Let’s Give Up on the Constitution

[mocgator]

As I always say... the left in this country hate the USA and our Constitution... now with the progression of Marxism over our country they are starting to wear it on their sleeves...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/opinion/lets-give-up-on-the-constitution.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=opinion


AS the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken. But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions.

Our obsession with the Constitution has saddled us with a dysfunctional political system, kept us from debating the merits of divisive issues and inflamed our public discourse. Instead of arguing about what is to be done, we argue about what James Madison might have wanted done 225 years ago.

This is not to say that we should disobey all constitutional commands. Freedom of speech and religion, equal protection of the laws and protections against governmental deprivation of life, liberty or property are important, whether or not they are in the Constitution. We should continue to follow those requirements out of respect, not obligation.

[bluelang]

And your evidence that this viewpoint is representative of a relevant portion of the population is?

[Dreamliner]

Well, the Founders gave up on a better document than the one they crafted. Might as well piss on theirs. Serves them right.

[ChartsandGrafs]

What's so great about the Constitution? It's nothing more than a piece of paper stating that the government has the authority to forcefully rob the people it illegitimately lords over. If that's not bad enough, the Constitution was even used as a legal justification for human chattel slavery for over 70 years in this country. As far as I'm concerned, the Constitution might as well be toilet paper.

The Constitution in a nutshell:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngpsJKQR_ZE

[Dreamliner]

Charts! Where the hell have you been ?

[ChartsandGrafs]

Charts! Where the hell have you been ?

Well, I was banned at some point, and then apparently unbanned.

I'm sure the mods will rectify this shortly.

[oragator1]

Well, I was banned at some point, and then apparently unbanned.

I'm sure the mods will rectify this shortly.

I don't always agree with you, but the more diverse voices the better. Welcome back.

[Dreamliner]

Well, I was banned at some point, and then apparently unbanned.

I'm sure the mods will rectify this shortly.

Well, if I have anything to say about it they'd better not.

[ChartsandGrafs]

I don't always agree with you, but the more diverse voices the better. Welcome back.

Thanks. Enjoy the extra diversity my voice brings until the mods wake up and realize I slipped through the cracks.

[rivergator]

I guess we're supposed to believe Jefferson hated the US, also?

No sooner was the Constitution in place than our leaders began ignoring it. John Adams supported the Alien and Sedition Acts, which violated the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech. Thomas Jefferson thought every constitution should expire after a single generation. He believed the most consequential act of his presidency — the purchase of the Louisiana Territory — exceeded his constitutional powers.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

There is a lot of deserved reverence to the Founding Fathers and their work. There's a lot of undue reverence to the untouchable, inflexible, divine Constitution. Both sides of the aisle have no problem changing or ignoring it on a yearly basis, let's not pretend otherwise.

[rivergator]

I notice that on websites like Fox Nation and Glenn Beck, the headline is: "NY Times: Constitution is "Downright Evil."
I guess they assume their readers are too stupid to realize this is an op-ed piece.

[MichiGator2002]

The proposition that there are "evil" provisions in the US Constitution is intellectually invalid. I assume that people carrying on in such silly fashion are discussing and completely misunderstanding the 3/5ths compromise, and if they aren't talking about that, I can't even imagine hoe long the abyss has been staring back into them.

[wgbgator]

The main problem with the Constitution is that it was drawn up in a pre-industrial world. But I think its been adaptable, the only obstacle being that some people still want to read it like they are in a pre-industrial world of their own imagination and not even the 20th century.

[Dreamliner]

It's a living document!

Also: a stitch in time saves nine.

[wgbgator]

It's a living document!

Also: a stitch in time saves nine.

As are all texts, really.

[Dreamliner]

As are all texts, really.

Well, not really. Arguably none are living documents if by that you mean authorial intent may be disregarded. On the other hand, we know enough about these particular authors such that we can make judgements about them and thus the document they crafted.

[MichiGator2002]

The main problem with the Constitution is that it was drawn up in a pre-industrial world. But I think its been adaptable, the only obstacle being that some people still want to read it like they are in a pre-industrial world of their own imagination and not even the 20th century.

Industrialization is a suspicious, likely spurious grounds for discreditingthe written Constitution. It has all the adaptability it needs and has since ratification. That adaptability has been used a dozen or more times since the industrial revolution. If it belongs in the supreme law of the land, if its obviousness, legitimacy, and necessity are such, an amendment can prevail. If the sole claim that it isn't adaptable enough is that it doesn't reflect something that not enough people to get an amendment want, that is not a flaw in the Constitution, it is a flaw in the proposal.

[g8orbill]

How about we quit bastardizing the Constitution and stick with our core beliefs and enforce our Cosntitution

[DSRrg]

There is a lot of deserved reverence to the Founding Fathers and their work. There's a lot of undue reverence to the untouchable, inflexible, divine Constitution. Both sides of the aisle have no problem changing or ignoring it on a yearly basis, let's not pretend otherwise.

This is absolutely correct! R and D represent two heads on the same coin. Bill is right, it's time we just uphold our core beliefs and enforce the Constitution.

[Dreamliner]

Going back to 1775, and even back to 1650 or so, our core beliefs seem to killing people, ostracizing those with unconventional beliefs and suing the pants off each other.

[wgbgator]

Industrialization is a suspicious, likely spurious grounds for discreditingthe written Constitution. It has all the adaptability it needs and has since ratification. That adaptability has been used a dozen or more times since the industrial revolution. If it belongs in the supreme law of the land, if its obviousness, legitimacy, and necessity are such, an amendment can prevail. If the sole claim that it isn't adaptable enough is that it doesn't reflect something that not enough people to get an amendment want, that is not a flaw in the Constitution, it is a flaw in the proposal.

I think "discrediting" is a strong word, and not one I used. Obviously, it has been adapted to industrialization, but it has been used as both a weapon to challenge state's protection of industrial workers during the Lochner era, and later used to defend the enacting of a welfare state to partially account for the nature of industrial wage labor. Obviously it has "flexibility" of sorts. Depending on your perspective, those might be suspicious readings of the Constitution. That being said, there's a reason why people drawing up new constitutions don't use the US Constitution as an ideal model. I think much of that has to do with the way the nature of production and labor have changed since the 18th century.

[gatorjd95]

For many, I think their problem with the Constitution is that it is a limiting document and stands in the way of their desire for a massive federal gov't that controls everything. Was it Krugman who whined and wished that O or fed gov't had the authority like China to just do what they wanted?

The left has succeeded a great deal by winning court battles (i.e., Commerce clause) to confuse and convince people that the federal gov't's role is to be everything to everybody. However, that's not how the federal gov't was created. If you want an all-powerful federal gov't, then try to amend it for the purpose.

If NY, CA, MA, MI, etc. want massive regulation, entitlement programs, gay marriage, legalized pot, etc., let them have it. Let the other states decide what they want.

[sierragator]

I shudder to think what a modern day Constitutional Convention would produce.

[rivergator]

I shudder to think what a modern day Constitutional Convention would produce.

excellent point.

[ChartsandGrafs]

I shudder to think what a modern day Constitutional Convention would produce.

Well, the first Constitutional Convention produced a document that legalized the institution of human chattel slavery between private citizens. A second, modern Constitutional Convention would probably produce a document that legalizes the institution of human chattel slavery between the government and private citizens.

Oh wait, scratch that. The allowance of the income tax under the 16th Amendment already took care of that. Never mind.

