A violation of the first amendment?

Posted by LennoxStudios 3 weeks, 6 days ago to Government
94 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

I've seen a lot in recent times about "hate speech" and people being offended. As such posts on different social media platforms are being deleted and accounts banned. Is this not a violation of the freedom of speech? Is it not unconstitutional?


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • 11
    Posted by PeterSmith 3 weeks, 4 days ago
    No.
    The reason is that only the government can violate freedom of speech.
    Private enterprise (like social media) has every right to ban, kick, de-platform, etc.
    That IS free speech and to try and stop them using the government, as many conservatives are sadly suggesting, would be an actual violation of free speech. Along with many other rights.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by DrZarkov99 3 weeks, 2 days ago
      Technically, you're not entirely correct. States do enforce violations of rights routinely against private enterprise. Just because not many want to buck the current social trend doesn't mean free speech rights couldn't be enforced against private enterprise.

      Private establishments used to post signs saying they can refuse service to anyone, but that no longer holds true, and lawsuits have been successful in punishing establishments who've refused service to law abiding customers as an act of discrimination. Case in point: the Colorado baker sued for not baking a cake celebrating gay marriage. He won that case as a violation by the state of his religious freedom. However, he only won because the Colorado board that oversaw charges of rights violations made blatantly antireligious statements for the record.

      Some states have considered abolishing gun free zones created by private entities as a violation of the 2nd amendment, but no one has so far enacted any legislation to that effect. I suspect they've left that one alone for fear state government might be challenged for gun free areas they establish. Lawsuits against the principle of gun free zones I suspect would fail because the SCOTUS has declared it lawful to establish "prudent" refinements to the conditions under which bearing arms is lawful.

      Perversely, back in the 1960s, students at Berkeley were successful in a suit against the college for its obscenity laws as a violation of free speech. Now the students want any non-progressive speech banned by the same university.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 3 weeks, 2 days ago
        "Technically" Peter is entirely correct. Private property rights and exercise of freedom of speech are not violations of others' freedom for not providing them with what they want. Only government coercion can violate freedom of speech under the Constitution and in morality, which includes no entitlements to use others' private property or muzzle them.

        Ethnicity, race, 'hate speech', and 'discrimination' laws all violate the rights of the individuals they control. Don't accept their statist premises.

        You can read Ayn Rand's analysis in The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, especially "The Cashing-In: The Student 'Rebellion'". and much more.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  blarman 3 weeks, 2 days ago
        Employee-Employer disputes are rarely the purview of the State. If you are in a union State, your contractual work agreements usually cover some portion of your "job" being some form of non-work-related speech activities such as union organizing, picketing, etc. for which you can not be fired. If you are in a non-union State (an at-will employment State), the company can pretty much hire you or fire you at will. Your only recourse there is to prove that they violated their own corporate policies in dismissing you. The other thing you can argue is that because you are not a spokesperson or agent of the company what you do on your own time is your own business and protected by the First Amendment. This one is generally hard to argue either way and depends a lot on the local case law.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 3 weeks, 3 days ago
      So if I kill someone and do it as a privage enterprise, is it my right to do so because only the goverment can violate someone's right to live?

      I agree with you actually although I would Find a different argument than that
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by PeterSmith 3 weeks, 3 days ago
        Anyone can commit the crime of murder but ONLY the government can violate free speech.
        Free speech deals specifically with the issue of state controlling what you can or can't say.
        Murder is completely unrelated and is not in any way analogous to the issue of free speech.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by evlwhtguy 3 weeks, 2 days ago
          I was all revved up to give exactly your answer! Dang....you go there before me. Almost all the "Rights" people sue over are prohibitions against government power detailed in the constitution. Things like the right to a cake from a bakery that doesn't want to make you one is only a bastardization of the constitution which was done using the interstate commerce clause and the equal protection clause.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by PeterSmith 3 weeks, 2 days ago
            Exactly right. It's good to see some people here on the same page about this. I'm finding even a lot of Objectivists don't seem to get it, sadly.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by evlwhtguy 3 weeks, 2 days ago
              Usually you have reasonably like minded people here but some have the objectivist religious fervor and cant temper that with the realization that we are operating in the real world and that if you do something to "stand on Principal" like not voting....you are then part of the problem.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 3 weeks, 2 days ago
                Objectivism does not mean ignoring the real world, quite the contrary.

