Bingo. You are forced to. At gunpoint. Because in any society that survives beyond the first generation, social requirements are ultimately backed by raw force, no matter how morally repugnant you or I might consider those requirements to be.
And that my good sirs and madams, needs to change.
I agree with much of that statement. By the way, FOPA was almost completely a good bill. The single "poison pill" amendment that you are upset about is only a very small part of it.
Our elected representatives have found, over the years, endless ways to dodge and minimize the protections of petty little things like the Constitution. I honestly don't think that will ever change. The government will continue to expand and incessantly meddle in new places where it shouldn't, and all our whinging won't slow that a bit. We're a well boiled frog and are in no condition to jump out of the pot at this point.
True on the FOPA, I should have specified the amendment in question.
I don't disagree with you, BUT I am a tiny bit more optimistic. The government has not completely eliminated the mechanism built into the Constitution for change. There are a few signs of people finally getting sick of it: the Supreme Court striking down Gun Free School Zones for instance.
I don't think it's a good idea to follow Jefferson's advice at this point, so the only real alternative is to try, in some limited way, to affect change in what's already there. I don't like it, so I'm trying to change it, and we need some new ideas because what we're currently doing is not working out. Granted my personal impact is probably not that great compared to the power of well entrenched and well funded interests, but it has to start somewhere. I think a sizable minority of people are sick of it, and it's slowly getting bigger. I firmly believe that history will look back on this time as a dark age in American politics.
It may take a Klinton victory in '08 (which is probably inevitable) and eight years of Klinton II to get people to finally see the big picture.
Now this is interesting because it goes to your core beliefs and how they are developed. My question is, what is (are) the standard(s) against which you measure values, ideas, attitudes and opinions? Are they absolute standards, or are they ever changing? And if they change, how do you know it's not just to fit the circumstances?
Example:
Say a person governs his/her life with a few simple ideas, such as:
Love your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength. Love your neighbor as yourself.
Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you. Lean on, trust, and be confident in God and not on your own understanding. In all your ways know, recognize, and acknowledge Him, and He will direct and make straight and plain your paths. Withhold not good from those to whom it is due [its rightful owners], when it is in the power of your hand to do it..........
..........You get the idea. This person can point to unchanging absolutes as the standards by which he lives. This person's entire moral structure is based on justice, kindness, generosity, fearlessness, and a knowledge that all is well in the here and the hereafter.
This is an extreme example because very few people live like this. OTOH, there are no libertarian/free market societies, either.
You ask the big questions Riley.
But I'll make the attempt.
Let me outline my basic way of trying to think. I try to see all my personal values/beliefs as derived from a few core axioms, from which spring theorems, corollaries, etc. I tend to think along the lines of a reformed epistemology adherent: some things are just properly basic, and are inherently true, precluding any evidentialist argument. For example, I happen to believe there is a God; that's one of my axioms. Plantinga's philosophy is a useful tool for arguing the axiom is true to others, but I don't need that tool to realize it's true on my own.
An axiom doesn't change, and an axiom is invariably a concise statement of truth. However, the impact of a statement of absolute truth is potentially infinite. Lest this turn into an off track debate over theism, let's go with another one of my personal axioms: it is wrong to needlessly initiate force against another individual. The ramifications of that are quite complex, and I could spend my whole life in philosophical thought trying to piece together how to abide by that principle. In fact, I'm quite sure that in some way, I probably violate it sometimes without even realizing it. The Socratic Method inevitably reveals an ethical inconsistency in everybody, and one can either get upset about it and bluster about how they're not inconsistent just misunderstood, or you can accept that identifying these ethical inconsistencies in yourself and then resolving them is key to growth.
It stands to reason as I age, I have more time to think, process, and experience, and I come up with new, better insights for what that principle really means. Will I ever truly understand it? No, I have finite intellect and time. I do the best that I can and hope it's right and move on. The core belief hasn't changed, I just will gradually understand it better.
Well where do the axioms come from then? From one of my favorite obscure science fiction novels comes the quote "Just because I thought of it, doesn't mean you can't use it too." I personally think the man from Galilee has a lot of things to say.
But the rub is that it's a wholly different matter to understand the impact of an axiom once you've unearthed one. The implications of a belief are a tricky thing to work out, and the opinions of a rational man will inevitably shift. Unfortunately I believe that shift is largely unpredictable.
Another personal example: I actually used to think that background checks and the registration of certain kinds of weapons was okay, but I still supported the right to keep and bear arms. As I became an adult however and became more knowledgeable, I discovered that my value of the RKBA was inconsistent with those positions, so I have gradually discarded them and have ultimately become a no compromise sort. I now realize what I used to believe in was wrong, but it was necessary to go through that phase to arrive at a better, more truthful, conclusion. I don't see this particular viewpoint changing any time soon, as I constantly encounter evidence which supports it.
I guess you could interpret that as simply adapting to the situation, but even then, is my situation not as a human being on this ball of mud trying to do right?