[wargunfan]

Thank God for the Bill of Rights. They are all that stands between citizens and an oppressive central government. On the other hand the 14th Amendment has been distorted in such a way as to allow the government to regulate anything and everything. Would that it could be reined in.

[Gatorpika]

I shudder to think what a modern day Constitutional Convention would produce.

Probably nothing. The country is pretty much evenly split on most issues, so nothing would get passed.

Personally I shudder to think that the author of this piece is a well educated and apparently highly regarded professor that is teaching our children. At it's most basic, the Constitution provides a framework of law that is above politics and the whims of the electorate. It is a strong foundation for our government and is intended to be limiting because the founding fathers knew that as power was centralized in the hands of few, tyranny was the result. There have been countless examples afterward of countries with weak constitutional foundations devolving into dictatorships simply by the government promising free stuff to the lower classes. Look at Venezuela. It had a high poverty rate and Chavez promised handouts and work to the uneducated and impoverished people, so they changed the constitution to keep him in office by abolishing the term limit. The fact that the same thing is being discussed in America and advocated by impressive individuals such as the author to me indicates we are not that much smarter than poor Venezuelan farmers.

He did note that all the important stuff should be left in and all the bad stuff should go away. And this would free up the government to only make good decisions. My question to him would be why not propose an amendment if this things are really useless and hinder the governance process? The constitution is not inflexible to change, only change at the whim of one group who can't achieve consensus. Isn't that the way it should be? And if people freely disobey the constitution to make good decisions, couldn't they just as easily disobey the constitution to make bad ones? If you simply ignore the authority of the document, then all provisions are at risk including the bill of rights. I mean this stuff is basic and should have been learned in HS civics if they still taught it anymore. The fact that this guy is a distinguished scholar and doesn't get it is baffling. So to this author I give one of my favorite John Grisham quotes: "you must be stupid, stupid stupid!".

[mocgator]

The main problem with the Constitution is that it was drawn up in a pre-industrial world. But I think its been adaptable, the only obstacle being that some people still want to read it like they are in a pre-industrial world of their own imagination and not even the 20th century.

No it isn't. Freedom is freedom. Has nothing to do with industrialization.

[MichiGator2002]

Well, the first Constitutional Convention produced a document that legalized the institution of human chattel slavery between private citizens. A second, modern Constitutional Convention would probably produce a document that legalizes the institution of human chattel slavery between the government and private citizens.

Oh wait, scratch that. The allowance of the income tax under the 16th Amendment already took care of that. Never mind.

This is entirely disingenuous as to slavery. The Constitution didn't legalize slavery, slavery was already legal. In point of fact, both the 3/5ths compromise and the 1808 clause represented serious blows to the power of slaveholding states and the stability of the institution.

[ChartsandGrafs]

This is entirely disingenuous as to slavery. The Constitution didn't legalize slavery, slavery was already legal. In point of fact, both the 3/5ths compromise and the 1808 clause represented serious blows to the power of slaveholding states and the stability of the institution.

What does it matter, really? Slavery was legal and the Constitution kept it legal, at least that version of it, for another 70+ years. That's all that matters. Slavery didn't end. It just morphed from a private institution into a public institution run by government.

[rivergator]

No it isn't. Freedom is freedom. Has nothing to do with industrialization.

Moc, so what do you think about Jefferson's opinion that the Constitution be scrapped and redone on a regular basis. Do you think that means he hated America?

[Minister_of_Information]

Either we are a nation of laws or a nation of men. That article was a hair's breadth from treason, IMO.

[MichiGator2002]

What does it matter, really? Slavery was legal and the Constitution kept it legal, at least that version of it, for another 70+ years. That's all that matters. Slavery didn't end. It just morphed from a private institution into a public institution run by government.

It matters a great deal if you are confining your interpretation of history to reality and not fantasy. Had the Constitution devised to ban slavery, it would not have been ratified. No rational, historical argument could disagree with that. So you had two choices in the world of the actual -- legal slavery and a ratified Constitution, or legal slavery and an unratified Constitution. There is no "C". And, again, in the ratified Constitution were some decisive blows against slavery as a permanent fact of life.



Moc, so what do you think about Jefferson's opinion that the Constitution be scrapped and redone on a regular basis. Do you think that means he hated America?

I think Jefferson could have written a Constitution a year, every year, for the past 222 years and would not have ever produced one that a contemporary liberal would vote to ratify. I think his intergenerational faith was based on the quality of people and of culture and that he would not say that were he standing here today looking at a federal government that exerts far more influence and control over the everyday lives of citizens than any of he absolute monarchs of his day did.

[ChartsandGrafs]

It matters a great deal if you are confining your interpretation of history to reality and not fantasy. Had the Constitution devised to ban slavery, it would not have been ratified. No rational, historical argument could disagree with that. So you had two choices in the world of the actual -- legal slavery and a ratified Constitution, or legal slavery and an unratified Constitution. There is no "C". And, again, in the ratified Constitution were some decisive blows against slavery as a permanent fact of life.

We're clearly having two different discussions here.

[Gatorpika]

What does it matter, really? Slavery was legal and the Constitution kept it legal, at least that version of it, for another 70+ years. That's all that matters. Slavery didn't end. It just morphed from a private institution into a public institution run by government.

Why does everybody keep fixating on slavery and the Constitution? The ideas for governance embodied in the document were revolutionary at the time when most countries were ruled by monarchs. Is it not relevant today? Look at the interim period at how many governments have come and gone. Look at how many other systems changed the lives of the people for the worse. Look at how the personal liberties guaranteed in the bill of rights make our lives better than people in other countries that don't have those protections. It's a document that lays down a framework for a system of government, not a moral judgement on slavery.

[Minister_of_Information]

The only reason slavery does not exist today is because of the determination of men with guns.

[ChartsandGrafs]

The only reason slavery does not exist today is because of the determination of men with guns.

Not really. Slavery is alive and well today. It just changed hands from the private sector to the public sector, that's all.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Why does everybody keep fixating on slavery and the Constitution? The ideas for governance embodied in the document were revolutionary at the time when most countries were ruled by monarchs. Is it not relevant today? Look at the interim period at how many governments have come and gone. Look at how many other systems changed the lives of the people for the worse. Look at how the personal liberties guaranteed in the bill of rights make our lives better than people in other countries that don't have those protections. It's a document that lays down a framework for a system of government, not a moral judgement on slavery.

Come on, you don't really believe any of that stuff, do you? The Constitution is an illegitimate document written up by a tiny, tiny minority of rich men who gave themselves the unlawful power and authority to rob, enslave, and lord over a bunch of people who just fought and died to free themselves from a similar group of rich men who were robbing, enslaving, and lording over them from England. That's all it is.

The Bill of Rights is laudable, sure, but then they had to go and mess it up with all the rest.

[cocodrilo]

A fatal flaw in the Constitution is the absence of term limits.

[rivergator]

Either we are a nation of laws or a nation of men. That article was a hair's breadth from treason, IMO.

I'm pretty sure the Constitution says it wasn't.

[mocgator]

This is entirely disingenuous as to slavery. The Constitution didn't legalize slavery, slavery was already legal. In point of fact, both the 3/5ths compromise and the 1808 clause represented serious blows to the power of slaveholding states and the stability of the institution.

It's amazing that no liberals understand the "3/5" compromise or what it did. The left touts it as proof that the USA is a racist nation. It's a joke.