                Whether or not it is proper to "stand on principle" depends on what the principle is and how it is being applied. Correct principles should always be followed.

                There is no (proper) principle that says not to vote or to always vote, but if you can't support any of the candidates then it is proper to not vote. If you don't support any of the candidates but it makes a difference who wins then it is proper to vote to stop the worst. That is not a violation of principle because principles are to be applied in context for living, not following duties.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Stormi 3 weeks, 2 days ago
    jAcosta is a self-promoting celebrity wannabe, not a reporter. Chris Wallace at Fox is little better with his rude, chest beating desire to be noticed. Neither is about reporting calmly the story and facts without personal bias. We heard Hillary promise to tamper with the First Amenment, at her rallies, when she said she would make discussion of global warming a CRIME, and would ban political dissent from the Internet. I don't like the way censorship is applied to liberal websites, but the answer is to find opposing sites which ban liberals.I thik anything short of shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, which does not endanger anyone should be allowed. However, Maxine and Farrakhan are inciting violence, and should be charged.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 2 weeks, 5 days ago in reply to this comment.
    You can listen to the podcasts of the Levin radio broadcasts at https://omny.fm/shows/mark-levin-audi... The three hour shows are about an hour and 50 mins without most of the ads, and if you download the mp3 files you can listen to them at almost double speed once you get used to it.

    Shapiro attempts to reduce Ayn Rand's significance to politics, denounces the philosophy as "garbage". Early this year he said there are "very few expositors of capitalism who I think are better than Ayn Rand” but “as far as her life philosophy, and her relationship philosophy, I think that’s pretty garbage. I don’t think Objectivism applies in personal relationships.”

    Substituting on the Mark Levin Show of August 10, 2017, in a segment Shapiro called "talking deep philosophy", he calls faith the "foundation of science" and claims that "if you lose faith, science becomes nothingness, becomes solipsism, becomes examination of your own belly button". I have that podcast and the transcript of Shapiro "talking deep philosophy", but it doesn't seem to be online anymore.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by PeterSmith 1 week, 4 days ago
      Yea it was pretty appalling.
      That segment is one of the reasons that I refer to conservatives today as the religious and politically illiterate arm of the left wing. Shapiro simply has no idea.
      Deep philosophy!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by term2 2 weeks, 5 days ago
      I never heard Shapiro bring up ayn rand, but I could imagine what he would say. He has his “natural laws” come from some ethereal god creature. Talk about garbage

      I will watch levin some more. They are both good on current events but the philosophy stuff I will ignore
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 2 weeks, 5 days ago
        You can ignore the annoyance personally, but the philosophical ideas they promote are destructive and preventing reform.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by term2 2 weeks, 5 days ago
          This is true. The philosophy of Shapiro and levin is very flawed and based on mythical Jewish gods. Handed down for their believers to accept.

          Better than Schumer and Pelosi and the bunch of millennial socialists whose philosophy is based on emotion and no reason at all
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 2 weeks, 4 days ago
            Levin is a practicing religious Jew, but openly allies himself with all forms of Christianity.

            He uses reasoned argument in many aspects of politics, but as an advocate of faith he is no defender of reason philosophically and is incapable of defending the rights of the individual. In 2015 he said:

            "Where do these unalienable rights come from? These inviolable rights, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? They don't come from man, they don't come from the collection of men we call government. These are rights, you're born with these rights. They don't come from reason. They don't come from logic. They are. Period."

            That is pure "intrinsicist" mysticism.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by term2 2 weeks, 4 days ago
              At least he picked some good “rights”, and does indicate we are at least born with them. I was expecting a claim that they were delivered by some god.

