something else. I wish so. I can speak only of my own.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (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 (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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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."
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
>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
-
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%
-
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.
-
>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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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."
-
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
-
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.
-
In theory, you're right: a religion (or, more specifically, a religious group) COULD preach against government intrusion. Unfortunately, *I* have yet to see this creature
And that isn't limited to the current discussion of monotheistic faiths, but ANY religious group I've heard make any sort of political statement (pagan groups tend to fall on the left side of the political spectrum).
Seems that, any time a religious group starts talking about politics, they are NOT looking to limit government intrusion in to folks' lives, but rather to have government intrude to stop what said group feels is "immoral"...
-
Well, Scientologists are against the income tax, does that count?
-
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.
Neither way is gauranteed.
And the founders were motiviated by self interest. (Yes, they wanted freedom and low taxation and smaller government mostly, but that's still self interest).
-
In theory, you're right: a religion (or, more specifically, a religious group) COULD preach against government intrusion. Unfortunately, *I* have yet to see this creature
And that isn't limited to the current discussion of monotheistic faiths, but ANY religious group I've heard make any sort of political statement (pagan groups tend to fall on the left side of the political spectrum).
Seems that, any time a religious group starts talking about politics, they are NOT looking to limit government intrusion in to folks' lives, but rather to have government intrude to stop what said group feels is "immoral"...
And the crowds were questioning him, saying, "Then what shall we do?"
And he would answer and say to them, "The man who has two tunics is to share with him who has none; and he who has food is to do likewise."
And some tax collectors also came to be baptized, and they said to him, "Teacher, what shall we do?"
And he said to them, " Collect no more than what you have been ordered to."
Some soldiers were questioning him, saying, "And what about us, what shall we do?" And he said to them, "Do not take money from anyone by force, or accuse anyone falsely, and be content with your wages."
Luke 3:10-14
-
Neither way is gauranteed.
And the founders were motiviated by self interest. (Yes, they wanted freedom and low taxation and smaller government mostly, but that's still self interest).
Neither of which invalidates what I said.
Yes, of course they were motivated by self-interest. They recognized that everyone is motivated by self-interest, hence their concern about the dangers thereof.
-
Morality and ethics come from sound philosophy and whether you guys like it or not, true religion.
I still want Ron to define what he means by "true religion".
True religion in the context I've used is religion that bears good fruit. I have no way of knowing what is in anybody's heart. But I do have the ability to observe, reason and draw conclusions.
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. You shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles?
Even so, every good tree brings forth good fruit, but a corrupt tree brings forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that brings not forth good fruit is cut down and cast into the fire.
Therefore, by their fruits you shall know them.
True religion is one that works out the "Greatest Commandment"
Then one of them, who was a lawyer, asked Him a question, tempting Him and saying, “Master, which is the greatest commandment in the law?”
Jesus said unto him, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind." This is the first and great commandment and the second is like unto it: "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."
Of course me being a Christian believes the surest way to not go astray is to throw my lot in with Christ, attempting to follow Him and his example.
Now even in the Bible there were men who were described as just and upright, yet they weren't believers. Humans who live a just, moral life as we all have observed are not only found among the ranks of the "religious". These are the folks who fall into the category above who I said practice a sound philosophy.
For you libertarians and classical liberals. If you look at the life of Jesus and then the practice of the early church you will see the application of the non aggression principle. There was no desire to attain earthly power and authority, there was no attempt to use coercion to bring people to Christianity. Freedom to choose or reject Christ is the theme.
Early Christianity's focus was always on the individual, the individuals relationship to God. The individuals relationship to their neighbor, the individuals relationship to the state. Even the church, the assembly of believers when described as a whole is compared to our body. It is one body but made up of many different individual parts all needed to be considered whole. The concept of using coercive force to change hearts or lives is completely foreign to Christianity as found in the new testament.
-
the voters have to have the moral character to resist the temptation to use government for their personal interests
Agreed, but I just don't see the connection of that kind of moral character to religion.
It is sorta related to the "Golden Rule" in the sense that you don't want the government doing to others the sort of thing that you don't want it doing to you.
-
Agreed, but I just don't see the connection of that kind of moral character to religion.
It is sorta related to the "Golden Rule" in the sense that you don't want the government doing to others the sort of thing that you don't want it doing to you.
I fail to see how you can disconnect our cultures concept of what is good or moral from its religious foundation, particularly Christianity, that has always been there from the beginning.
Our civil society did not form in a vacuum.
-
I fail to see how you can disconnect our cultures concept of what is good or moral from its religious foundation, particularly Christianity, that has always been there from the beginning.
Our civil society did not form in a vacuum.
So how do you reconcile treating others as you would be treated, with for instance something like government laws against doing business on Sunday ???
-
Actually, weren't the laws against homosexuality based on a passage or two in the Bible?
-
Actually, weren't the laws against homosexuality based on a passage or two in the Bible?
Of course not. Homosexuality has been condemned by many different kinds of cultures, with or without the Bible, and scorned by people with varying degrees of familiarity with or respect for Jewish/Christian scripture. Maybe it was because it was unusual, or against nature, or interfered with the family, or was seen as unhygienic. Whatever the reason, it certainly can't all be pinned on "a passage or two in the Bible."
