Obama revises Oath of Citizenship
If you aren't willing to defend what you've fought to obtain, did you really earn it?
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
Why should you be allowed to fly a flag from another country in America??? If you want to fly the other countries flag then you should never have left it!!!!
Because, in America, we respect this thing called freedom of expression, and that means that people get to fly whatever goddamned flag they want, whether it offends your particular sensibilities or not.
If you don't like freedom of expression, then you should perhaps go find a country more agreeable to your inner fascist.
So I'm a fascist because I believe if you want to be an American, act like one???
When the f'n Presidents can live up to their oath of office and let us not forget the GD congressionals I'll consider letting them off the hook. Not until.
I have never heard of a President; being of equal value to any infantry soldier since 1776 at any rate. and a scumbag POS like Kerry (don't count him out for VP or a follow on Pres. candidate) being worth one tenth of a draftee rifleman.
My solution for oaths would be to have both kinds read and the judge instruction the oath takers to mentally take the one that you are comfortable with by saying yes, and as I have been told that oaths are just a formality or tradition to make some people feel comfortable, and so have been told to just say yes to get it over with and not rock the boat.
But many call themselves proud citizens and patriots anyway.
You are absolutely correct in identifying that the problem lies predominantly in a lack of patriotism - especially in our elected leaders. They aren't interested in the true American values as espoused in the Constitution, because those values favor individualism, personal responsibility, and local control of government. Those are poisonous ideas to a power-monger.
In most associations the number one obligation is not to harm or defraud one another, especially not to kill your associate unless he pulls a weapon on you.
Sure. What you are citing are the implicit rights and recognitions of self-defense and self-interest. Every association we have with another person either implicitly recognizes these as matters of fact or seeks to build upon them with additional (explicit) provisions.
Once you start getting into societal associations and joint rule-making, the premise is that the only just rules are those which recognize and revere rights and those which attempt to suborn rights must offer protection for basic rights in return. Those are the broad basics.
Have there been attempts by power-mongers to suborn rights without granting value in return? Absolutely. And we must vigorously oppose all such attempts.
In the case of the concert there seems to have been a presumed collective association implied with the "like it or lump it" attitude which my step mother would give when I would ask her to take her cigarette out of my room. Sorry for the rant, I am still pissed that a new source of noise has begun to join the weekly one from the Abbey resort two blocks away that also is permitted to force everyone in a five block radius to put up with the drumming. I have yet to find anyone who finds anything wrong with another persons music pollution.
In your case, it seems like they have presumed a right to play their music as loud as they want, which of course is fictitious. The problem seems to be enforcing some decorum, and from what you describe it does not sound like an easy solution. I hope you can find respite.
When the Founders started out, what were the major associations in play? Towns and States - to which each was a voluntary member. Those States then voted to voluntarily associate themselves with a greater (and "more perfect" union) called the United States of America. I do not think any part of the First Amendment was worded without careful thought and deliberation as to its meaning and scope.
The last time that the requirement to pick up arms to defend the country was in the late 1700's.
That's like giving someone what they need, want, or desire without any sacrifice on their part!!! (More free stuff)
Plain and simple.
The word "militia" in the Constitution pertains to all citizens of the United States. It is the responsibility of all US citizens to defend our way of life.
Nobody has the authority to compel another to service against their wishes. Literally nobody.
People are free to (and I hope enough would) stand up for the country in time of need, but part of that is a testimony to how worthy of defense the country is at any given time (in other words, if there were tyrannical leaders, as some might argue we have today, and there were liberators taking out the tyrants, would you have a duty to act as a militia against those liberators? I would argue no. You -- seemingly -- would argue yes.)
Because that's what the oath requires: fighting who the government tells you to fight.
Yes, you may petition the government to alter its decisions, even take them to court to do so. But the laws must apply to everyone or they are arbitrary.
Representative government is anathema to Objectivism excepting in situations where individuals have, themselves, specifically agreed to be bound by those decisions.
In other words, I can certainly willingly agree to be bound by representatives, but I can't have that obligation thrust on me because my ancestors agreed to such representation.
You are welcome to denounce that legitimacy, but recognize that the second you do you also renounce all of the protections it offers you. That is one of the primary problems I have with this decision by the President. Part of being a citizen means that you may call on your nation to come to your aid in self-defense. But that exchange to be an equal exchange of value must go both ways, or it is no different than looting.
"I can't have that obligation thrust on me because my ancestors agreed to such representation."
It seems there is a choice to be made, then. You can stay and continue to live here in the United States under a representative government and enjoy the privileges of mutual defense which come with it - and the obligations - or you can renounce it all. But to be consistent, one can not do both.
http://acidrayn.com/wp-content/upload...
Remind me again why you're a member of this site?
The United States was born under fire, defending itself from oppression. It called on every patriot at the time to take up arms in defense of freedom and liberty. And once that was won, that obligation was never rescinded. The cost of freedom in America is the willingness to defend it when called upon. When you become a citizen of another nation, you can choose to live by another set of rules. Until that happens, you choose to remain in America and live by those rules - like them or not. So either petition to change them, deal with them, or leave. But wanting to get something for nothing violates Objectivism itself.
I reject that premise. I contend that we have no obligation to move elsewhere, but instead have a greater obligation to make that change here where it can free the most people from the chains of statism.
The cost of freedom in America is the willingness to defend it when called upon.
The people of America are not now, nor have they ever been, "free". They have always been subjects, given some minimal structured say in how their masters rule them, but don't kid yourself that we've ever been "free" in any sense of the word.
"I contend that we have no obligation to move elsewhere, but instead have a greater obligation to make that change here"
I agree that we should be doing all we can to preserve or revert back to the nation of the Founders. I do not pretend to think that those in power have attempted to manipulate us away from freedom. That was never my premise.
"The people of America are not now, nor have they ever been, "free"."
Then you and I see history very differently. You seem to take the anarchist's approach: that "freedom" is the ability to do whatever one wishes without thought for repercussion. That is not freedom. True freedom however understands the reality of cause and effect and affects decision-making accordingly.
Those who are not good with their weapons will soon be taken care of by being outnumbered.
I read it very differently, thus:
Given that I am a citizen of my nation and that I have a responsibility to defend myself and my family, I may be called upon by civil authorities in pursuance of a joint defense. My refusal to do so constitutes a disregard not only for the safety of myself and my family, but for the community and nation to whom I have proclaimed my allegiance. Thus my refusal constitutes a breach of allegiance and that which once was my community but which I have so foresworn similarly offers me no guarantees of protection.
Want to go to Afghanistan and fight for the US there cause Obama says so??
I agree that the notion of defense has become perverted. I'm not denying that whatsoever. To me, defense is exactly that: an assault upon the US and its territorial waters. I think one can certainly make the case that 9/11 was such a case, even though the prosecution of the war took us to foreign lands.
If we are requested by an ally to come to their aid and we decide it is in our best interest, I think that is a separate situation entirely, as in the case of Kuwait. In such cases, we should be treated as mercenaries similar to the Flying Tigers of WW II in China. Those who participated were there out of choice rather than conscription.
In the case of a direct attack upon an ally where we have already signed a mutual defense pact (see NATO), those nations are treated as if an attack upon them is in fact an attack upon American soil. By signing such a serious treaty (which I believe are over-used), we have acknowledged that the welfare of our partner is one and the same as our own and that we will fight to protect it. In such cases, obligation persists.