              But he sets himself up for defeat by collectivists who could just claim that other rights just “are”, like universal health care etc
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by PeterSmith 1 week, 4 days ago
            Yea I've been thinking about this a lot of late and I'm not so sure that they are better anymore.
            Think about it, what Shapiro et al advocate is religious/traditionalist collectivism and that's not an alternative to the secular versions of collectivism from the Schumer and Pelosi's of the world.
            But at least Schumer and Pelosi aren't claiming to be an alternative to the left.
            More and more I think the conservatives are actually doing more harm than good.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by term2 1 week, 3 days ago
              I am inclined to think that in the long run, you are doing more harm than good. In the short term, however, they are doing more good than the schumer/pelosi/O'rourke/Sanders group for sure.

              The more money the leftists get, the more they take away our freedoms.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by PeterSmith 1 week, 3 days ago
                OK, but Shapiro et al are ALSO leftists, but ones who don't even realize it, so why single out the "Democrat" flavor of leftie for particular hate? At least you know what you're getting with them.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by term2 1 week, 3 days ago
                  Good argument. I guess the issue is really what is "long term" vs "short term". Democrats want to take my stuff NOW and make me pay for their obviously collectivist programs, like open borders. At least the Shapiros dont want to take my freedoms NOW. I do accept that they arent standing on principle, and will lose the arguments at some point. One could argue also that the maintenance of our constitution will make it harder for the democrats to enact laws allowing them to take my stuff and my liberties.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  25n56il4 3 weeks, 2 days ago
    Mr. Trump needs to invoke rules like we had when I was on the City Council of my town. A member could speak for 5 minutes on any subject but then had to relinquish the floor and let every other member speak. Then if time permitted it went around again. Or he could ignore Acosta and let him wave his hand until it goes numb. The other news people should tell Acosta to shut up and let them ask a question. Of course most of them find him amusing so that probably wouldn't happen. Trump should ignore him!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  exceller 3 weeks, 5 days ago
    Of course it is.

    But since it is the left doing it, it is considered legitimate.

    CNN is suing the WH to reinstate Acosta's status.

    He has clearly been a rude promoter of hate about everything the president does. But that does not make CNN think that the WH was right banning him.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by gharkness 3 weeks, 2 days ago
      I just read that the judge has ordered the press pass be given back (at least temporarily). WHY???? IS there a constitutional right to attend a press briefing? I don't understand....

      I hope at least they put him in the BACK of the room and FOR GAWD's sake don't call on him!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  exceller 3 weeks, 2 days ago
        Apparently the verdict was based on some narrow interpretation of the 5th Amendment.

        It is not clear to me how that applies.

        The judge was appointed by Trump.

        It is obvious that the judicial system acts as if they were in control of the country.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by gharkness 3 weeks, 2 days ago
          Right, I heard the judge was appointed by Trump. He may have felt it necessary to rule that way, because just imagine the uproar if he ruled opposite!

          Also, this is just a preliminary ruling, not a verdict, so it results in the re-issuance of the pass, but that doesn't make it forever. Time will tell. And -Fifth amendment? Nuts.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  exceller 3 weeks, 2 days ago
            Even if Acosta is let in to the WH again, it beats me why Sarah or the president are calling on him?

            Let him scream but ignore him.

            Then they can sue for being ignored. Is that a Constitutional violation?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by gharkness 3 weeks, 2 days ago
              I have no idea but like most things, there's probably a "pecking order" at WH Press briefings, and he's probably at the top of it, based on his long history with CNN. Any junior reporter (to him) would likely have big penalties to pay among his/her fellow press members, I bet.

              A-ha! Here's how seating is determined:

              https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/he...

              this is an old article, but go ahead and read down a bit, and you will find this: "Though President Trump has gone on the attack against organizations like CNN and The New York Times, labeling them "fake news" in response to unflattering stories that often depend on leaks, the White House has allowed the WHCA to choose the seating chart for the past two administrations."

              I had a feeling - now confirmed - that the plot was a LOT thicker than I figured. That's true in almost everything political, isn't it? Nevertheless, it doesn't explain why they continue to call on Acosta. I'm sure there's a reason for that I don't understand, either!
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  Dobrien 3 weeks ago
                I think you are zeroing in on it. Trump is not threatened by Acosta, his intent is to expose the frauds these hacks are. Fake news. Acosta was lecturing Trump on the invasion. As these paid mercenaries assault our border the past will prove the future. I think Acosta and his bias may be helpful to Trump in our battle with the propaganda arm of the left.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  exceller 3 weeks, 2 days ago
                Thanks for the link.