[sierragator]

A fatal flaw in the Constitution is the absence of term limits.
+1

[Gatorpika]

A fatal flaw in the Constitution is the absence of term limits.

22nd amendment? And if the people of a state want to continue reelecting an individual, why should they be prohibited from doing so? The fact that we have career politicians is our fault, not theirs.

[gatorlaw71]

The only reason slavery does not exist today is because of the determination of men with guns.

The only reason slavery existed in this country was because of men with guns.

[Gatorpika]

Come on, you don't really believe any of that stuff, do you? The Constitution is an illegitimate document written up by a tiny, tiny minority of rich men who gave themselves the unlawful power and authority to rob, enslave, and lord over a bunch of people who just fought and died to free themselves from a similar group of rich men who were robbing, enslaving, and lording over them from England. That's all it is.

The Bill of Rights is laudable, sure, but then they had to go and mess it up with all the rest.

You are the anarchist, right? I have not been on here in a while and I forgot.

[sierragator]

We have term limits for POTUS, so what makes Senators and Representatives so special that we end up having some of these parasites in office for 30+ years.

[Gatorpika]

We have term limits for POTUS, so what makes Senators and Representatives so special that we end up having some of these parasites in office for 30+ years.

Quit voting for them.

[sierragator]

I take it you are ok with the likes of Ted Kennedy or Diane Feinstein (and many others) being in office as a career as opposed to public service as it was originally envisioned?

Unseating a official who has been in office for decades is extremely difficult as the deck is stacked in favor of perpetuating the financial gluttony they all engage in.

[cocodrilo]

Quit voting for them.

Term limits should be in the Constitution because the people are too stupid to quit voting for them. The Founding Fathers should have thought of the good of the country instead of laying the foundation for unlimited careers in power, corruption and bribery (otherwise known as "lobbying"). But hindsight is 20/20, all those old white men are dead, and today's career politicians aren't about to end their own careers with an amendment that sends them back home. So we're screwed, but I'm sure you already know that.

[Dreamliner]

One of the problems is that Arizonans would like to vote out the Barney Franks and New Yorkers would like to vote out the Ron Pauls.

[fredsanford]

We'd have far fewer cranks and more moderates without gerrymandering.

[cocodrilo]

One of the problems is that Arizonans would like to vote out the Barney Franks and New Yorkers would like to vote out the Ron Pauls.

And everyone wants to vote out Nancy Pelosi. Where did she come from anyway? What does she have on America?

[Dreamliner]

We'd have far fewer cranks and more moderates without gerrymandering.

Sure, but that works to the favor of both parties (helps dems in CA, helps pubs in TX) and neither is in favor of unilateral disarmament.

[Gatorpika]

Term limits should be in the Constitution because the people are too stupid to quit voting for them. The Founding Fathers should have thought of the good of the country instead of laying the foundation for unlimited careers in power, corruption and bribery (otherwise known as "lobbying"). But hindsight is 20/20, all those old white men are dead, and today's career politicians aren't about to end their own careers with an amendment that sends them back home. So we're screwed, but I'm sure you already know that.

If people are too stupid to quit voting for them, maybe they shouldn't be participating in governance? We should limit voting to only those that are college graduates that pass a voting test or something. The playing field is different today since it takes so much money to get elected, but ultimately that money comes from donations from the voters and also the voter has a choice as to who to vote for. In my opinion, you voted for the guy, you live with him.

Oh, and the founders did take into account the stupidity of the voters originally. The senators were not chosen by popular vote and the electoral college was put in to avoid direct election of the president. It was hoped that a group of knowledgeable electors would prevent some nut job who appealed to the moron masses from being seated as president. The 17th amendment got rid of the indirect election of senators and the electoral college has never really played a part in the choice of a president.

[Dreamliner]

People: Americans don't vote out their own congresspersons. Would you vote out the guy or girl who was bringing home the pork ?

A bigger question is why a Barney Frank should have a voice in the way Florida is governed.

[Gatorpika]

People: Americans don't vote out their own congresspersons. Would you vote out the guy or girl who was bringing home the pork ?

A bigger question is why a Barney Frank should have a voice in the way Florida is governed.

Florida has more of a say in how Barney Frank is governed than Barney Frank has a say in how Florida is governed.

[cocodrilo]

If people are too stupid to quit voting for them, maybe they shouldn't be participating in governance?

There should be ground rules for that participation, and there are. But they don't include term limits and they should. But let the morons keep all the Pelosis in power. I don't participate. I quit after voting like a moron for LBJ in 1964. I admit I'm too stupid to vote.

[VAg8r1]

We have term limits for POTUS, so what makes Senators and Representatives so special that we end up having some of these parasites in office for 30+ years.
The provision term-limiting the POTUS wasn't in the Constitution as originally drafted; it was added through the 22nd Amendment. We can always amend the Constitution to term limit members of Congress. It also would not be a bad idea to amend Constitution to eliminate the current version of Senatorial filibuster since there is no historic record indicating that the founders intended that super majorities be required for ordinary legislation. The Electoral College should also be eliminated. The current version is not even close to the EC as envisioned by the founders (they envisioned a system under which the electors actually exercised their independent judgment rather than the current winner-take-all system under which the electors are party loyalists who have no discretion regarding their votes). If we're really concerned witha functional government, an amendment to eliminate the practice of gerrymandering would be a good step in that direction . Computerized gerrymandering has become so efficient that Nate Silver has estimated that only around 35 of the 435 House seats are competitive. Not a good system for an effective legislative body. Finally, amending the Constitution to allow Congress and the states to enact legislation limiting the current system of legalized bribery otherwise known as campaign finance. Although it would probably be painful for conservatives to accept a system of bought and paid for politicians is not a good thing.

[ChartsandGrafs]

You are the anarchist, right? I have not been on here in a while and I forgot.

Sure, but it doesn't change the fact that what I said about the Constitution is true. It's a piece of paper a bunch of rich old men wrote on giving themselves the legal authority to form a federal Mafia and rob you in perpetuity, regulate your interactions with others, and lord over you for the duration of your life.

The Revolutionary War was basically just a classic turf war. The poor, peasant colonists who largely fought it were tricked into throwing out the old Crown Mafia mob bosses for Colony Mafia mob bosses who treated them and exploited them just as bad.

[MichiGator2002]

Honestly, you're right. Throw out all such documents, even. Ah, to be back in good old 1214.

[Gatorpika]

Sure, but it doesn't change the fact that what I said about the Constitution is true. It's a piece of paper a bunch of rich old men wrote on giving themselves the legal authority to form a federal Mafia and rob you in perpetuity, regulate your interactions with others, and lord over you for the duration of your life.

The Revolutionary War was basically just a classic turf war. The poor, peasant colonists who largely fought it were tricked into throwing out the old Crown Mafia mob bosses for Colony Mafia mob bosses who treated them and exploited them just as bad.

You could say the same thing about any form of government other than anarchy or communism. I was talking about the nuances of our form of government compared to others, not whether we should be governed at all.

[g8orbill]

there is an excellent class on the Constitution offered on line by Hillsdale College

http://constitution.hillsdale.edu/101/info

[Gatorpika]

Honestly, you're right. Throw out all such documents, even. Ah, to be back in good old 1214.

They need to get the guns back first.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Honestly, you're right. Throw out all such documents, even. Ah, to be back in good old 1214.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. How does time or a change in calendar year have any bearing on the truth?

[Dreamliner]

Honestly, you're right. Throw out all such documents, even. Ah, to be back in good old 1214.