That being said, your notation of Vietnam is an interesting case of the second being completely misused by politicians, and we are rightly to question not only conscription but the entire prosecution of that war.
Its another subject, but what the hell did the Jews do to be hated so much all throughout europe and now the middle east?? I personally have no issues with Jews, but they are definitely hated very strongly. I just wonder why.
Of course it does. But it also protects trade and promotes similar government. Without NATO to show a united stand, WW III would have happened a long time ago. Should treaties be vigorously debated for their merits? Absolutely.
Israel - contrary to what you might believe - was actually formed by the British from land the British owned. It was not Arab land - that is a complete myth. As to why they can't get along, that's a one-sided issue. The Israelis employ the Arabs who live in Israel and most of the ones who live in the Palestinian terrortories (sp intentional) - the ones who aren't trying to blow people up or launch mortars that is. They have a vibrant economy, despite being hemmed in on all sides, literally having the entire rest of the world against them, and having almost no natural resources (read oil) to make them rich. Yet despite that, their standard of living is higher than most other nations in the region, they have a representative government which includes Arabs, and they uphold natural rights. They are everything we would want in a regional ally - minus the land mass on which to establish a base.
Compare that to the surrounding nations, all of which are Islamic. No support for natural rights. Nations which have formed a cartel and actively seek to destroy American businesses (oil) and influence our politics. Even nations which support terrorist operations. I don't know a more clear choice could be presented.
As to the hate, that is a religious matter. Abraham had two sons: first Ishmael by a concubine and then Isaac by Sarah. The birthright, meaning inheritance of lands, etc., always went not to the first son (Ishmael), but to the first son of the first wife (Isaac). Most Arabs are descended from Ishmael - or from Isaac's son Esau who sold his birthright to his brother Jacob (later renamed Israel) for some beans. Literally. According to both sides (Jews and Arabs), Abraham was given the area known at the time as Canaan by God as his to rule over. Each side disputes the actual passage of the birthright, the Jews claiming it through Isaac and then Jacob while the Arabs claim it through Ishmael or alternately Esau.
That being said, however, it wasn't nearly as acrimonious in the past as it is now. Part of that might be because at one point the Israelites actually owned and controlled the land in question but their own internal problems got them conquered by the Babylonians, Assyrians, Medes, Persians, and finally Romans before they were nearly destroyed as an ethnicity entirely. And all that happened before the rise of Islam, which forcible converted all the Arabs (the remaining Arabs being known now as a few scattered tribes of Bedouins or the Pashtuns) and brought back the hate of the Jews to give them a common enemy.
Oh, and then there's the issue of the Temple Mount. History has the Temple Mount in Jerusalem as the cite of the first Temple of the Israelites and according to the Torah the only place they can complete several of the ceremonies critical to their religion. That Temple was destroyed and rebuilt two other times before the Romans razed it to the ground following an uprising about 66 AD. The Wailing Wall is one of the original foundations of the Temple, and it is all that remains to this day. It is the holiest site in Jewry until a new Temple is built. Problem: The Muslims hold that Mohammed had a vision in the same spot, so they built a mosque called Dome of the Rock on the very same spot as the original Jewish Temple, and it is one of the holiest sites in Islam behind Mecca and Medina, respectively. It doesn't help that the Muslims looted the area and destroyed Israelis history and artifacts under the Temple Mount or that they currently own and manage the Temple Mount. Muslims frequently hold services at the Dome of the Rock which turn into rock throwing protests, so current attendance is limited strictly to men over forty. The Jews are forbidden from massing on the Temple Mount and instead are relegated to the Wailing Wall. So you see, it's an intractable problem. Only one religion can win in this circumstance - or neither.
What is remarkable to me is that despite Israel being outnumbered 1.5 billion to 8 million (about half of which are Arab), every war launched against them starting from the day when the British turned over control to them has failed - and the list is long. From the War of Independence to the Yom Kippur War onward, many cite the sequences of events to be miraculous, but the facts remain that the nation of Israel has managed to defend itself to this day, even inventing some of the best technology for warfare in the world: the Iron Dome counter-missile battery, the Uzi sub-machine gun, the Galil infantry rifle, Merkava tanks, and much, much more. Despite their religious heritage and beliefs, the Israelis are a self-sufficient people who believe in the right to self-defense as well as other natural rights, and though they do receive some military aid (mostly aircraft from the US), they are a much more sensible ally than nearly any other in the world but certainly in the region.
Hope that helps.
What I would say is that religions such as these are fucked up. What happend hundreds or thousands of years ago needs to be just brought up to date. Who cares if a particular spot is somehow "holier" than another spot. We are here NOW, and our ancestors are NOT. All this jew vs arab stuff needs to be just RESET in my opinion. By helping Israel, we are actually hurting them I think by enabling them to keep up this religious nonsense. And by buying all that oil from the arabs, we are enabling THEM to keep up their islamic nonsense of intolerance and violence.
They both need to snap out of it and shed off the nonsensicel religious demands. But I am politically incorrect and would probably be banished by both sides....
"They both need to snap out of it and shed off the nonsensicel religious demands."
It isn't nonsense to them - on either side. You are imposing your value system on them, which is why you can not possibly understand the depths and context of the conflict. What if they told you to discard all that hooey called Objectivism. Oh, and along with that your nationality as an American. And your parents, your friends, and any other family. Oh, and your home. Starting to get the picture yet?
It isn't nonsense to them. It is all those things. That's one of the reasons political negotiations for peace are utterly ridiculous. The only way that situation will be resolved is the utter annihilation of one or both of those parties or very literal divine intervention. Muslims have tried the former several times and been rebuffed, but they have the numbers and will to try again, and I would give anyone favorable odds they will try again in the next five years - especially if our next President is as hostile as Obama has been. Israel has no choice but to rely on the latter and petition help from its allies like the US.
Is that a lot? Not in comparison to China. But who would you rather have as a trade partner: one who shared your values and ideals and wasn't constantly trying to screw you over on intellectual property or... the other one? We deal with China because of their size. We deal with the Saudis because of their oil. We deal with Israel because of their values.
The only surprise for old dino in the interim was the fully extravagant revelation of the RINO in all of its cynical say anything to get elected and then wimp out professional politician glory.
In plainer words, I knew some GOP tinhorns were out there but~aw come on!
My eyes had been opened even wider when I presented that post to the Gulch about Rush Limbaugh saying the worst RINOs would vote Clintonista to protect their fiefdoms.
Rome is burning.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Emc1M...
Nobody should ever be considered, by virtue of citizenship, to be able to be compelled by law to do jack-squat.
This isn't Starship Troopers, there is no "service guarantees citizenship".
2. The Pledge of Allegiance should not even have the "under god" part - it's unconctitutional!
What if Hillary and Trump became real American Citizens?
Don't know, don't care.
I'm of the opinion we need an oath not to serve,comment or get in the way. Except to go see the latest Marky Mark movie.
.
around congress. -- j
.
.
But the original oath says new citizens have to agree to be slaves if the government says so. Thats not really very cool.
"Tolerance of non-believers in their writings" you set as the litmus test?
If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
So, since Deuteronomy 13:6-10 is very clear on Judeo-Christian "tolerance of non-believers" I hope you'll be just as adamant that adherents to Christianity should renounce their subscription to Christianity and its doctrines.
I do think that all religions today should denounce intolerance of others. I do think that the pope, for example, would say that catholics should not kill non believers at least, so I am not so concerned with them at least.
http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/1...