                I bet the WHCA is studded with Obama appointees with predictable outcome.

                Even though there is a seating arrangement according to ratings (CNN is at the bottom so why is it in the front row?) the "rules" say nothing about being called on.

                I'd love to see the self-congratulatory smirk disappear from the face of this bully when he is being shunned.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertyBelle 3 weeks, 2 days ago
    Depends on who owns the site. I suppose the owner of a newspaper can decide who is allowed to have his letters-to-the-editor published. But it depends on whether the government gets involved, whether it violates the First Amendment.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 3 weeks, 2 days ago
    I think speech is speech. Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me.

    The libs are saying tht people with uncontrollable emotions will be hurt by words. Maybe they should learn how to deal with their emotions.

    Call Judge Jeanine a murderer and see how much that distresses her- she would probably just consider you crazy and that would be the end of it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 3 weeks, 2 days ago
      The "words" hurt you when people believe and act on them and you aren't allowed to respond.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by term2 3 weeks, 1 day ago
        acting on and speaking words are two different things. calling me a nigger isnt the same as stringing me up from a tree branch.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 3 weeks, 1 day ago
          "The 'words' hurt you when people believe and act on them and you aren't allowed to respond".

          "Words" have meaning and implications in reality, which if put into practice can hurt you, which is why ideas matter. Spreading false ideas as libel or for a "sticks and stone" purpose in action while denying your right to freedom of speech to respond is a deadly combination that shouldn't be dismissed with a child's nursery rhyme.

          That doesn't mean you should or should be allowed to poke someone in the eye every time he says something you don't like, and it doesn't justify the left's suppression of freedom of speech on principle against those who contradict or who do not pander to their political correctness, multiculturalism and politics. Freedom of speech is important because ideas and thinking for yourself are important. That leftists -- like most of those at Google and Facebook -- have the same right to freedom of speech doesn't mean that what they say and promote shouldn't matter to us.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by term2 3 weeks ago
            I think we are in agreement. Free speech means free speech. Doesn’t mean free actions. If someone is emotionally upset by my words, it’s THEIR problem and I should not be convicted of leftist inspired micro aggressions. If I act on my nasty words, that’s a different story
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  Solver 3 weeks ago
              Good summary.

              The logic of leftists is that words (emotionally) hurt and even kill people. They look to the past to determine this. With this excuse they seek to stop people from speaking words that they see could (emotionally) hurt or killed people. They have their morally superior excuse to prevent their targets from speaking by any means necessary. They even stop certain books from being read or published.

              Imagine the world were a book was never published called, The Communist Manifesto? The leftist imagines a world where wrong words are never spoken, published, read, or thought.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by term2 2 weeks, 6 days ago
                I think part of the appeal of trump is his denial of political correctness. He says what he thinks and encourages us to do the same. Anonymous voting allows us to express our views in a PC world

                It bothers me somewhat that the government actually knows who we are and where we live when we vote. Can’t they then single out all people for “special treatment” based on voting? They have the information after all
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  25n56il4 3 weeks ago
            You can't defend yourself against gossip (words) and you are a fool if you try. I think these 'haters' like to hear the sound of their own voices. They have convinced themselves they know what is 'right'!
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 3 weeks, 2 days ago
    Most writers and speakers of today need lessons on the Constitution's amendment one and further lessons on how the framers based their rules of the country on an Indian tribe that had many years of peaceful prosperity..
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 3 weeks, 2 days ago
      The Constitution was based on principles of government and a philosophy of reason and individualism from the Enlightenment, not Indian tribes or any other tribalism or collectivism.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Dobrien 3 weeks, 1 day ago
        This influence by the Iroquois is noted by congress.
        https://www.senate.gov/reference/reso...
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 3 weeks, 1 day ago
          The founding of this country was based on individualism in accordance with the Enlightenment, not primitive tribalism. The hoax claiming it was based on the Indians is no better than the fantasies spread by "birthers", "truthers" and those who claim the moon landing was fake and that the Constitution was based on the Ten Commandments. Another bizarre House resolution, that one in 1988 under Democrat control of both the House and the Senate, pandering to multiculturalism is not evidence to the contrary.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by mccannon01 3 weeks, 1 day ago
            100% agree, ewv! "...pandering to multiculturalism" is at the heart of all this BS. I grew up in the heart of Seneca country in Upstate NY and some studies on local history were part of the curriculum in both grammar and high schools (at least it was in the '60s) and such an important topic was never even mentioned. The hoax shows up later in the '80s and grew to urban legend status and now keeps popping up as though it were a fact. The Iroquois were a loose confederation of smaller tribes that verbally agreed to not kill each other (they had no written language), but still made brutal war on surrounding tribes, especially the Huron, even after the arrival of the white man. The current notion they danced freely in the forest making kissy face with Bambi is pure BS. They mainly fought with the French during the French and Indian war - and lost - and then mainly with the British during the Revolution - and lost again.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 3 weeks ago
              The distortion of Indian history and romanticizing of the primitive became prominent following the American Indian Movement embraced by the New Left in the late 1960s and 70s. It subsequently became entrenched as part of the leftist takeover of the universities. You would think that those knowledgeable in Ayn Rand's ideas would be able to see through it, let alone not erupt into the kind of angry emotional outbursts we've seen here.