The Battle of Bouvines ? Is that what you're driving at ? :wink:

[Dreamliner]

Florida has more of a say in how Barney Frank is governed than Barney Frank has a say in how Florida is governed.

How ? Every eligible voter in Florida could vote against him and it would have no effect. On the other hand, Frank can shape the federal government. And Florida is beholden to the federal government.

[Gatorpika]

How ? Every eligible voter in Florida could vote against him and it would have no effect. On the other hand, Frank can shape the federal government. And Florida is beholden to the federal government.

Florida has more representatives than commie Massachusetts. If Florida elects reps to vote against Frank, Frank and Massachusetts are stuck with what Florida wants.

[Dreamliner]

Florida has more representatives than commie Massachusetts. If Florida elects reps to vote against Frank, Frank and Massachusetts are stuck with what Florida wants.

For all of Florida's growth, it doesn't seem to have helped. In fact, Red States are growing faster than Blue States, but in effect, the US is becoming Bluer.

[Gatorpika]

For all of Florida's growth, it doesn't seem to have helped. In fact, Red States are growing faster than Blue States, but in effect, the US is becoming Bluer.

Yep. Because all the commie Yankees are moving south for work/retirement. An they are bringing their misguided beliefs with them.

[MichiGator2002]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. How does time or a change in calendar year have any bearing on the truth?

Because your reasoning would also classify Magna Carta, the following year, as rich people blah blah anarchist cakes. Let's have done with all of it.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Because your reasoning would also classify Magna Carta, the following year, as rich people blah blah anarchist cakes. Let's have done with all of it.

Well, wasn't it? You think poor peasants came up with the Magna Carta?

LOL.

[Minister_of_Information]

I'm pretty sure the Constitution says it wasn't.

I said it wasn't too, if you'd paid attention. After all he didn't advocate the use of violence within his call to overthrow of the Constitution.

[MichiGator2002]

Well, wasn't it? You think poor peasants came up with the Magna Carta?

LOL.

No, I was hoping that the rationally incontestible importance of Magna Carta in the advancement of human civilization and the sheer lunacy of contemplating a world in which it never took place might shake you from this absurd notion that any idea a rich person or people ever had is per se wicked and unjust. Tooooo much credit.

[Minister_of_Information]

The only reason slavery existed in this country was because of men with guns.

The only reason slavery existed in this country was because it had always existed everywhere until particular nations took it upon themselves to end the practice.

[ChartsandGrafs]

No, I was hoping that the rationally incontestible importance of Magna Carta in the advancement of human civilization and the sheer lunacy of contemplating a world in which it never took place might shake you from this absurd notion that any idea a rich person or people ever had is per se wicked and unjust. Tooooo much credit.

LULZ.

Advancement of human civilization? You call this "civilization"? What's so civilized about it? Nothing's really changed. It's still just people fighting over who's going to rule the roost. It's still just people fighting over who's going to exploit the population's labor. It's still just people trying to accumulate as much power over their fellow man as possible. The boundaries have changed, the technology has changed, and the justifications have changed, but it's still just the same charade.

[Lawdog88]

And your solution was . . . ?

[ChartsandGrafs]

Facing reality would be a good start.

[Dreamliner]

The only reason slavery existed in this country was because it had always existed everywhere until particular nations took it upon themselves to end the practice.

And if I might interject, nearly every nation, save the US, ended it without conscription and bloody conflagration.

In other words, they didn't resort to one form of slavery to end another form of slavery.

[fredsanford]

Sure, but that works to the favor of both parties (helps dems in CA, helps pubs in TX) and neither is in favor of unilateral disarmament.

Yes, but we would get less nutjobs from both.

[MichiGator2002]

LULZ.

Advancement of human civilization? You call this "civilization"? What's so civilized about it? Nothing's really changed. It's still just people fighting over who's going to rule the roost. It's still just people fighting over who's going to exploit the population's labor. It's still just people trying to accumulate as much power over their fellow man as possible. The boundaries have changed, the technology has changed, and the justifications have changed, but it's still just the same charade.

Which, again, you are necessarily asserting in your "codefications of rights and limitations on sovereignty are BAD" stuff is that we were a more civilized species the day before Magna Carta (and one could pull other codes far earlier in fact) as any day hence. Which, well... durp. That is all I got. Well, and hurp.

[Minister_of_Information]

And if I might interject, nearly every nation, save the US, ended it without conscription and bloody conflagration.

In other words, they didn't resort to one form of slavery to end another form of slavery.

Conscription is not a form of slavery.

[MichiGator2002]

And if I might interject, nearly every nation, save the US, ended it without conscription and bloody conflagration.

In other words, they didn't resort to one form of slavery to end another form of slavery.

Most of the heavy lifting of really, actually ending slavery (or the only kind of slavery we count as such, unlike our hundreds of thousands slaves held in the US today), was done with extreme prejudice, by the Royal Navy. Egads, violence! Warmongering!

[ChartsandGrafs]

Which, again, you are necessarily asserting in your "codefications of rights and limitations on sovereignty are BAD" stuff is that we were a more civilized species the day before Magna Carta (and one could pull other codes far earlier in fact) as any day hence. Which, well... durp. That is all I got. Well, and hurp.

If's that's all you could come up with, why bother at all?

[ChartsandGrafs]

Conscription is not a form of slavery.

False.

Conscription = Forced military servitude = Slavery

Chattel slavery = Forced economic servitude = Slavery

Both the same thing in practice, with the same basic result.

[Dreamliner]

Conscription is not a form of slavery.

True, not if they ask.

Oh wait, they don't ask before they snatch your baby boy from your arms.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Minister doesn't believe that the State exists to serve the people, he believes that the people exist to serve the State.

This is an important distinction.

[Minister_of_Information]

True, not if they ask.

Oh wait, they don't ask before they snatch your baby boy from your arms.

Is breathing a choice, or is it the labor required by life?

Liberty along with life also requires labor. And neither can endure unless we bear their burden.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Is breathing a choice, or is it the labor required by life?

Of course it is. After all, people often make the choice to stop breathing.

Let me guess, you don't believe that kind of personal choice should be allowed?

Liberty along with life also requires labor. And neither can endure unless we bear their burden.

And what if a man doesn't want to? Isn't that his choice?

You keep mentioning liberty and freedom, but you don't seem to understand what those words truly mean.

[MichiGator2002]

If's that's all you could come up with, why bother at all?

Why bother with you? Touche. Valid question. Anarchism is something I take every bit as seriously as the nihilists in "The Big Lebowski". It is pretty hard to 'bother with' an ethos that, as a practical matter, turns all rights into a nullity since it rejects the premise that they can be protected by anything beyond might or wishful thinking.

[Minister_of_Information]

Of course it is. After all, people often make the choice to stop breathing.

Let me guess, you don't believe that kind of personal choice should be allowed?



And what if a man doesn't want to? Isn't that his choice?

You keep mentioning liberty and freedom, but you don't seem to understand what those words truly mean.

One could choose not to breathe, even permanently as by asphixiating himself, yet he cannot also live. If he wants to live he must breathe, and just so if we want to be free we must defend ourselves.

[ChartsandGrafs]

One could choose not to breathe, even permanently as by asphixiating himself, yet he cannot also live. If he wants to live he must breathe, and just so if we want to be free we must defend ourselves.

Aren't those individual, personal choices though? I mean both suicide and defending ourselves?