-
OK... so, our culture in the States (our laws, our morals, and everything else) is based on "Christian thought". But the laws in the US against homosexuality were based on "many different cultures"
Gotcha
-
Of course not. Homosexuality has been condemned by many different kinds of cultures, with or without the Bible, and scorned by people with varying degrees of familiarity with or respect for Jewish/Christian scripture. Maybe it was because it was unusual, or against nature, or interfered with the family, or was seen as unhygienic. Whatever the reason, it certainly can't all be pinned on "a passage or two in the Bible."
Sanction against such behavior has been nearly universal across cultures, including those where Christianity was not a factor.
OK... so, our culture in the States (our laws, our morals, and everything else) is based on "Christian thought". But the laws in the US against homosexuality were based on "many different cultures"
Gotcha
Now you are just being deliberately obtuse.
-
No more obtuse than those suggesting that we are doomed because we've "moved away from our Christian roots"...
Maybe it's because I've dealt with some of the "faith-based bigotry" on a personal level. But I MUCH prefer church (ANY church) and state being kept VERY separate...
-
OK... so, our culture in the States (our laws, our morals, and everything else) is based on "Christian thought".
Who said that?
-
Who said that?
Any appeal to the traditional principles and philosophy that formed our western civilization by its very nature will contain principles and concepts informed by Christian thought. So I said it.
Most folks want to keep the benefits of the western world while rejecting the premises it has been built on over the centuries.
-
The true problem of the constitution is that it can be administered so called moral men who can impose statism at will with a clear conscious and call it moral and constitutional. The loopholes are many, rightfully predicted by many of the anti federalists.
-
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. - CS Lewis -
While per se I'm not a libertarian I do consider myself a "classical liberal".
Attempting to lump all religion or all Christianity into one generalized category is an error.
Yes, much of modern and past Christianity in America has been infected with statism both of the left and right variety. Primarily through the public school system I would contend. Yet, there are still many throughout the various denominations that understand liberty.
-
While per se I'm not a libertarian I do consider myself a "classical liberal".
Attempting to lump all religion or all Christianity into one generalized category is an error.
Yes, much of modern and past Christianity in America has been infected with statism both of the left and right variety. Primarily through the public school system I would contend. Yet, there are still many throughout the various denominations that understand liberty.
But you cannot guarantee that the "right" leaders will do the "right" thing through our current social compact (which I reject the notion of being governed by social compact merely by being born). You simply cannot, and they've proven time and time again that liberty will take a back seat to everything else.
-
But you cannot guarantee that the "right" leaders will do the "right" thing through our current social compact (which I reject the notion of being governed by social compact merely by being born). You simply cannot, and they've proven time and time again that liberty will take a back seat to everything else.
That is the history of human civilization.
No matter how much you try to fetter the state it will fight to grow in size and authority.
The problem really isn't the state anyway.
The human condition is the problem. Most humans want an earthly King that will keep them safe, housed and fed.
Here in the USA instead of a monarch we have the tyranny of the bureaucracy.
At some point the majority no longer wanted to be free and cried for a king to tax them, send their children to war, regulate life and guarantee they would be taken care of by "his" benevolence.
-
There is no such thing as too big to fail despite the mewlings of the government media complex. The basic and fundamental problem of the US is size, it needs to be shattered into many peices and let the"marketplace of politics determine what comes out of the mix.
Maybe CA, OR and WA can form an Ecotopia that blends socialism with envirus concerns. Maybe ID, NV, MT and Eastern WA can form a libertarian confederation. The Northeast could fully realize their goal of bettering the USSR on the Atlantic seaboard. The possibilities are endless.
Secession is not a four letter word. The Federal government is too large, economically unsustainable and despotic.
-
That is the history of human civilization.
No matter how much you try to fetter the state it will fight to grow in size and authority.
The problem really isn't the state anyway.
The human condition is the problem. Most humans want an earthly King that will keep them safe, housed and fed.
Here in the USA instead of a monarch we have the tyranny of the bureaucracy.
At some point the majority no longer wanted to be free and cried for a king to tax them, send their children to war, regulate life and guarantee they would be taken care of by "his" benevolence.
Huh? Just who wants their children to be sent to war? :mad:
-
Huh? Just who wants their children to be sent to war? :mad:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.debbieschlussel.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F06%2Fhomicidebomberflotillaprotest.jpg&hash=9142dc0197f0c2ba6e739c39095ce8574807caa5)
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.debbieschlussel.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F06%2Fhomicidebomberflotillaprotest.jpg&hash=9142dc0197f0c2ba6e739c39095ce8574807caa5)
Can we limit this to sane people? :facepalm:
-
>Can we limit this to sane people?<
Contradiction in terms
-
>Can we limit this to sane people?<
Contradiction in terms
How's that?
-
Have you actually paid attention to humanity? We're a bunch of absolute lunatics...
-
Have you actually paid attention to humanity? We're a bunch of absolute lunatics...
Yes, but with a little sense of humor life is a lot more fun because of it.
-
Have you actually paid attention to humanity? We're a bunch of absolute lunatics...
Speak for yourself! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
(What a cynic!)
-
And the first step is admitting that you have a problem...
-
Where the **** is this thread going?
-
Ummm, where every APS thread goes?
All over the place !!!!