Let’s Give Up on the Constitution

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by sierragator

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/col...ricans_guns-0/

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

[gatorplank]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

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]

Originally Posted by wargunfan

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]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

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]

Originally Posted by gatorplank

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Minister_of_Information

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]

Originally Posted by ChartsandGrafs

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]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[ChartsandGrafs]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.