Are you an individualist or a collectivist? Do you believe you exist to serve yourself or others?

[Minister_of_Information]

The choice to defend the nation is a collective one, delegated to the government to which we have delegated the administration of that which is collectively necessary. And the defense of the nation is collectively necessary.

The connotation of those terms seem too ideologically strident to me, though I've always believed that the dignity of the individual is an end in itself. The point of society ought to be to empower and liberate the individual. Yet I do not imagine that I am free from the violence of nature merely by my individual will: that requires the collaborative efforts of a society of the like-minded to ensure. And the organization of those collaborative efforts will require some sort of administration, and that administration will have to be empowered to make decisions.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Why bother with you? Touche. Valid question. Anarchism is something I take every bit as seriously as the nihilists in "The Big Lebowski". It is pretty hard to 'bother with' an ethos that, as a practical matter, turns all rights into a nullity since it rejects the premise that they can be protected by anything beyond might or wishful thinking.

LOL. Disaster post of the day.

[Lawdog88]

The choice to defend the nation is a collective one, delegated to the government to which we have delegated the administration of that which is collectively necessary. And the defense of the nation is collectively necessary.

The connotation of those terms seem too ideologically strident to me, though I've always believed that the dignity of the individual is an end in itself. The point of society ought to be to empower and liberate the individual. Yet I do not imagine that I am free from the violence of nature merely by my individual will: that requires the collaborative efforts of a society of the like-minded to ensure. And the organization of those collaborative efforts will require some sort of administration, and that administration will have to be empowered to make decisions.


These truths do appear to be self-evident.

[Dreamliner]

Is breathing a choice, or is it the labor required by life?

Liberty along with life also requires labor. And neither can endure unless we bear their burden.

The state inhales the free and exhales the spent. Conscription amounts to slave labor. But if the notion of enslaving your baby boy or baby girl to the politic aims of the state doesn't sit well with you, I suppose you're free to call it by another name.

[ChartsandGrafs]

The choice to defend the nation is a collective one, delegated to the government to which we have delegated the administration of that which is collectively necessary. And the defense of the nation is collectively necessary.

I disagree. The choice to defend the nation is an individual one, and it's a choice freely made by each and every member of the nation. It's a choice no different than the one involved in renouncing citizenship, as far as I am concerned.

"Do I want to be a part of this nation?"
"Do I want to live within the borders of this nation?"
"Do I want to defend this nation?"
"Do I want to kill or be killed for this nation?"

All the same.

The connotation of those terms seem too ideologically strident to me, though I've always believed that the dignity of the individual is an end in itself. The point of society ought to be to empower and liberate the individual. Yet I do not imagine that I am free from the violence of nature merely by my individual will: that requires the collaborative efforts of a society of the like-minded to ensure. And the organization of those collaborative efforts will require some sort of administration, and that administration will have to be empowered to make decisions.

I disagree again. I see no reason to believe society is dependent on any form of higher, monopolistic administration to make "decisions" (government). I also see no reason to believe that individual human beings need to be ruled by anyone but themselves.

[ChartsandGrafs]

These truths do appear to be self-evident.

No, not really.

[Lawdog88]

No, not really.


Yes, quite really.

But do go on.

[ChartsandGrafs]

I also love the notion that we delegate to government any administrative powers. This is a complete and total myth. No government asks for permission. No government waits for the people it claims dominion over to delegate anything before they begin exerting power. We were all born into this system and agreed to nothing.

The government would fight us tooth and nail using every means available, up to and including nuclear weapons, if we ever attempted to revoke any imaginary powers we allegedly delegated it to it.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Yes, quite really.

But do go on.

I already did.

Nothing at all is self-evident in what Minister stated.

[Gatorpika]

I also love the notion that we delegate to government any administrative powers. This is a complete and total myth. No government asks for permission. No government waits for the people it claims dominion over to delegate anything before they begin exerting power. We were all born into this system and agreed to nothing.

The government would fight us tooth and nail using every means available, up to and including nuclear weapons, if we ever attempted to revoke any imaginary powers we allegedly delegated it to it.

Yet we benefit from the security provided by the government and the people. We benefit from the stability and predictability of our body of law. You wouldn't be sitting in your home/bunker/Ted Kazinski cabin typing on the internet without the structure of government we have. You have the freedom to renounce your citizenship and go live in Somalia or wherever.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Yet we benefit from the security provided by the government and the people.

LOL, tell that to the people who died on 9/11.

We benefit from the stability and predictability of our body of law.

Do we? What's stable and predictable about it? There are thousands upon thousands of stupid, unfair laws, statutes, and regulations in this country. I've heard legal experts say that there are so many laws, that it's virtually impossible for any American to go without breaking at least one or more of them, even if they were mindful of it. Imagine that. Our crooked government has created a sort of legal Matrix that allows them to arrest virtually any American if they ever need the excuse. All they have to do is either figure out what law(s) you've broken or monitor you and wait for you trip over one of their many legal tripwires.

Yeah, that sounds real beneficial. We should be so lucky!

You wouldn't be sitting in your home/bunker/Ted Kazinski cabin typing on the internet without the structure of government we have.

You don't know that. For all you know, in a more sane world absent government monopolies, we'd all be sitting in a much better place. This is all you know, so this is all you can imagine.

You have the freedom to renounce your citizenship and go live in Somalia or wherever.

Yes, and it sounds like you don't like me speaking freely or criticizing the U.S. government. Since that's the case, maybe you should go live in North Korea where that's frowned on and not tolerated.

You sound like you'd fit in there.

[Gatorpika]

LOL, tell that to the people who died on 9/11.

Do we? What's stable and predictable about it? There are thousands upon thousands of stupid, unfair laws, statutes, and regulations in this country. I've heard legal experts say that there are so many laws, that it's virtually impossible for any American to go without breaking at least one or more of them, even if they were mindful of it. Imagine that. Our crooked government has created a sort of legal Matrix that allows them to arrest virtually any American if they ever need the excuse. All they have to do is either figure out what law(s) you've broken or monitor you and wait for you trip over one of their many legal tripwires.

Yeah, that sounds real beneficial. We should be so lucky!

You don't know that. For all you know, in a more sane world absent government monopolies, we'd all be sitting in a much better place. This is all you know, so this is all you can imagine.

Yes, and it sounds like you don't like me speaking freely or criticizing the U.S. government. Since that's the case, maybe you should go live in North Korea where that's frowned on and not tolerated.

You sound like you'd fit in there.

Yeah we have a lot of stupid laws and the country is far from perfect. But advocating for the absence of law would be far worse. There are countless examples in history where peoples have suffered to a much greater degree than most of us could fathom due to the absence of the rule of law and a strong government. It's far better to live with nuisance laws here than fear for your life and lose your possessions in a lawless society. But I am sure this has been conveyed to you countless times already in here.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Yeah we have a lot of stupid laws and the country is far from perfect. But advocating for the absence of law would be far worse. There are countless examples in history where peoples have suffered to a much greater degree than most of us could fathom due to the absence of the rule of law and a strong government. It's far better to live with nuisance laws here than fear for your life and lose your possessions in a lawless society. But I am sure this has been conveyed to you countless times already in here.

This is false. Haven't you ever heard the term, 'natural law'?

There's no such thing as an "absence of the rule of law". Government or no government, natural law always rules, without exception.

So you're not conveying anything new to me. The problem is, it's all wrong and based on common falsehoods.