As an atheist, I'm certainly "with you" in wishing people weren't duping themselves into subjugation to religious "leaders" but that's their choice, and I'm not going to interfere with it.
So, one has to ask: Why this fixation with Islam? It's not better or worse, from a track-record perspective, than any other religion.
In a country that respects people's freedom and doesn't have an established religion you with with religious people, not under them.
I don't understand if you mean people still need religion or people need to live under religion. People have a right to be left alone with the religion and not live under a religion.
VERY limited. Maybe because the media doesnt want to promote it, but it could also mean the vast majority dont want to DO violence, but are OK with others in the religion doing it to "protect" the religion.
Why the great attraction to islam? I have no idea. It seems one of the more irrational religions to me, at least.
But, some are more tolerant than others, and less into straight up violence. Islam takes the cake on that one- especially in terms of what they seem to act on NOW.
Mormons arent very tolerant either, but they dont kill you (maybe exceptions could be made if you are gay, however)
No religion has a monopoly on "radicalized violence", and to pretend otherwise is to deny reality.
We cannot and must not hold everyone of a given faith accountable to the actions of the worst folks who self-identify with those faiths.
I mean, that's the litmus test being used for Islam, near as I can tell.
You call out the Pope, but - hey - there are imams who disavow the violence and intolerance, but some folks discount those disavowals for ... dunno, "reasons"? It's never quite clear beyond anything that doesn't sound like raging islamophobia.
I dont live in the so called bible belt, as I wouldnt feel very comfortable around bible thumping christians either. Not that I think they will disapprove of me so much as to harm me physically, but I never know what their "god" will tell them to do. Just a little unsettling.
Your continued attempts to slander other faiths by equating them to the very real and accepted traditions of Islam would never be accepted in a court of law - you'd be thrown out and be brought before the Bar to see if they should strip from you your license. Why you continue to propagate what you know to be falsehoods in defiance of Reality I can only contribute to your willingness to let your emotions about "religion" cloud your judgement.
Knoxville, Oklahoma City, the KKK, Zion Emmanuel, ... the list goes on and on.
Vilifying the innocents because of the acts of the crazies is immoral and illogical.
Remove the chaff to get the wheat. If you find something useful , something that helps you live your life. Be resourceful , be creative don't interfere with anyone else doing the same.
Mill the tree to get the 2x4. Somethings in those religious texts might be helpful to some that is for them to decide not me. I say have at it but don't f...... with me. To me the litmus test is behavior.
I have no tolerance for murderers or slave masters
They are evil and the brain washing is on full cycle all around the globe.
To politicians or egoist around the world who think they should dictate and mandate and loot.
I SAY FUCKOFF FASCISTS
What were the people of those times doing that such a commandment was given? One big no-no was the ritual sacrifice of their own children. Others were steeped in homosexuality. It's all fine and nice to cherry pick, but the context tells a much broader story.
If Islam is going to be held accountable for their holy texts' writing from 1500 years ago, then there's nothing untowards about holding Judaism and Christianity accountable for the writing in their similarly-ancient holy texts.
Part of our modern day problem is that factual information is difficult to discover, which is why many folks don't bother to sort out fact from fiction. Overcoming the degree of corruption within government and their fellow travelers the media, and the overwhelming indoctrination by academia, which has been going on for many years, (k thru 12 included) is a task akin to mucking the Agean stables.
But you cannot paint everyone with that broad brush.
I don't condemn people. I identify and condemn false principles. I agree completely that if a Jew in today's day and age were to stone his/her son to death for becoming an Objectivist that they should be tried and convicted for murder. I similarly hold that a Christian or Muslim who does the same should be similarly treated.
The problem is that neither Jews nor Christians are observing this kind of behavior. Muslims are and do so on a regular basis in their own nations. That to me is a critical difference between them - one that can not be objectively ignored.
Nobody argues that those who commit, encourage, or condone these actions should be vilified.
The problem is that many seem to just be all too willing to throw out the baby with the bathwater, as it were, and treat all Muslims as some sort of "atomic indivisible entity". You're willing to concede that if "a Jew" were to do something "they" should be dealt with, but when you speak of Muslims, you lump them all together and (effectively) punish and vilify them all for the actions of the minority.
But see that's the problem. Outside the US, the majority do engage in these behaviors. It isn't the minority. Turkey is the noted exception among Muslim nations in that its government is still largely secular, yet their major international airport was bombed just this week. Iraq used to be a military dictatorship where Saddam kept the religious fanatics in line - and acted as a foil for the religious fanatics ruling Iran. Same with Egypt and the Palestinians. Not the case any more. Iran and Syria openly support with government funding radicals all over the world, including Hezbollah and al Queda. Bin Laden was well connected in Saudi Arabia, from whence most of the 9/11 hijackers emanated.
And even the minority ones in nations like France and Belgium and Sweden and England and India and the Phillippines and China act out. China has serious problems with Islamic fundamentalists in Western China near the border with Pakistan. The Phillippines is currently fighting with several Islamic rebel groups. We saw the bombings recently in France and Belgium, but only a few years ago Paris saw massive rioting and looting from the Muslims there. Sweden is facing a rape epidemic from the Muslims - admittedly immigrants - coming there. England saw one of it's Bobbies beheaded and that recording broadcast across the Internet.
The problem is that this fundamentalist behavior is mainstream in that culture - it's not a fringe element. This is a significant part of their culture and their own religious books, historical tradition, and glorified leaders (i.e. Mohammed) are pretty clear examples encouraging the perpetuation of a violent and coercive mindset. Does that mean 100% of Muslims are hardliners? No, and I never said that. But the principles of the religion violate the principles of natural law and are antithetical to the Constitution of the United States. And the practice of the majority of Muslims across the world demonstrate that it is anything but a peaceful, live-and-let-live religion. You are welcome to draw your own conclusions. The evidence to me is beyond compelling.
is dballing related to dbhalling ?
Various parts of the different religions but more so it seems Islam and Christianity fail in that regard but the Islamic mistake is neither progressing nor regressing while the seculars only regress. Both are cyclical as the different drums in their heads demands them to beat it against the nearest wall. Pink Floyd and Michael Jackson just some mortarless bricks in a wall that keep nothing out and nothing in.
Just as some radicalized factions of Christianity kill folks who don't agree with them.
And don't kid yourself that Christianity never killed the unbelievers. Maybe you missed the whole Crusades, or the Salem Witch Trials, or any of the myriad other times when Christians slaughtered unbelievers in the name of their deity.
OBJECTIVELY, one can see that no religion has "clean hands" with which it can dismiss other religions as "violent".
"Just as some radicalized factions of Christianity kill folks who don't agree with them."
I would first challenge you to name one. Then I would challenge you to substantiate where in Christ's words that authorization comes from. You won't find it there any more than you will find it in Hindu, Buddhism, or even Wicca. Islam is a religion completely separate and apart from all others. Your continued attempts of fallacy by association are the arguments of the irrational bigot - not the Objectivist. If I were investigating Objectivism and read your words, I'd conclude that you are as much a hypocrite of your profession as the common Christian.
"Maybe you missed the whole Crusades"
Fortunately, I did miss them. But I've read history. The Crusades were a response to Muslim invasion into the Middle East and their threats to the Mediterranean. Were it not for the Crusades, the entirely of Europe would have been overrun by Muslims more than 1000 years ago. There would be no Renaissance and no recognition of natural rights. There would be no America and no Constitution. There would be no Objectivists. For someone who professes such depths of knowledge, your ignorance is astounding.
