Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If the majority of the country thinks I'm wrong, it shouldn't.
What argument is there for my point of view though? Because intelligent people will see liberty as preferable to bondage? And because informed people will understand that liberty allows people to speak, think, believe, behave differently than what others think proper? Because educated people understand that freedom allows the right to choose wrongly as well as rightly.
Once our rights are secured, if we do not have the right to form whatever sort of society we wish to have, we have no rights at all. And if we are going to cooperate and help each other build the society we want, the majority opinion must prevail.
Once you hand the power to the federal government to decide that for us, we have no rights, no liberty, no self determination whatsoever. We give the federal government ability to do anything to us it chooses to do.
So if 51% of population thinks you're wrong regarding the federal government's role in daily life, you're fine with that?
You aren't hearing me. It isn't a matter of anything being fine with any individual. Freedom allows individuals to approve, disapprove, like, dislike, appreciate, loathe, etc. as they do. Freedom is never group think. But social contract for the mutual benefit of all, which is the ONLY logical way that local government happens, must of necessity be accomplished via majority vote.
It is the majority who will vote on whether to fund the bonds to pave the streets or put in street lights or establish a municiple water system, put in a sewer system, organize a volunteer fire department or establish a municiple one, whether to incorporate, whether to hire a mayor or elect a justice of the peace, etc. It would be a very foolish town who would decide things based on a 49% to 51% vote, however, but it is also an unrealistic expectation to require a unanimous vote for much of anything.
I can appreciate the individual or two who bought his property in the middle of nowhere and resents that other folks moved in around him to the point that he is now caught up in the dynamics of development. He wants to retain his excluded rural form of life, and that no longer becomes possible where he is. So he either has to adapt to the development, or move to a place more to his liking.
It is the same thing that happens to us who bought in quiet, sleepy little neighborhoods, but as the area grew and new schools and shopping centers and apartments built in, we then had to deal with the traffic and congestion that spoils it for us. So we adapt or we move.
None of us can expect to have things exactly like we want them if we choose to live where other people live. But we can still have our vote on what sort of society we wish to be. And we can still fight to not turn our liberties to a federal government that will then own them and we will have them no more.
So if 51% of population thinks you're wrong regarding the federal government's role in daily life, you're fine with that?
You aren't hearing me. It isn't a matter of anything being fine with any individual. Freedom allows individuals to approve, disapprove, like, dislike, appreciate, loathe, etc. as they do. Freedom is never group think. But social contract for the mutual benefit of all, which is the ONLY logical way that local government happens, must of necessity be accomplished via majority vote.
It is the majority who will vote on whether to fund the bonds to pave the streets or put in street lights or establish a municiple water system, put in a sewer system, organize a volunteer fire department or establish a municiple one, whether to incorporate, whether to hire a mayor or elect a justice of the peace, etc. It would be a very foolish town who would decide things based on a 49% to 51% vote, however, but it is also an unrealistic expectation to require a unanimous vote for much of anything.
I can appreciate the individual or two who bought his property in the middle of nowhere and resents that other folks moved in around him to the point that he is now caught up in the dynamics of development. He wants to retain his excluded rural form of life, and that no longer becomes possible where he is. So he either has to adapt to the development, or move to a place more to his liking.
It is the same thing that happens to us who bought in quiet, sleepy little neighborhoods, but as the area grew and new schools and shopping centers and apartments built in, we then had to deal with the traffic and congestion that spoils it for us. So we adapt or we move.
None of us can expect to have things exactly like we want them if we choose to live where other people live. But we can still have our vote on what sort of society we wish to be. And we can still fight to not turn our liberties to a federal government that will then own them and we will have them no more.
I've understood your argument the whole time. You don't want the federal government to have say over how people live their lives, but you don't have a problem with local governments doing it because of an imaginary social contract. I've been trying to point out how these two positions are contradictory, but I have apparently failed.
The idea of the social contract is one of the foundations of the American political system. This is the belief that the state only exists to serve the will of the people, and they are the source of all political power enjoyed by the state. They can choose to give or withhold this power. . . .
. . . .Jean Jacques Rousseau and John Locke each took the social contract theory one step further. Rousseau wrote The Social Contract, or Principles of Political Right in which he explained that the government is based on the idea of popular sovereignty. Thus the will of the people as a whole gives power and direction to the state. John Locke also based his political writings on the idea of the social contract. He stressed the role of the individual. He also believed that revolution was not just a right but an obligation if the state abused their given power. Obviously these ideas had a huge impact on the Founding Fathers, especially Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.
Social Contract - Definition of Social Contract
You aren't hearing me. It isn't a matter of anything being fine with any individual. Freedom allows individuals to approve, disapprove, like, dislike, appreciate, loathe, etc. as they do. Freedom is never group think. But social contract for the mutual benefit of all, which is the ONLY logical way that local government happens, must of necessity be accomplished via majority vote.
It is the majority who will vote on whether to fund the bonds to pave the streets or put in street lights or establish a municiple water system, put in a sewer system, organize a volunteer fire department or establish a municiple one, whether to incorporate, whether to hire a mayor or elect a justice of the peace, etc. It would be a very foolish town who would decide things based on a 49% to 51% vote, however, but it is also an unrealistic expectation to require a unanimous vote for much of anything.
I can appreciate the individual or two who bought his property in the middle of nowhere and resents that other folks moved in around him to the point that he is now caught up in the dynamics of development. He wants to retain his excluded rural form of life, and that no longer becomes possible where he is. So he either has to adapt to the development, or move to a place more to his liking.