[Gatorpika]

This is false. Haven't you ever heard the term, 'natural law'?

There's no such thing as an "absence of the rule of law". Government or no government, natural law always rules, without exception.

So you're not conveying anything new to me. The problem is, it's all wrong and based on common falsehoods.

The ideas behind natural law existed long before they were codified in the constitution. And they were generally not followed in most of the world. Natural law is simply a philosophy without an enforcement framework. Even in the United States, where certain elements of natural law are codified in our supreme law, these laws were sometimes disregarded by those sworn to uphold them.

[ChartsandGrafs]

The ideas behind natural law existed long before they were codified in the constitution. And they were generally not followed in most of the world.

LOL. Of course they were. We wouldn't be here if early man didn't follow natural law. We'd either still be in caves or extinct.

Natural law is simply a philosophy without an enforcement framework.

Total nonsense. Each individual person enforces natural law. Do you want proof?

Easy. Just go around and randomly attack strangers and find out what happens.

Even in the United States, where certain elements of natural law are codified in our supreme law, these laws were sometimes disregarded by those sworn to uphold them.

You're not saying much here. All laws are disregarded by those sworn to uphold them, including your vaunted man-made laws.

What else is new?

[Gatorpika]

[QUOTE="ChartsandGrafs"]
Easy. Just go around and randomly attack strangers and find out what happens.
/QUOTE]

Not much if you were a lord in feudal England attacking peons. If natural law were some magic rules genetically coded in all of us, why did it take until the 1700s before the enlightenment thinkers wrote it down and advocated for its application? And the premise of your governmentless society ruled by natural law is that there is universal acceptance of natural law and all would voluntarily adhere to it. That's just not realistic when some can gain benefits by subjugating others. It's human nature to covet and there will always be those that will ignore social Norma to get what they want.

[ChartsandGrafs]

And the premise of your governmentless society ruled by natural law is that there is universal acceptance of natural law and all would voluntarily adhere to it. That's just not realistic when some can gain benefits by subjugating others. It's human nature to covet and there will always be those that will ignore social Norma to get what they want.

What you're describing here also happens in societies with governments and man-made laws. Just look at the United States, for example. The U.S. government bends and ignores its own laws whenever it's convenient, and there's nothing you can do about it. You can pretend that you have some ability to stop it by voting in someone new, but you really don't. You're only allowed to vote for a pre-approved selection of candidates, courtesy of the ruling elites. It's basically a dictatorship, where you get to pick your own tyrant. And if you think the courts are going to put a stop to it, think again. The courts work for them. Just look at what the judicial system has allowed over the last hundred years if you need need any evidence.

The difference between your society and mine is, your society legalizes this tyrannical system of institutionalized corruption and exploitation, and allows it to amass the wealth and resources of an entire nation, while my society identifies these people for what they are and declares open season on them before they can get started. No rational person capable of independent thought could possibly declare your government-monopoly society superior to my free, competitive society.

[fredsanford]

What you're describing here also happens in societies with governments and man-made laws. Just look at the United States, for example. The U.S. government bends and ignores its own laws whenever it's convenient, and there's nothing you can do about it. You can pretend that you have some ability to stop it by voting in someone new, but you really don't. You're only allowed to vote for a pre-approved selection of candidates, courtesy of the ruling elites. It's basically a dictatorship, where you get to pick your own tyrant. And if you think the courts are going to put a stop to it, think again. The courts work for them. Just look at what the judicial system has allowed over the last hundred years if you need need any evidence.

The difference between your society and mine is, your society legalizes this tyrannical system of institutionalized corruption and exploitation, and allows it to amass the wealth and resources of an entire nation, while my society identifies these people for what they are and declares open season on them before they can get started. No rational person capable of independent thought could possibly declare your government-monopoly society superior to my free, competitive society.

Though we probably don't agree on much, we are somewhat in sync on this.

For the entire Bush era, I was on here pounding away about the assaults on our civil liberties. What was the right wing response? Silly liberal, it's all good if it makes us secure. Do you want another 9/11?

Suddenly these same conservatives woke up when a Dem became president. Warrantless wiretapping? How DARE you! Not in my country! Imprisonment without due process? Outrageous!

Be careful what you approve of when YOUR guy is in charge. Don't forget that eventually the opposition will get that sword, too.

[ChartsandGrafs]

Though we probably don't agree on much, we are somewhat in sync on this.

I don't see how we are in sync at all. Our views are as far apart as Mercury and Pluto. You're as partisan as anyone on the board and you practically worship government. You defend almost everything it does, as long as your team has control. If the other team has control, you scream bloody murder, but it's clearly disingenuous.

That's not my game, dude.

[Minister_of_Information]

The law of nature is force.

[ChartsandGrafs]

The law of nature is force.

And the belief in government is the idea that we should give a certain group of people a monopoly on the initiation of that force.

Why should anyone be allowed to have a monopoly on the initiation of aggressive force? If it's wrong for me to go around robbing people, why should it be right for a group of people called "government" to do it?

[Minister_of_Information]

And the belief in government is the idea that we should give a certain group of people a monopoly on the initiation of that force.

Why should anyone be allowed to have a monopoly on the initiation of aggressive force? If it's wrong for me to go around robbing people, why should it be right for a group of people called "government" to do it?

No power can be delegated that cannot be taken back.

[ChartsandGrafs]

No power can be delegated that cannot be taken back.

That's a comforting thought, but is it true? Can we really just "take" back all the power we've allowed them to accumulate? Do you figure they will hand it over willingly?

I believe there's enough available evidence to suggest that the powers that be are setting up a system of control that will be impossible to rebel against on a large and coordinated enough scale to make such a rebellion successful. This system will be global in nature, and it will include financial, economic, military, intelligence, police, surveillance, political, trade, food, water, and legal controls. Much of it will be electronic, by design, and it will be ever-present and completely objective. Satellites, drones, and massive supercomputers will watch, see, hear, and decipher all movement and communications. Successful rebellions of the past, which were almost always supported externally by sovereign governments sympathetic to the cause, will no longer be possible.

Before you go and dismiss this as the ravings of a lunatic, take a look around at the evidence, much of it found in the mainstream media. What do you see? Domestic drone spying, inland checkpoints, no-knock paramilitary raids, airport groping, wars based on lies, out-of-control militarized police, political and economic regionalization, globalization, international regulation, citizen disarmament, mass electronic surveillance, government torture, the Patriot Act, the NDAA, for-profit prisons, institutionalized corruption, degenerate lying media, currency debasement, government scandals and cover ups, dangerous Executive Orders, and many, many more.

All of these are on the increase. It's total madness, yet nobody is doing anything to stop it. The politicians twiddle their thumbs or try to change the subject. The news media reports it but rarely ever asks any hard questions. The people are distracted by the spectacle of mass media bread and circuses. It's being left unchecked, and its trajectory is unmistakable. Put it all together and it forms a sort of crude picture of the world of hurt we will soon find ourselves in.

Good luck trying to get that power you spoke of back, because the only way you or anyone else will be able to do it is by taking a nap and dreaming about it.