And again, I would direct you point out to me the specific place in the Bible where Christ instructs his followers that murder is acceptable. Anyone can claim to be a Christian, but is a Christian one who claims it, or one who actually lives what he/she believes? If I call myself an Objectivist yet laud the welfare system, am I really an Objectivist? If I call myself an Objectivist yet go around intentionally spreading lies, am I really devoted to the Reality I claim to venerate?
Were there acts in history performed "in the name of Christianity" which belied those very teachings? Absolutely. No one has ever denied that. What is denied clearly and firmly is the assertion that these acts were Christian acts: acts that Christ himself - the Founder of Christianity - would have perpetrated. With Islam, we have on record the actual acts of Mohammed, which included everything from rape and pillage to murder to forced conversion. And yet because of your hate for all things you deem "religious", you attempt to openly assert that there is no difference between the two.
You need to let go of your hatred. You are on the path to the dark side yet you tell yourself that only others are wrong. Put aside the hate. If you want to demonstrate how logic wins the day, it won't be done with bald-faced lies and false comparisons. A position's merit speaks for itself.
And you are showing your intolerance for millions of peaceful Americans just because they happen to worship a different faith that you're not a fan of.
at the many years of enforced public school prayer,
not to mention Jim Crow), but that doesn't mean it
condones those injustices.
Which is why I oppose vilifying all of Islam for the actions of the radicals.
Insert any exclusions and exemptions ear marked. There already attached. Push a button and the first notifications to appear are in the mail or email as the case may be.
Your blatant Islamophobia would never be accepted in a civilized society.
Islam to this day practices stoning for a variety of crimes which include conversion from Islam, adultery, homosexuality, and others. Neither Christianity nor Jewry follow such traditions and you know this to be true. That I differentiate Islam from every other religion is as a result of the difference in principles between it and every other religion I have studied. There is no other willing to practice coercion to the degree Islam has or continues to. And I appreciate your labeling me as Islamophobic given your penchant for the use of opposite definitions.
www.dictionary.com/browse/corporal-pu...
Corporal punishment definition, Law. physical punishment, as flogging, inflicted on the body of one convicted of a crime: formerly included the death penalty, ...
One of those words whose definition has been formally changed. One reason isi it's very difficult to punish a dead body.
That renders definitions quite useless to real communication and understanding.
Black's Law:
http://thelawdictionary.org/corporal-...
may be closer to "the law", but then somehow we are supposed to worship law, and we consume our lives with it's intricacies.
The first should never be allowed in Congress but recused as having a vested interest above and beyond the rule of law. The second were best described by Mark Tawin. Congress is the only true home grown criminal class of the United States.
Love
ian direction when required by the law..."(?) I am
glad that I am a native-born citizen and not bound by such an oath. I remember that when I was in the Naval Reserve (before I was Honor-
ably Discharged for epilepsy) we
were told that the oil companies might be nation-
alized; and I resolved that if I were called out to
enforce such nationalization I would have to re-
fuse, and, if necessary, face court-martial. Be-
cause that would be a violation of the rights of
my fellow citizens.--Fortunately, this situation
never occurred.--As to being conscripted to do
other civilian work, that would of course be a
violation of Amendment #13.--Still, being a
native-born citizen and a civilian (since discharge), I would have
no consciousness of violating an oath if I got
sent to jail for protesting it.--Whether a foreigner
who comes here and asks to be a citizen should be willing to submit to such conscription
is another question. He might very well be wil-
ling to work in defense plants, etc.--but in the
case of such a moral dilemma as I described,
he might think that no, he wouldn't violate the
rights of his fellow citizens, but then he would
be taking the oath with a "moral reservation".
my fellow citizens (including the owners of the oil
companies) had rights that I had no right to violate.
Suppose somebody violates your rights, and tells
you, "I have to do it, because I took an oath"?
You should properly tell him, "I don't care what
oath you took, that isn't binding on me, so
leave me alone."
They ran four abreast and ignored everything else.
They did not respond to lights and sirens. Not the Battalion Commander, Noneof the Company Commanders, None of the Platoon Leaders. All Commissioned Officers. Nor did the Sergeant Major nor the First Sergeants. All Officers Non-Commissioned.
They all had local dricvers licenses which meant they knew the rules of the road when emergency equipment sounded.
The excuse was they had permission from the Traffic Sergeant.
Even though i explained, once that has been rescinded for not following directions.
So do we arrest a whole battalion? Why not? By this time it was not a traffic violation it has escalated into a felony charge.
Was the use of tear gas warranted?
I had lots of choices but I had them stopped at the gate going back onto the Fort and took care of it there.
A few hours later that Battalion Commander had words in front of his Commanding General concerning the civil and military relationship especially in the old Canal Zone where it was clearly spelled out.
The damage was done, shift change which involved tightly controlled transit times needing full crews and line handlers was impacted the milk was spilt and the complaint had gone up the other side to the Canal Zone Governor's office. This individual was a two star General himself.
I had no problem attempting to stop that run and clear that roadway. I did not escalate the situation nor try to arrest everyone . I did make sure the Senior Officer In Charge got to visit our police headquarters for a chat. and we had a helicopter pad close by.
Point is when you are under UCMJ you are also under some sort of Status of Forces Agreement or Rules of Engagtement or Rules of Conduct in each and every area defining the civil and military relationship. If you weren't informed of that it was the fault of your chain of command and the Senior Officer Responsibile.
I filed his name with the felony charge
This is a Lieutenant Colonel who suddenly for whatever reason found he probablywasn't going to make Colonel.
At that point I had been in the military for over twelve years prior as a Senior Non-Commissioned officer and later returned and finished up a retirement.
What those people forgot was in the USA Civilians are always over military even when under UCMJ. In the military we have a double load of reponsibility a privilege not expected of civilians. We also expect them to remember that and sometimes it happens.
My question to the Sergeant Major was what was wrong with that unit that he and all his First Sergeants let their officers, commissioned get into that kind of trouble.
That's the way it should work and I had been privileged to work both sides of the fence. That time.
What happened in the Canal Zone Governors office or the Brigade Commanders office remained in those offices. But they never ran on the public roads again.
Justice was Im sure served in other ways. An existing problem was repaired, and the ships kept to their scheduled transit times. Our whole reason for being there. The only cost was in the locks operation end and perhaps overtime for the workers who didn't get relieved on time.
Sometimes small things are not so small and can easily lead to much larger events.
One of them is disregarding what seem to be minor security obligations.
The question now is what are the Supreme Governor(s) of the nation going to say when they step in their office. the one way at the top of the pinnacle of the chains of command - the voting booth.
The infraction under question is far more important than a traffic ticket or hurt feelings. The buck stops with citizens who decide what kind of people they want in charge and the example they set or don't set.
The only Officer Friendly is you and your neighbors looking at yourselves in the mirror and and making an ethical choice., What kind of leader do I want in charge of my life. What do I do when there are two very bad choices and neither one is acceptable.
This next one doesn't carry tear gas in the trunk . Something a bit more potent.
What I do remember is that they taught me that
civil authority always, but always, takes precedence over military.
Rand argued that a government draft was unethical:
"Of all the statist violations of individual rights in a mixed economy, the military draft is the worst. It is an abrogation of rights. It negates man’s fundamental right—the right to life—and establishes the fundamental principle of statism: that a man’s life belongs to the state, and the state may claim it by compelling him to sacrifice it in battle. Once that principle is accepted, the rest is only a matter of time."