              Ayn Rand's "Global Balkanization" on the 'ethnicity' movement, and a good essay by Peter Schwartz, "Multicultural Nihilism", are both in the expanded edition of Ayn Rand's The Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution. https://www.amazon.com/Return-Primiti...

              Two books worth reading specifically on Indian history are

              1. Tom Bowden's The Enemies of Christopher Columbus 2003, which provides an exceptional philosophic overview of pre-colonial and colonial Indian history https://estore.aynrand.org/p/465/enem...
              https://www.amazon.com/Enemies-Christ...

              2. James A. Clifton, ed, The Invented Indian: Cultural Fictions and Government Politics 1990, which is a collection of articles by professionals in Indian affairs debunking the academic trends and government policies. https://www.amazon.com/Invented-India...
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by mccannon01 2 weeks, 6 days ago
                Thanks for the list. I happen to have Rand's "The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution", which the "Return" is an expanded version of.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 2 weeks, 6 days ago
                  I thought you might, or had read some of it when she published the articles before the anthology was published. The expanded version edited by Peter Schwartz is worth getting for the additional articles not in the original. Schwartz wrote some of them himself. The Bowden book, which isn't very well known, is excellent for its history and philosophical explanation, and the Clifton collection is very interesting for factual descriptions and debunking of myths being spread by "scholars".
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  25n56il4 2 weeks, 6 days ago
                What planet are you from? I didn't find it 'Romantic' to see my father struck in the face by a Redneck idiot who called him a 'Breed', and my father mopping up Harrisburg Boulevard in Houston with the guy. People who saw what happened, did cheer for my father but it ruined my young day. And has the U. S. Government honored one Treaty they ever signed with the Indians? My grandmother wasn't Cherokee! She was Comanche! We did get our college educations because of her but the State of Texas stole her land!
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by mccannon01 2 weeks, 6 days ago
                  Sorry to hear about your father and the fact you had to witness it, for sure, because being on the same planet as you and he, I've experienced the same punch in the face. I've been attacked and beaten more than once for the apparent "sin" of being a white male. I've also been told to leave a restaurant because white folks weren't allowed in there after a certain time of day. Yes, this same crap happens to white people all the time. I have NEVER perpetrated or initiated such an act on any other human being in my entire life. I also do not harbor hatred toward the race of the thugs that harmed me. I have way too many Seneca, Mohawk, and African friends to let a handful of idiots change my thinking.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by ewv 2 weeks, 6 days ago
                    Yes, there have been and still are racist thugs committing deplorable crimes, as well as the non-racist thugs. None of it has any implications for approving or disproving of anyone based on his race, which includes evaluating what people did in social organizations hundreds or thousands of years ago and which we are now suppose to romanticize and idolize for the sake of multiculturalist ethnicity. That someone was the victim of a deplorable crime does not mean that the nature of his ancestors' social organization cannot be evaluated for what it was -- and was not.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • -2
            Posted by  $  Dobrien 3 weeks, 1 day ago
            The basis has been debated for decades. Many influences likely came together for the constitutions creation. American Creation, we have long debated the influences that motivated the Founding Fathers to draft the American Constitution. Everyone from John Locke to Rousseau, Montesquieu to the Holy Bible have been discussed at some length. And while these influences were undoubtedly important, to the formation of the Constitution, there is at least the possibility of a more local influence at play.