It is the same thing that happens to us who bought in quiet, sleepy little neighborhoods, but as the area grew and new schools and shopping centers and apartments built in, we then had to deal with the traffic and congestion that spoils it for us. So we adapt or we move.
None of us can expect to have things exactly like we want them if we choose to live where other people live. But we can still have our vote on what sort of society we wish to be. And we can still fight to not turn our liberties to a federal government that will then own them and we will have them no more.
I've understood your argument the whole time. You don't want the federal government to have say over how people live their lives, but you don't have a problem with local governments doing it because of an imaginary social contract. I've been trying to point out how these two positions are contradictory, but I have apparently failed.
You think social contract is imaginary? Well I don't have time to educate you about that, and yes, you are going to fail when you ignore the illustrations offered and rather profess something you can't defne, explain, or illustrate.
But if you have any inclination to educate yourself on the concept of social contract, I suggest you start here:
The idea of the social contract is one of the foundations of the American political system. This is the belief that the state only exists to serve the will of the people, and they are the source of all political power enjoyed by the state. They can choose to give or withhold this power. . . .
. . . .Jean Jacques Rousseau and John Locke each took the social contract theory one step further. Rousseau wrote The Social Contract, or Principles of Political Right in which he explained that the government is based on the idea of popular sovereignty. Thus the will of the people as a whole gives power and direction to the state. John Locke also based his political writings on the idea of the social contract. He stressed the role of the individual. He also believed that revolution was not just a right but an obligation if the state abused their given power. Obviously these ideas had a huge impact on the Founding Fathers, especially Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.
Social Contract - Definition of Social Contract
Canada probably wouldn't want you.Why should I have to move when I own property and the majority in my locale decides to violate my property rights? And why can't people just move out of the country if they don't like what the U.S. government does? Canada's not that far away.
Of course, if you brought in a bundle of money, or set up a business, or had some special skill, they might take you in.
Canada has shown no interest in subsidizing American losers.
.
For the most part, this is correct BUT you are missing one HUGE part here: what you describe is a pure democracy. Tyranny of the majority. What we have is not this type of system precisely because of what you describe above. Such a system is destined for destruction as the majority exercises their complete control over the minority. The constitutions purpose here is to stop that by limiting what the government (who is essentially the majority here) in what they are able to accomplish. I believe strongly in the idea that we have rights that are not allowed to be trampled on by the majority and while they do have the right to control basic pubic services and the like they certainly do not have the right to simply vote away my rights. You have all but stated that they do in the above as long as it is local. Such a thought is scary to me because there is no reason to believe that the state is going to be any less tyrannical than the federal government. As a matter of fact, they are likely to be WORSE. At least the feds have the states competing with each other and they dont want to be trampled. Within the states, there are fewer controls and fewer organized political juggernauts that are fighting to keep them from doing so.Then you would be wrong. They were quite motivated and they even got the local radio and TV stations involved. It still failed. They were a small voice in a larger area. No real control over the government in that area and the talking point about creating jobs and making the earth a greener place was worth more than their support.So stop ceding the control to those who will trample on your liberties. I guarantee you that a strong show of support from the community and people willing to be involved would have prevented that recycling plant from going in there. I have been part of such efforts and they are almost always effective. Those too lazy or too busy or unwilling to get involved pretty much deserve what they get.
In the end, their rights and lives were not worth trading the political dollars and stomping points. Thats government for you.
To assume the state/city government is going to get anything more right than the individual communities is the ultimate naiveté. You see, the statements dont change. The real motive power does not belong in the federal government but it ALSO does not belong in the state one either. It belongs with the PEOPLE.
Sure. I can agree with that. I also think that the state should be limited though to just what the cities cannot accomplish and the cities limited to only that which the people themselves cannot accomplish. That is the most important part of that. The government at ALL levels should be limited with the power base in the hands of the people.Limit the federal government to doing what MUST be done in order for the individual states to operate effectively as one nation, to provide the common defense, and to recognize and protect our unalienable rights, and then let the states and local government, under the watchful eye of the people, do all other government. That is the only way to protect our freedoms and allow maximum pursuit of happiness. When government is local, the people in the next community or the next state can't shield or protect the bad eggs you choose to vote out of office.
Coulda - woulda - shoulda. Again a 'small voice' within a much larger voice will indeed usually get shouted down when the will of the majority must prevail. Without looking at the whole history of that recycling center, I don't know if my philosophy or yours would prevail. And it probably isn't important enought to either of us to bother researching it.
But while your philosophy of government structure, which in many ways parallels my own, is defensible in theory, again that is for the majority to decide. If the majority wants the state government to manage the schools or any other public services, and they vote that way, then the will of the people have spoken. If the majority of the people want local control, and vote that way, that is the way it should be.
And right now a majority of the people are voting to give away our rights to an ever more bloated, constantly growing, and ever more authoritarian federal government, and that too is the will of the people, however stupid that is. Freedom allows stupidity and freedom allows us to give away our freedoms for whatever reason.
All we can do is keep making a reasoned and credible argument for why that is folly for people who value freedom. We won't do it by trashing other people or attacking their heroes. We will do it by teaching the concepts the Founders believed. If we fail, I do believe we are the last generation who will have any ability to reverse our present course that results with us all being in bondage. And the USA the Founders envisioned will be no more.