Now...having no precvious history of o loyalty to what? How hard would it be to convince them a tour or career in a protective echelon would be the thing to do.
Espeially if the regulars were being down sized ad the same time?
Espcecially since Rule One in the Dictators playbook is protect your ass first. They never let their real security forces go without. Ex Gpvrmpr Janet Poilitano ahgain. referring to our military's strengthand oath of office. Obama again referring to beefing up the DOHS to the size an strength of the military.
in that article about taking that part out.
Besides which, I did not know that the Pres-
ident had any authority to unilaterally, and on his
own, change or revise the oath of citizenship. I
thought that was determined by Congress. Ig-
norance on my part, or on someone's.
The natural rights that which are naturally inherent and life itself come first. Air, Water, Food, Shelter, Clothing the basics. The liberties needed to pursue Life and Happiness among which property rights and the right to self protection are first and foremost. Happiness among other things is the right peace in the community the principle that was used to define the line between which religions and other types of belief systems and the establishment clause. Government may not establish a single Church of State but individually may be guided by religious principles (and others.) Geo. Washington set forth the first test of that with the Quakers. Yes you may be Quaker, No you may not disobey the rule of law within the State. Let's talk about this. How about military service without carrying or using a weapon? Why not? But not limited to Quakers. OK we'll call it conscientous objectors. Deal.
I left medicine off the list and education. to cause this discussion. If yiou do not have access to medicine or education (health oof body and mind) are not the other rights meaningless? Maybe add shelter meaning a really nice home to that and let's see a Hummer in every drivew way?
Secular Progressives would argue that way with the State running the health, and education system or deciding what kind of car.
But it only says pursuit of happiness so where do we draw the line on what is a basic Right To Life expense?
I would add any state and local tax? Is that not one of our biggest burdens perhaps the largest. Add it all up the little hidden stuff that makes up the total bill before sales tax along the way. The fees for items we've already paid for.
Look for this discussion in the New Section.
lone. To do what you want and not have your prop-
erty rights interfered with as long as you respect the same rights in others. The right to pursue
happiness. Not a guarantee of getting it. (See The Virtue of Selfishness). You can't just take
the law into your own hands to get private re-
venge for a wrong done to you; you are sup-
posed to do that through your government. If
you bring children into the world, you are obli-
gated to support them until they are old enough
to do it themselves (and, if they never can, due
to mental retardation or some such disability,
as long as you and the children live). This does
not mean that anyone has a right to force your
neighbors to supply your "needs", such as food,
shelter, etc.
Issues
Know your rights
Defending our rights
Blogs
About
Shop
Your Right to Privacy
Getting an education isn't just about books and grades - we're also learning how to participate fully in the life of this nation. (Because the future's up to us!)
But in order to really participate, we need to know our rights - otherwise we may lose them. The highest law in our land is the U.S. Constitution, which has some amendments, known as the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights guarantees that the government can never deprive people in the U.S. of certain fundamental rights including the right to freedom of religion and to free speech and the due process of law. Many federal and state laws give us additional rights, too.
The Bill of Rights applies to young people as well as adults. And what I'm going to do right here is tell you about THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY.
WHAT IS THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY?
The right to privacy is not mentioned in the Constitution, but the Supreme Court has said that several of the amendments create this right. One of the amendments is the Fourth Amendment, which stops the police and other government agents from searching us or our property without "probable cause" to believe that we have committed a crime. Other amendments protect our freedom to make certain decisions about our bodies and our private lives without interference from the government - which includes the public schools.
WHAT ARE MY RIGHTS CONCERNING THE POLICE?
You've all heard cops on TV or in the movies say, "you have the right to remain silent..." Well, that's exactly what you should do if the police ask you questions. Remember anything you say can be used against you.
Just give the police your name and address and say you want to speak to your parents and a lawyer. As soon as you do that, the police must stop questioning you.
The police aren't allowed to search you unless they have a warrant signed by a judge or unless they are arresting you. However, if they believe that you have a weapon, they can frisk you, and if they feel a weapon, they can then search you. If the cops ask to search you or your car, don't resist the search, but let them know that you don't consent to it.
DO I HAVE A RIGHT TO PRIVACY WHEN I'M IN SCHOOL?
Yes and no. Since public schools are run by the government, they must obey the Constitution. However, you do have fewer privacy rights in school than outside of school. Some of the so-called solutions to problems like drugs and violence - such as searching us or planting undercover cops in the hallways to spy on us - can abuse students' rights. It's like, hey guys, this is school, not prison!
WHAT SHOULD I DO IF A TEACHER WANTS TO QUESTION OR SEARCH ME?
You have the right to remain silent if you're questioned by a school official. Usually there is no problem with answering a few questions to clear something up. But if you think that a teacher suspects you of having committed a crime, don't explain, don't lie and don't confess, because anything you say could be used against you. Ask to see your parents or a lawyer.
The Supreme Court ruled in 1985 in New Jersey v. T.L.O. that school officials, unlike police, may search students without a warrant when they have "reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search will turn up evidence that the student has violated... either the law or rules of the school." But school officials may not search you unless they have a good reason to believe that you in particular -- not just "someone" -- broke a law or a school rule. So, if a teacher thinks she saw you selling drugs to another student, she can ask you to empty your pockets and can search your backpack. But just because they think some students have drugs doesn't give them the authority to search all students.
And no matter what, the search must be conducted in a "reasonable" way, based on your age and what they're looking for. Strip searching is illegal in many states, and where it is allowed, there has to be a solid reason to suspect a particular student of having committed a really serious crime.
In some states, courts have ruled that a student's locker is school property, so the school can search it. But in other states, school officials must have "reasonable suspicion" that you are hiding something illegal before they can search your locker. Your local ACLU can fill you in on your state laws. But here's a word to the wise: don't keep anything in your locker that you wouldn't want other people to see.
WHAT'S THE DEAL WITH DRUG TESTS OR ALCOHOL TESTS?
A drug or alcohol test is a search, but whether the officials in your school have to have "reasonable suspicion" that you're a user before they can make you take a test depends on what state you live in.
A Supreme Court decision in 1995 in a case called Vernonia v. Acton said that student athletes can be tested for drugs because athletic programs are voluntary, and student athletes are role models. Students all over the country are protesting random testing programs, where officials test a few individuals or force a whole class to be tested just because they suspect that "someone" is doing drugs. Check with your local ACLU to know what the deal is in your state.
WHAT ABOUT METAL DETECTORS?
They're allowed in many states because the courts have ruled that a metal detector is less of an invasion of privacy than frisks or other kinds of searches. Nevertheless, some states have guidelines to protect students' rights. California, for example, allows metal detectors in its schools, but it says they can't be used selectively just on certain students - that's discrimination.
WHAT ABOUT THE PRIVACY OF MY BODY?
What you do or don't do with your body is your personal business. If you need to have a pregnancy test, or if you're pregnant, you should go to the family planning clinic nearest you. Your local ACLU can help you find one. Some schools provide birth control supplies; find out if yours does. If you go to the doctor, find out what the doctor's policy is on telling your parents.
It's your constitutional right to have an abortion. You don't even have to tell your boyfriend about it if you don't want to. However, some states require women under the age of 18 to get their parents' permission, or at least tell them about the abortion. But if you can't tell your parents, you have a right to go to court and ask the judge to drop the parental notification requirement in your particular case.