[wargunfan]

C&G makes some valid points about the trajectory of government. We see a lot of what he describes every day. The problem with his dream is that he will never find it. Not here; not anywhere (that is unless he could find an island that is not on any map and which has the basic resources for survival).
Any where you find humans you will find sin and evil. The produce of the human heart will always be evil in the end. One of the first products of human nature in the bible was murder.
Everything we do is a compromise with the evil nature of mankind. The writers of the Constitution were well aware of this. The checks and balances in the Constitution are checks on the evil natures of men else they would not be needed.
If you put two men together at some point evil will result. The more men congregate the more evil will occur. Our nation only holds together as long as evil is held in check.
We have reached a point in the evolution of this experiment in democracy where the government has ignored the Constitution and looks at its own citizens as adversaries to be surveilled and monitored. We once believed that government existed by the consent of the governed. But this government does things far beyond our consent. How many of us would have believed that our government would use rendition without a trial and torture as a means to defend freedom and justice? How many of us would have believed that American citizens would be killed by drone strikes without due process of law?
Our Executive branch has become something to be feared and we really don't see any limits to its power over the individual.
I am not so quick to ridicule what C&G says about the nature of our current government. The potential for oppression by this government continues to grow and who knows where it will end.
The world in which C&G would live is not possible as long as men are under the curse of evil. But he makes us think about the nature of the world we live in.

[Minister_of_Information]

That's a comforting thought, but is it true? Can we really just "take" back all the power we've allowed them to accumulate? Do you figure they will hand it over willingly?

I believe there's enough available evidence to suggest that the powers that be are setting up a system of control that will be impossible to rebel against on a large and coordinated enough scale to make such a rebellion successful. This system will be global in nature, and it will include financial, economic, military, intelligence, police, surveillance, political, trade, food, water, and legal controls. Much of it will be electronic, by design, and it will be ever-present and completely objective. Satellites, drones, and massive supercomputers will watch, see, hear, and decipher all movement and communications. Successful rebellions of the past, which were almost always supported externally by sovereign governments sympathetic to the cause, will no longer be possible.

Before you go and dismiss this as the ravings of a lunatic, take a look around at the evidence, much of it found in the mainstream media. What do you see? Domestic drone spying, inland checkpoints, no-knock paramilitary raids, airport groping, wars based on lies, out-of-control militarized police, political and economic regionalization, globalization, international regulation, citizen disarmament, mass electronic surveillance, government torture, the Patriot Act, the NDAA, for-profit prisons, institutionalized corruption, degenerate lying media, currency debasement, government scandals and cover ups, dangerous Executive Orders, and many, many more.

All of these are on the increase. It's total madness, yet nobody is doing anything to stop it. The politicians twiddle their thumbs or try to change the subject. The news media reports it but rarely ever asks any hard questions. The people are distracted by the spectacle of mass media bread and circuses. It's being left unchecked, and its trajectory is unmistakable. Put it all together and it forms a sort of crude picture of the world of hurt we will soon find ourselves in.

Good luck trying to get that power you spoke of back, because the only way you or anyone else will be able to do it is by taking a nap and dreaming about it.

Speak for yourself.

WOLVERINES!

[sierragator]

So by competitive society what he really means is he wants to live out a post apocalyptic fantasy as some kind of heavily armed warlord who can prey on those who are weaker than him without the inconvenience of any other authority to get in his way.

[ChartsandGrafs]

...heavily armed warlord who can prey on those who are weaker than him without the inconvenience of any other authority to get in his way.

Congratulations, you just described the U.S. government.

The difference between your warlord and mine is, nobody would consider mine legal or legitimate, of course. People would quickly identify him for the psychopath he is and they would resist his predations before he could accumulate too much power. Your warlord, on the other hand, is legal and considered legitimate. So it's not just a criminal warlord, it's a criminal warlord with a license to pillage, steal, and murder. Your warlord has global-level power, yet even that's not enough for it to be satisfied. It wants more power and is always consolidating that power further.

My society is based on competition. Your society is based on a monopoly. Which one is more likely to produce inefficiency, corruption, abuse, and stagnation? There's no debate here. The answer is as clear as day, even for the publicly educated.

[sierragator]

You're just jealous that you are not in charge. Yes everyone would gladly choose your vision of a feudal style system. The fact that the status quo has flaws does not automatically equate to the obvious superiority of your warlord fantasy. Every human endeavor has flaws. You would be just as despotic (if not more so) than what you rail against.

[ChartsandGrafs]

You're just jealous that you are not in charge...

You would be just as despotic (if not more so) than what you rail against...

That was fast. I got you to abandon all logic and reason within two posts. It sucks having to mount an argument, I know, but come on. You can do better than that.

An embarrassing display all the way around.

[squigator]

I notice that on websites like Fox Nation and Glenn Beck, the headline is: "NY Times: Constitution is "Downright Evil."
I guess they assume their readers are too stupid to realize this is an op-ed piece.

Here's an op-ed for you, River. From Pravda:

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/28-12-2012/123335-americans_guns-0/

Pravda has more respect for our constitution than the NY Times.

[gatorplank]

False.

Conscription = Forced military servitude = Slavery

Chattel slavery = Forced economic servitude = Slavery

Both the same thing in practice, with the same basic result.

A little off topic, but I imagined Dwight Schrute saying this when I read it.

[ChartsandGrafs]

The world in which C&G would live is not possible as long as men are under the curse of evil. But he makes us think about the nature of the world we live in.

If men are under the curse of evil, why would anyone in their right mind argue that we should give any group of them the keys (government) to the kingdom? Nothing but disaster can come from it.

By the way, I don't pursue the ideal of a free society because I believe it will happen during my lifetime, or any other for that matter. I pursue it because I know it's right. The same thing goes for any peace activist. They pursue peace not because they believe they will see world peace and an end to war, but because it's an ideal worth striving for.

[gatorplank]

If men are under the curse of evil, why would anyone in their right mind argue that we should give any group of them the keys (government) to the kingdom? Nothing but disaster can come from it.

By the way, I don't pursue the ideal of a free society because I believe it will happen during my lifetime, or any other for that matter. I pursue it because I know it's right. The same thing goes for any peace activist. They pursue peace not because they believe they will see world peace and an end to war, but because it's an ideal worth striving for.

I think the constitution attempts to fracture power for the very reason that man is evil. Anarchy has the same problem: man is evil. Because of this government is evil, but a rather necessary evil.

[ChartsandGrafs]

I think the constitution attempts to fracture power for the very reason that man is evil. Anarchy has the same problem: man is evil. Because of this government is evil, but a rather necessary evil.

I see no reason to believe evil is necessary at all, and when I ask for people to provide one, they can't.

That pretty much tells me everything I need to know.

[MichiGator2002]

It would be more accurate to say man is fallible, therefore government is fallible. Government is morally neutral, like... coffee, or a gun, or a flower.

[Minister_of_Information]

It would be more accurate to say man is fallible, therefore government is fallible. Government is morally neutral, like... coffee, or a gun, or a flower.

That's true only if you consider an entity that in its very nature continually seeks to acquire ever more power at your expense to be morally neutral. I would say rather that government is an evil, albeit a necessary one.

[MichiGator2002]

I don't agree that is in the nature of government. That is in the nature of people, one could argue, but even if, it is no more certain to pass into a government built by such as it is to pass into a birdhouse.

[Minister_of_Information]

I don't agree that is in the nature of government. That is in the nature of people, one could argue, but even if, it is no more certain to pass into a government built by such as it is to pass into a birdhouse.

Is one man's rule over another an evil? Because that is the nature of government, that certain people are empowered to rule over others.

[Lawdog88]

If man is basically infected with intractable, inoperative evil, how can any real, lasting good come out of whatever system he creates to govern ?

Passable for a time, maybe, but good ?