            Recent scholarship on the history of the American Constitution has uncovered some interesting insights into the role that various Native American tribes may have had on the formation of the Constitution. James Mann, one of the leading writers on this topic, has stated the following with regards to this provocative Constitution/Native American connection:
            So vivid were these examples of democratic self-government [from colonial Indian history] that some historians and activists have argued that the [Indians'] Great Law of Peace directly inspired the American Constitution. Taken literally, this assertion seems implausible. With its grant of authority to the federal government to supersede state law, its dependence on rule by the majority rather than consensus and its denial of suffrage to women, the Constitution as originally enacted was not at all like the Great Law. But in a larger sense the claim is correct. The framers of the Constitution, like most colonists in what would become the United States, were pervaded by Indian images of liberty.
            Skeptics of course point out that the overwhelming majority of written material from the Founders present at the Constitutional Convention contains nothing of their debates regarding the Iroquois Indians. In addition, there are no records or written documents from the Iroquois Confederacy that could substantiate any claim as to their similarities with the government established in the Constitution. With that said, keep in mind two things: first the surviving written record of the Constitutional Convention is relatively small -- most of which is found in the writings of James Madison. The delegates agreed to keep it as such in order to protect the "legacies" of the various participants. Second, the Iroquois Confederacy was predominantly illiterate, meaning that a search for a written historical document would prove futile. However, if oral history is taken into account, some scholars of the Iroquois argue that the confederation they established has a very close resemblance to the Constitution.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 3 weeks, 1 day ago
              This country was not based on Indian tribalism. The fringe can "debate" such nonsense all it wants to. Thousands of years of primitive Indian tribalism did not result in any of them becoming civilization based on the rights of the individual and this country did not copy them.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • -1
                Posted by  $  Dobrien 3 weeks, 1 day ago
                I never said it was based on Indian tribalism.
                Your dismissive attitude is annoying. Why don’t you knock that chip off your shoulder.
                The truth doesn’t care what you say or think. The truth is the minds of many , all who had participated in framing the constitution were individuals bringing their wisdom and knowledge together.
                That included the reality around them and expiriences observed by each individual. As well as their studies.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by ewv 3 weeks, 1 day ago
                  Indian tribalism did not have a "very close resemblance to the Constitution". And Herb wrote originally, "the framers based their rules of the country on an Indian tribe", which is not true either.

                  Truth is correspondence between an assertion and the facts, not the "minds of many".

                  Your angry personal attacks do not belong here.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by GaltsGulch 2 weeks, 6 days ago
                    While worded sloppily, I'm absolutely certain that Dobrien did not mean to suggest that "truth = the minds of many."

                    What Dobrien meant to convey was, "The truth is that many helped to author the constitution."
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by ewv 2 weeks, 6 days ago
                      Truth isn't whatever happens to be in the minds of many either. Truth is correspondence with facts, not a disparate collection of beliefs among many. The "many'' he seems to be talking about are those attributing the source of the ideas for the Constitution; those at the constitutional convention formulated the guidelines for future actions by a new government, not "truths", i.e., true statements about something existing. No Indians were at the constitutional convention. The intellectual influence and basic premises as the Enlightenment, not Indian tribalism, as the source of a government based on the rights of the individual, is well known. Stating that is not from a "chip on a shoulder" and "attitude", contrary to Dobrien's angry personal speculation and accusation. That was the angry personal attack that does not belong here.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by  $  Dobrien 3 weeks, 1 day ago
                    Give me a break. I wrote some scholars of Iroqouis argue a close resemblance to the constitution” you apparently are an expert on the
                    Iroqouis and dispute that. I am not an expert on them. That doesn’t mean scholars of Iroqouis don’t argue of a close resemblance.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by ewv 3 weeks, 1 day ago
                      Your angry personal attacks do not belong here.