Reproductive rights is a very serious issue, and groups like the ACLU are working hard to make sure no woman or girl loses her rights to a safe and legal abortion if she decides to have one.
WHO HAS TO KNOW IF I HAVE AN HIV TEST?
Some states require your parents be notified before you get tested or get treatment. Ask your local ACLU about the laws in your state concerning HIV testing of minors, and where you can get tested anonymously. One last thing: your school or employer doesn't have the right to force you to be tested for HIV. You totally have the right to refuse to take an HIV test.
"(The right to privacy is a person's) right to be left alone by the government... the right most valued by civilized men."
- Former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis"
Sounds good? So WHERE was the ACLU when all those rights were destroyed by our current President.?Replacing Probable causde and all those other need privacy rightss with the right to be arrested upon mere suspicion of not just actng but in supporting those who take action with no warrantgs, no judges, no juries, nothing.
They speak one way and act anothere. The forked tongue artists of the secular progressive left.strike again.
Where was the American Civil Liberies Unions when civil liberties were destroyed by Barrak Hussein Obama and the Secular Progressive Left the last time with an 85% vote in favor from the Senate alone?
Everything they stated while sounding good was a lie.
Where was our Congress who voted for destroying civil liberties.
Where was our President who signed it into law?
Where were our teachers and educators?
Where were our media?
For them the phrase"You have a right to be left" is the entirety of that prhase.
The stalwart members of the Dumb Ass Party were busy selling civil rights down the drain. Dap that!
ly. I was thinking about the kind of utopia I would
have, starting from scratch.
Or other group signs of non support in a quiet non threatening way
Amd what would happen none cheered or applauded and once the car had passed walked off and left the area
or turned toward something like the Vietnam or the Washington Memorial and saluted
A. Removal of the military service requirement.
Goes back to the Constitution itself. 'asupport and DEFEND which in and of itself denoted physical violence. To get the whole picture you have to read the Consitution as a whole entity and then think of the context of the time.
Then B. George Washington no stranger to war became President and not only that but the first one. This was one of his issues. As it happened it added in religious freedom. He sat down and wrote a letter to the Quakers who had asked for consideration of exemption from military service. Washington came up with two statements.
1. No exemption. The requirement was placed in the document for a good and needed purpose and as we are building a nation we need grant no special favors until we build that cohesiveness that does not yet exist. Notice no quotes.
2. He then recognized religious freedom which was of prime importance in the 1770's - 1780's. His letter to the Quakers while refusing to support an exemption stated can we sit together and work out a compromise which will honor religious freedom on the one hand while fulfilling the requirements of the Constitution on the other? The idea of duty but not combat duty but in a combat area was born from an offering by the Quaker elders. That's where conscientous objectors came from. They wanted to NOT tie it to religion or even any one religion for that would be a violation of the establishment clause. Both sides agreed and Quakers served and were drafted. But did not carry weapons and munitions. Instead they carried medical packs and stretchers. In handing out medals religion was never mentioned. An inbetween the absolutism of the Quakers no weapons, no killling belief stood another category of conscientous objectors and one of them was Sgt. AlvinYork who later came to terms with his religious and patriotic beliefs.
This poltical formula was used in many areas which conflicted citizens and government. Something no other country had ever thought of nor tried. Successfully.
The next part goes back to the draft.
This is Heinlein again. If enough do not come forward it's not worth doing. If enough come forward voluntarily it's worth doing.
Add to that modern technology and weapons and other support items. No longer does a company of troops line up as if on parade and using parade drill line uip their 150 or so rifles direction and elevation and fire as one weapon nor do they act as a shield wall or attack one - with high casualties. No more cannon fodder. It's not needed nor required
With technology in ANY combat environment IF backed up by the nation and government 150 of ours are worth more than 150 of theirs. So ethe amount to make the rule,'if enough come forward volntarily' IS possible.
Add to that service other than in a strict military sense. Inner city combat zones none the less.
So what impels a citizen to become a citizen soldier. Patriotism that's one for sure but Dollars is even more important. GI Bills for Education top of the list. Why not they are doing something extra without coercion other than the offer of some financial reward same as building cars in Detroit. Laborer is worthy of this or her hire. But now we're adding complete equality.
What we're not doing is ditching the draft.
Why? Government is afraid for itself. insead of doing the obvious and not acting in a shameful way they want to build a protective wall, a shield wall, a protective echelon. Translate back to Gereman a Schutz Staffel. SS Why is government that scared of it's citizens?
And do we want that type of employees.
The fourth branch of government says yes. But that's a discussion on bureaucracies with more power than the Eectuive, legislative and Judicial have at present added togeher. On branch with al lthe power.
Next Time.
Does you candidate want to keep the SS alive and well? How do you feel about that? Still voting for him. or her.
United States[edit]
Main article: Oath of Allegiance (United States)
The United States Oath of Allegiance (officially referred to as the "Oath of Allegiance," 8 C.F.R. Part 337 (2008)) is an oath that must be taken by all immigrants who wish to become United States citizens.
I hereby declare, on oath, that
I absolutely and entirely
renounce and abjure
all allegiance and fidelity
to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty
of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen
that I will support and defend
the Constitution and laws of the United States of America
against all enemies, foreign and domestic
that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same
that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law
that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law
that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law
and that I take this obligation freely
without any mental reservation
or purpose of evasion.
So help me God.
For people who object to taking an oath (or are not religious), the words "on oath" can be replaced with "and solemnly affirm", and the words "so help me God" can be omitted.
Obama doesn't want that to happen, nor do any of the statists in the Dark Center, nor do any of the banksters and corporate looters.
We are the competition against the looters, and they will do anything to eliminate competition and to maintain and increase their power.
Accurate Arithmatic will do just fine. For math one has to mix in negative synergism. For example one drop of Obama and five drops of Kerry or pehaps 1/2 drop Hillary and two drops Trump mixed with an ounce of Wasserman. The third example is store in a bottle of Pelosillyini and age for seventy years.
To make it more efficient sorry in-deficient have Lakoff plagiarize the above and explain it through the filter of buy my books and make me a multi millionaire. That last is useful if you find yourself at UC Berkeley, Davis, or Banana Slug infested order today Strange Brews inside the Socialist Gouhl'd Mind(e)
Compliments orf Creative Writing 201
They are the tools of men to control other men.
I don't believe that men create law. Men did not create the universe, nor the laws which govern the motions of the stars and planets. And no more can they create moral law. Reality has already dictated them. We are left to explore reality and ascertain these laws, but they are immutable. The laws of economics dictate to us that the price of something is subject not only to its scarcity (supply), but to its need by others (demand) does it not? Did humans create that law? No, they did not. They merely identified what was already existing in Reality.
Thus is the case for morality in general: does our view of a thing conform to Reality's version of a thing? An "immoral" law asserts a contradiction to Reality - it is how we arrive at the conclusion that murder is unacceptable. Did man create this law however? Nonsense. If such were the case, it would have to be consciously passed down through tradition and heritage. Instead, we know it innately. Such as with many other actions in life.
When we as humans form a society with its accompanying government, it is left up to us to decide whether or not to adopt principles already existing in Reality or to attempt to adopt policies in contravention to such. If we adopt policies in conjunction with Reality, we enjoy the harmony of these actions: functioning markets, moral people, and freedom. If we attempt to adopt policies in contravention to Reality, however, Reality inevitably asserts herself at some point. Case in point: our national debt. Debt is a law man did not create. Interest is a law man discovered but did not create. Our current policies seek to play games with our debt, but Reality in the form of Default will eventually assert herself when we ultimately fail to pay for our excesses. If man created law, he could will away such and debt would be subject to the whims of man. That such has never happened and will never happen is a testimony to Reality and her origination of law.