Or corruptible and corrupting, like him.

[MichiGator2002]

Is one man's rule over another an evil? Because that is the nature of government, that certain people are empowered to rule over others.

To the first, not categorically. I can't insert the relevant "always"es into that question and say it is.

But to the second, again, I simply don't agree with your terms, I don't hold the morality of government up to a definition I don't accept. Government is a process more than it is a thing unto itself. You are giving it too much independent metaphysical substance.

[wargunfan]

If men are under the curse of evil, why would anyone in their right mind argue that we should give any group of them the keys (government) to the kingdom? Nothing but disaster can come from it.

By the way, I don't pursue the ideal of a free society because I believe it will happen during my lifetime, or any other for that matter. I pursue it because I know it's right. The same thing goes for any peace activist. They pursue peace not because they believe they will see world peace and an end to war, but because it's an ideal worth striving for.

If evil is not checked in some rational way it will run rampant over the nation. Even though the laws and law enforcement we have established are flawed the alternative is too terrible to contemplate. In that world only the strong and ruthless would survive in any way worth being alive.
There is no way forward to your free society. The product (mankind) that you are trying to improve to such a degree that men will live in peace and freedom with each other without government is utterly flawed and beyond redemption.
You are dreaming a dream that you may only see in the world to come. Mankind has had millennia to become something more than the murdering, raping, war mongering enslaving detritus that we are. And we have improved not one iota.
You are certainly free to rail at government and dream of the world you want for the future. But it is only a dream. In the meantime you and the rest of us will have to be content to strive under the established order and stand for what is left of our liberties.

[Minister_of_Information]

To the first, not categorically. I can't insert the relevant "always"es into that question and say it is.

But to the second, again, I simply don't agree with your terms, I don't hold the morality of government up to a definition I don't accept. Government is a process more than it is a thing unto itself. You are giving it too much independent metaphysical substance.

No, not really. Calling government a process that can be considered apart from the people undertaking the actions wherein that process exists is to ascribe it a nature apart from its existence. Government is a set of activities undertaken by certain people who exercise power over others, not a concept that can be considered solely as an abstraction. And in my view, when people are placed in authority over others it injures the autonomous dignity of those thus governed, even if it is an essential part of a necessary process, i.e., a necessary evil.

[ChartsandGrafs]

It would be more accurate to say man is fallible, therefore government is fallible. Government is morally neutral, like... coffee, or a gun, or a flower.

Government represents a legalized monopoly on the use of aggressive force. Put another way, it is a license to steal, rob, kidnap, coerce, and murder people. No rational person would argue that any person or group of persons should be allowed to go around doing any of those things, but if you package it as "government", objective morality flies right out the window and such crimes become justified. The end - an allegedly "necessary" but evil government - justifies the means, even if the means include the government having to commit crimes to prevent crime, which constitutes a blatant contradiction.

If you don't agree with my description of government, feel free to state why. However, if you do agree with my description, I don't see how you could ascribe a value of moral neutrality to such an institution. It's simply not accurate to compare government to a gun. A gun doesn't necessarily imply anything. Government, on the other hand, implies monopolized force, control, and robbery by whoever ends up in position to wield it. Government represents the lone gun in the room, attached to the foolhardy notion that it won't and can't permanently fall into the wrong hands.

[Minister_of_Information]

The state exists to serve the army, and the government is the necessarily evil of the associated administrative process. Without an army backed by state organization, the US would very quickly fall under the dominion of some other power, which is of course inimical to liberty.

[wgbgator]

The state is a monopoly on violence. A sensible one given that people generally don't like a great deal of competition in that area. Moreover, the state has done a pretty good job at making people less violent because of this.

[Lawdog88]

Didn't we have this exact same discussion about four or five years ago ?

Deja vu all over again.

[Minister_of_Information]

The state is a monopoly on violence. A sensible one given that people generally don't like a great deal of competition in that area. Moreover, the state has done a pretty good job at making people less violent because of this.

Personal violence is replaced by institutional violence. Look at the Japanese and the Germans for instance.

[ChartsandGrafs]

The state exists to serve the army, and the government is the necessarily evil of the associated administrative process. Without an army backed by state organization, the US would very quickly fall under the dominion of some other power, which is of course inimical to liberty.

The State exists to serve the army? I've never heard of anything like that before. It doesn't even make sense. The State is not subservient to the State's own military. I have to assume you mean something else or are using the term 'State' in a way I'm not familiar with.

The rest of what you said is the equivalent of a Mafia extortion racket henchman telling one of its victims, "if we don't extort you, some other Mafia will extort you, and that will be much worse, because if we extort you, you have liberty, if they extort you, you don't".

This is not a proper justification for a government extortion racket.

[Minister_of_Information]

The State exists to serve the army? I've never heard of anything like that before. It doesn't even make sense. The State is not subservient to the State's own military. I have to assume you mean something else or are using the term 'State' in a way I'm not familiar with.

The rest of what you said is the equivalent of a Mafia extortion racket henchman telling one of its victims, "if we don't extort you, some other Mafia will extort you, and that will be much worse, because if we extort you, you have liberty, if they extort you, you don't".

This is not a proper justification for a government extortion racket.

I mean it literally, with the caveat that by "army" I am referring to all the potential military force that a society can mobilize, rather than only that portion which is formally inducted into the armed forces. The state as we know it would not exist if it wasn't needed to serve the army, because it would have no reason to exist.

[ChartsandGrafs]

The state is a monopoly on violence. A sensible one given that people generally don't like a great deal of competition in that area.

Kudos to you. This is a nice way to put a rather perverse entity.

Moreover, the state has done a pretty good job at making people less violent because of this.

This is like saying that a zoo does pretty good job of making animals less violent. There's obviously little basis for such a claim and it misses the entire point of the discussion.

[ChartsandGrafs]

I mean it literally, with the caveat that by "army" I am referring to all the potential military force that a society can mobilize, rather than only that portion which is formally inducted into the armed forces. The state as we know it would not exist if it wasn't needed to serve the army, because it would have no reason to exist.

I see, and the key being, "as we know it".

We're still in disagreement on the justifications involved.

[gatorplank]

I see no reason to believe evil is necessary at all, and when I ask for people to provide one, they can't.

That pretty much tells me everything I need to know.

F$U, UGA, Alabama, etc.

All evil but necessary so that gator fans have someone to hate. :joecool:

[Minister_of_Information]

I see, and the key being, "as we know it".

We're still in disagreement on the justifications involved.

It's likely that it would not exist at all, without the need to serve an army.

[ChartsandGrafs]

It's likely that it would not exist at all, without the need to serve an army.

Sounds fantastic.

When do we start?

[Minister_of_Information]

Sounds fantastic.

When do we start?

Some sort of eschatological victory is the only way to eliminate the need for an army. I'm currently at a loss for how to get that done.

[wgbgator]

Personal violence is replaced by institutional violence. Look at the Japanese and the Germans for instance.

You could also use the disapearance of dueling in the Western world as an example. States dispensing justice via rule of law typically takes away motive for revenge or retribution, which is generally the chief cause of personal violence. Moreover, protecting, facilitating and regulating trade makes raiding and piracy non-options for most people.

[wgbgator]

Kudos to you. This is a nice way to put a rather perverse entity.



This is like saying that a zoo does pretty good job of making animals less violent. There's obviously little basis for such a claim and it misses the entire point of the discussion.

Actually, there's a rather large body of work out there on this, both academic and popular.