                      A strained attempt to force a "resemblance" without regard to essentials, context, and what else anywhere can also be similarly imagined as "resemblance", is not scholarship and is not all that you and Herb wrote that I rejected.

                      This began with Herb's preposterous and sweeping claim that "the framers based their rules of the country on an Indian tribe that had many years of peaceful prosperity" (the last of which is standard euphemism for 'noble savage' rhetoric misrepresenting the characteristic continuous tribalist wars and subjugation of individuals in primitive tribes). You began by defending it: "This influence by the Iroquois is noted by congress". You linked to a Democrat 1988 "Congressional Resolution", as if that is the standard of history, which was radical left propaganda pandering to multiculturalism and balkanization (the text of which implies a radical ethnic theory of tribal sovereignty that does not exist within this country).

                      You also wrote "the Constitution as originally enacted was not at all like the Great Law" and then contradicted yourself: "But in a larger sense the claim is correct. The framers of the Constitution, like most colonists in what would become the United States, were pervaded by Indian images of liberty." Indian "images" and ideals were primitive tribalism, not individual liberty, and the ideas of the framers of the Constitution and the colonists were not "pervaded" by Indians' "images".

                      The lack of evidence for the preposterous contradictory speculations was explained away by saying evidence would be impossible: "the Iroquois Confederacy was predominantly illiterate, meaning that a search for a written historical document would prove futile." Lack of evidence left by illiterate primitives is not evidence, and neither is the lack of evidence of the alleged fundamental influences on the literate framers and colonists. It does not become plausible by its impossibility and a romanticized "oral tradition".

                      You then tried to argue for taking all this seriously as "wisdom and knowledge" by obliquely referring to contradictory "debates" and "discussions" ranging from Locke to the Bible -- as if all such "debates" and "discussions" have equal validity -- and merged them all together with the claim that "The truth is the minds of many". It is not. Contradictory "minds of many" are not facts and not the standard of truth, and neither are romanticized speculations that primitives were the source for "the rules of the country". Rejecting all of it is not a "chip on a shoulder" whether or not you find the dismissal of the preposterous to be "annoying".
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by term2 2 weeks, 6 days ago
                  For what it’s worth , so what if some of the experiences with Indian culture May have affected the founding fathers.

                  If I am attracted by the Mormon religion’s concerns with family or preparedness, it doesn’t mean I blindly believe in the rest of their dogma.

                  Most cultures incorporate some rational thinking in varying percentages. Doesn’t mean just because a different culture thought of it that we need to discount it
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by ewv 2 weeks, 6 days ago
                    Indian tribes didn't think of a constitutional republic founded to protect the rights of the individual. Straining to find some "resemblance" between the Constitution and some aspect of ancient tribal government does not make the Indians the source for the Constitution and our form of government. The "so what" is correct; it doesn't matter.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by term2 2 weeks, 6 days ago
                      It never would have occurred to me to think the origin of our constitution had much to do with Indian culture, which seemed to me to be mostly a dictatorship of the tribal chief
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by ewv 2 weeks, 6 days ago
                        They had some variations on the form of control, but they were all collectivist in the crudest way: tribalism. You have to really strain to "find" a "resemblance" let alone credit them as a source. It's not as if the source were a mystery and we didn't have all the documentation on the nature of the Enlightenment and how it influenced the founders.

                        But in the multicultural world of ethnicity over logic anything goes, and the "anything" does nothing to help understand the ideas that made this country possible and what it will take to restore it. That won't come from its opposite in the "return of the primitive". https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post... You would have thought that this could be discussed seriously on an Ayn Rand forum without the outbursts of emotional hostility and personal denunciations.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by term2 2 weeks, 6 days ago
                          I think it took a combination subjugation under the English colonial rule, plus the potential taste of freedom here in a distant new land that lit the fires of independent thinking. Maybe the English class system that was so out of place in a rugged new land that helped too.

                          Not sure how one brings that back now. Maybe a revolution to escape the shackles of collectivism will be the spark. Interesting thought how we can rekindle the spirit that started this country when so many people are beholden to the idea government control. The world is so different now.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by ewv 2 weeks, 5 days ago
                            The feudalist system in England had already begun to crumble by the Industrial Revolution there. Remember that John Locke and the Enlightenment started there. But the form of government was entrenched in Britain and could not evolve as quickly as the freedom in America.