Can man attempt to assert himself and his wishes on others through force? Absolutely. When he does so does he violate the laws of Reality? Absolutely. This is why the Founding Fathers rose up and declared Independence. It was not to force themselves on others, but to remove themselves from the force of the tyrant King George. And the Founders - men of study and learning - debated for months not only the practicality, but the Reality of the goals, laws, and government they sought to institute.
The problem with our current government is that they have strayed from the principles of Reality originally identified by the Founders. Not only that, but our people have as well. A representative democracy is representative of its people. We rebel against the laws of Reality and seek to promote our own versions, with our leaders exemplifying this behavior. And thus we reap the rewards - or more accurately - the self-inflicted punishments that come with attempting to rebel.
Men create laws, not the universe. Some of them may, perchance, overlap with the universe's ideas, but rarely.
None that I am aware of. Men may arbitrarily assert such, but does such an edict coincide with how Reality views the matter? I sincerely doubt it.
"Men create laws, not the universe."
Men may create social constructs which we call laws that order our societies, but the ultimate Laws are defined by Reality - not man. And those laws instituted by men which do not conform to the Laws of Reality must inevitably fail because Reality wins out in the end.
"Some of them may, perchance, overlap with the universe's ideas, but rarely."
Agreed, but I believe the Constitution was one of those "rarely" situations. It isn't perfect, but that is because the people it applies to aren't either. As noted by John Adams, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” The other fact is that the Constitution recognizes the abundance of other competing civilization models with which we are bound to conflict eventually. The Constitution also recognizes that there will inevitable be internal conflict over ideas as well and provides for a robust negotiation and resolution system.
The problem we find with any people or society is that as it grows, so does the population of those discontented with it. America is surprising in many ways, not the least of which is its internal tolerance to such differences. It is my opinion, however, that we have allowed these differences to overwhelm what once unified us. We no longer share the same values - values which allowed us to throw off British oppression, rebuke slavery, and combat the various evils of our time. All because we can not focus on an end goal and design and implement policies which further that goal. (One can also argue that that end goal has been intentionally subverted and perverted.)
Until we can unify again on the same principles - principles which coincide with the principles of Reality - we will rebel to our own destruction.
And that's its failing. Because moral people don't need a constitution. And not everyone is religious (and even varying religions have wildly different views on morals).
The last 1/3 of the book then goes into hypothetical, basically taking the position of "ok, if we limit the state to what the beginning allows for (spoiler: nothing) how on earth would that work?" and then steps through most of the arguments you hear for "things only the state can effectively do" and addresses them one at a time.
I'm a PoliSci nerd (about 6 credits shy of my degree) so I've been forced to read many many texts over the years, and this is quite possibly the best one I've read thus far.
This book effectively acts as a logical proof against the validity of the Constitution (or any other system of governance).
Ah.... gotta love the condescension.
I'm about a course or two shy of a BA in PoliSci, so thanks and all, but I think I've got that covered.
Closed-minded much?
The reason is most people are not religious. All they need is to join a collective which does that for them due to the immensely educated superior intellects in the ruling class.
1. I take it the unter mensch are abandoined and left to die by the way side. in this Eutopia. Never taught to read, write, think, reason or to find at least a personal moral standard.
OK we just wiped out half the species.
2. Explore at $35 to $50 a pop? Now we are getting somewhere. Shoot even Lakoff only charges $10 for his version of the 700 Club.
You must certainly come up with a better pitch than that. But checking the descriptive portions of the book jackets it is the exact reason I became a Zappist.
One of the benefits of Subjectivism.
I'm disappointed when folks (any folks, not just you) have the opportunity to approach their deeply held beliefs and hold them up to a mirror to see if they're legitimate, and they refuse to do so. That's not just you and your love of The State, but religious beliefs, whatever.
You say you want to "get a true picture of reality", but you demonstrate the opposite, by being completely unwilling to explore the possibility that reality doesn't match the vision of it you've crafted in your head.
You're free to live your life, warm and comfortable, snuggled up in the arms of your slave-masters, safe in the knowledge that being free of him is not a valid way to live.
Sure you are. Just like I'm trying to persuade you to change your mind. There's no shame in admitting that in the sharing of ideas is the underlying premise that we are trying to persuade others to think like-mindedly. The very basis of free speech is advocacy, which is why it is so important as a fundamental right. I wish more people would see it as it is rather than attempting to make excuses so they can justify limiting its expression.
"I'm disappointed when folks (any folks, not just you) have the opportunity to approach their deeply held beliefs and hold them up to a mirror to see if they're legitimate, and they refuse to do so."
Sure. And I agree. But your disappointment can not be turned into a weapon of shaming for one who knows the tactic. You're disappointed. That's your emotion to deal with. I can't address your disappointment.
"You say you want to "get a true picture of reality", but you demonstrate the opposite..."
And can you guarantee me that you have the true picture of reality? I don't think you can.
"...by being completely unwilling to explore the possibility..."
As I said before, it is a matter of opportunity costs. What does investigation into anarchy get me? As far as I can tell: very little. What is the end game? To simply be mad about the corruption of the system of government we have? What's the point in that? Madness as an intellectual driver is ... madness. I'm looking for something more positive than outrage.
"You're free to live your life..."
Yes, I am. But you have a very different concept of freedom than I do. Your version of freedom is a world without rules or organization. My version differs - substantially.
"As I said before, it is a matter of opportunity costs. What does investigation into anarchy get me? As far as I can tell: very little. What is the end game? To simply be mad about the corruption of the system of government we have? What's the point in that? Madness as an intellectual driver is ... madness. I'm looking for something more positive than outrage."
So what I'm hearing your argument to be is "Man, if I found out I was wrong, I'd just spend my life being as pissed off and annoyed as dballing is." In other words, literally, "Ignorance is bliss."
And - again - I get it. I'll freely admit that my frustration over "how things are" compared to (IMHO)"how they should be" is no small source of anxiety, and I sometimes wish I had what I would consider to be a "more loose moral compass" and could simply accept the status quo. But I don't and I can't. But if that's your argument I genuinely can't fault you for that aspect of it.
You can choose to hear what you want, but that isn't what I said. The fallacy in your assertion is that by your own admission you do not know if you have an accurate picture of reality, yet you assert that if I do not look at it, that I am missing out on reality. It's an inherently-flawed argument which also happens to be based on a false interpretation of my own words. My assessment was that the potential value to be discovered didn't warrant the investment of time required. Nothing more, nothing less. If you want to put it in finance terms, the beta is too high for my risk tolerance.
"I sometimes wish I had what I would consider to be a "more loose moral compass""
That's a curious way to look at yourself. One doesn't generally associate anarchism with a strict moral compass. A compass by its very definition must point to a standard and anarchy seems to rail against standards...
Not at all. Reality is really really big. The only way to have a "accurate picture of reality" is omniscience. The most any of us can hope to accomplish is to have a mental image of reality that is as close as possible to that reality. The best way to do that is to expose ourselves to many facets and perspectives on that reality, some which strengthen and reinforce our own views, and some which challenge our own views (either forcing us to re-examine flaws in our views, or to use our views/experience to refute the perspective in, say, the book we're reading)
"One doesn't generally associate anarchism with a strict moral compass."
I never said that "anarchism" had a moral compass, I said that I had a moral compass, one that has as a primary rule "nobody has the moral authority to force others to do something against their wishes", which (when taken to its logical conclusion) ends up with the position that "The State" is illegitimate because ultimately the raison d'etre of the state is to force others to do things they don't want to do.
My personal moral compass might differ from another anarchist's (although, in my experience, not too terribly much).
And it is this presumption that I disagree with. That presumption colors everything and is the foundational disagreement I have with your outlook.
The foundational reason for government which I agree with is simply this: to establish and coordinate the policies and values of a group of people by establishing goals, creating laws to further those goals, and establishing punishments for abrogation of those laws (because their effect is to prevent either individuals within the group or the group as a whole from achieving those goals). Thus, it is not government itself, but the goals established by the people (as vested in government) which are the source of immorality. Organizations can not be moral or immoral - only the policies and actions of their representatives may be.
If it was just "meeting collective goals that everyone agreed on" you wouldn't need a government. That you need a government to meet those goals, via enforcement of those laws, is the logical proof of my statement: it's purpose is forcing people to do what they don't want to do.
A law is a standard of acceptable behavior. Nothing more. Nothing less. Penalties - or "force" as you call it - are the result of behavior in contradiction to these standards. They are not causal, but effectual. To argue against the morality of creating laws is to deny that there are standards of behavior which are common to all men - or at least a group of them. Governments exist to identify and establish common goals and then to encourage the people to achieve those goals through codification. To deny government carte blanche is to deny the reality of shared goals.
"... people to do what they don't want to do." (emphasis mine)
Ah! What you are finally and correctly observing is that the real problems are the people themselves. That act of rebellion is simply an act against the accepted policy of society (as enacted in law). Thus it isn't the government itself, but the people who are acting against themselves by attempting to live according to two contradictory goals at the same time!
Societies exist for one purpose and one purpose only - to provide a common framework for goal-setting. The real problems, however, come when people have opposing goals. Without going into the morality of the goal itself, the first attempted resolution is to separate the groups (usually geographically). This is the basis for prisons - a separation of conformers and non-conformers but still the same society. The second piece of this is reconciliation - of having the two sides agree upon a single course of action to the abandonment of the other. One of the two (opposing) goals must of necessity be set aside by all parties. (For prisoners, this is the reformation process.) Once this is accomplished, society moves on.
The last piece exists when the parties themselves are unwilling or unable to adjust their stances. The only solutions are either a permanent geographical separation of the two parties, or the elimination of the one of the parties so that only one goal remains to be asserted - aka war.
So the two situations wherein "force" is initiated are where conflicts in goals arise and remain unresolved by choice.
If they are common to a group of men, you don't need the laws. The only logical purpose for the laws is to mandate that behavior in those for who do not believe in or comply with that standard.
In other words, using force or the threat of force to mandate the behavior of others against their will. You can try to paint little rose-colored ideals around it all you want, but ultimately either:
- Men share a common set of morals in which case you don't need the laws in the first place, OR
- You don't all share a common set of morals, in which case you're using the law as a stick to mandate that people act contrary to their own personal beliefs and morals.
"Thus it isn't the government itself, but the people who are acting against themselves by attempting to live according to two contradictory goals at the same time!"
Nonsense. I never had a "goal" of taxation, for example, and so it is not "living according to two contradictory goals" to rebel against such taxation. You're presuming that all of society has homogeneous beliefs, something we know to be false.
"Societies exist for one purpose and one purpose only - to provide a common framework for goal-setting."
Not true. Sometimes societies exist just as a loose collection of peers, nobody "more equal" than anyone else, and nobody able to force anyone else to bend to their will.
All of your later arguments still presuppose that individuals must succumb to the will of the masses and conform. I reject that premise wholly.
What gives "the majority" the authority to say "you non-conformers need to be incarcerated"? Is it nothing more than "might makes right, we outnumber you, so live with it"? Mob-rule, as it were? If so, the next time three of my friends and I meet you in an alley, I expect you to quietly acquiesce to the "vote" which strips you of your right to the money in your wallet. :-)
There's no small sense of irony, to my mind, in the fact that literally every argument you've made so far is addressed and refuted handily in the first half of the book you refuse to read.
Do you think that laws exist or that they are the product of men?
You are having an interesting conversation that I don't want to interrupt/derail.
I just wanted to interject that it takes more than the correct "goals established by the people." Gov't has to have checks against human foibles. Otherwise people with good goals will elect good people to execute them, and eventually those good people will be corrupted by the power.
This is a very simple point compared to your conversation, but it stands out to me b/c as a less philosophically sophisticated citizen, I learned in school that gov't depends on checks and balances to keep it from getting out of control, but that's exactly what seems to be happening in slow motion over 100 years. It seems like the checks and balances are working.
"Gov't has to have checks against human foibles."
What you are really saying is that people must be able to check other people. I agree. And the way to do this is through laws and the proper structure of government. In this, I believe the Constitution to be unparalleled.
"eventually those good people will be corrupted by the power."
Thus the crux and need for checks. I agree. But it begins with having moral people in the first place. I was trying to find the quote, but it is eluding me, but it was one of the Founding Fathers noting that the character of men who seek public office is generally the least in harmony with the character who ought to hold office. The checks and balances were instituted to guide office-holders on where the lines were drawn, but it can do nothing if they are simply ignored by a majority of office-holders - or their constituents. Thus this decision not to indict Hillary Clinton is to me an indication that we as a nation have essentially abandoned morality. I don't think it is far-fetched to suggest that the desolation depicted by Rand in the latter portion of Atlas Shrugged may indeed become a reality.
It comes down to depending on people doing the right thing and limiting their own power. It seems to me the system is not working and needs to be tweaked. I have no idea what the tweak should be. I don't want it to be radical.
The consensus view seems to be in the modern world we need a broader interpretation of the Constitution. We should define clearly, though, how broad before it's totally meaningless.
Broader Interpretation is a way of saying circumventing the 9th and 10th Amendments.,Or granting a right or power illegally by taking away rights somewhere else. Or by finding as way around or by ignoring.
Thus the document is intentionally weakened. What you end up with is worse law and laws that are more difficult to change especially when money is attached.
Consensus? What Consensus. Saying it doesn't make it so.
Who says broaden the interpretation and to what extent? If it's working why fix it it was meant to slow down the process.
What is wrong with gridlock?. Better than a 20 trillion dollar debt with nothing to show for it.
I see no such consensus except among those who expect to make money off the changes.
Boil it all down it's a pig in a poke.
Nailed it - if only it were that simple.
"It seems to me the system is not working and needs to be tweaked."
That's because the system requires the action of human beings to check the other human beings. That isn't happening at any level.
Governments don't give rights.
You are certainly correct in that last statement. Say Hi to the Georges.
No Not Washington the other two.
Rights, however, always come with the responsibility of proper use. In children, the parents assume responsibility until their children become of age to act for themselves, but in return, the rights of the children can not be fully expressed. Children are not allowed to vote, for instance, even though that is their right. Why? Because they take no responsibility. Once one claims the right, one must also shoulder the responsibility. They are inseparable. When children grow up and take responsibility for themselves, they may also be subject to inherited membership in associations.
My question is this: do you automatically accord children in your fictitious nation the same rights and responsibilities as their parents under your proposed government and in full expression or do you suspend their membership privileges and obligations until they may apply for membership?
Load more comments...