                            American colonists were accustomed to much more freedom despite the nominal British rule -- they already had a "fire of independent thinking" as a common attitude. At the beginning of the break in response to British ratcheting up the controls and taxes, they still intended to remain as part of Britain with the "rights of Englishmen". England cracked down and that was the beginning of the end for British rule. It lit a fire, but they already had the intellectual fuel and were not about to give it up.

                            As for us now, it takes the same kind of sweep of ideas of reason and individualism as the Enlightenment, but better formulated and developed (Ayn Rand) in response to the centuries of the intellectual counter Enlightenment. Appeal to what is left of the American sense of life to stop the worst of the socialists and otherwise spread the right ideas for the longer term and to buttress the current resistance.

                            Britain is far worse off, already succumbing to socialism long ago under the intellectual pounding of the Fabians. Their economy is in bad shape and people are suffering under the British socialized medicine and more. But there is little resistance because most of them are too frightened to break with the collectivism they now take for granted. And that is already happening here.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by term2 2 weeks, 5 days ago
                              Its a very dismal situation here I fear. Over half the people are ready to accept socialism from what I can see. Even the so called "conservatives" arent intellectually consistent enough to adequately resist. I have given up on MSM, and now watch the alternative channels on youtube, like Ben Shapiso, Bill O Reilly, etc. But although they are much better than the liberals, their intellectual consistency is quite apparent. Shapiro has taken the kool aid of orthodox jewish religion, and OReilly is ok on some things but strays on others. Tucker Carlson on fox pretends to be for free markets, but is ok with outlawing self driving trucks because it would result in unemployment of truck drivers. Candace Owens so far is pretty good about objecting to the "victim" mentality (and she is black..) Trump I think has been infected with "re election" syndrome and is not moving forward as much as I hoped (But to be honest I really expected him to only slow down the march to collectivism, not reverse it). I am encouraged by the YAF college campus talks with Dinesh D-Souza, and would like it if there was a good speaker to promote the works of Ayn Rand
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by ewv 2 weeks, 5 days ago
                                ARI has good speakers but there is only so much they can do. They have been doing good work on freedom of speech at university campuses. But there isn't anyone anywhere with the intellectual acuteness, understanding, and articulation of Ayn Rand.

                                Lawyer and talk radio show host Mark Levin (formerly of the Justice Dept under Reagan and Meese) seems to be the leading conservative intellectual spokesman now. He can be very good on daily political analysis but mixes freedom with religion and welfare statism, and has a bad tendency to yell and belittle people. He occasionally mentions Ayn Rand but not in any fundamental way in contrast to the way he lauds Bill Buckley, etc. He has recommended and quotes from Ayn Rand's Return of the Primitive several times (and he's getting closer to pronouncing her name correctly.)

                                Bill O'Reilly has never impressed me as anything other than everyone's pompous Victorian grandfather, with no philosophical value at all. Ben Shapiro is a bright but snarky young conservative belligerent who vastly overrates his own philosophical understanding, is antagonistic towards Ayn Rand's philosophy that he does not understand, and frequently gets things dead wrong while he basks in imagined intellectual silver bullets.

                                Someone recently recommended One America's News Network https://www.oann.com/ as an independent news source, but its cable availability is limited and I haven't seen it.

                                The best source of 'inside' political news and information (though not particularly philosophical) is to ally with grass roots activists with a record for being a major influence in some specific area (like property rights) and who know what they are doing and talking about, even though most people have never heard of them. They tend to be from the better conservatives.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Posted by term2 2 weeks, 5 days ago
                                  I like Mark Levin, and I am not surprissed he is a bit collectivist, being jewish. I am not surprised Ben Shapiro doesnt like Ayn Rand. He thinks philosophy comes from his orthodox jewish religion, and thinks the basis for philosophy cant come from anything but his "god". He would never accept Ayn Rand, but interestingly enough he isnt that far away from her philosophy (except for the religion thing. I like his respect for facts until he gets to his religion nonsense
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo