How do you see the opposition?

[Baruch Menachem]

The 18th century saw huge changes due to tech change. Machine guns would have fascinated Franklin. But the changes they saw due to tactics and organization in the military during their lives were about as big a deal as what happened between 1860 with the invention of the Minea ball and 1939. Sometimes Marx is right when he says that minor quantitative changes changes lead to major qualitative changes. I think they understood your point better than you do.

Cocaine is merely one more bad thing you can do to yourself. England in the mid 18th century saw something very much like the crack and heroin epidemics with the improvements in distillation that made gin cheap and beer expensive for the lower classes.

Conversely, a huge part of their debate took place on constitutional matters that to the modern mind are outragously weird and medieval. The American Revolution was pretty much a continuation of the puritan revolt in 17th century england, and the arguments made by the colonies reflect puritan arguments from 130 years before. So much of the debate is archaic not just in language but in form.

But very much, the powers that be in 2010 are not a whole lot different from the powers that be back in 1640 or 1773. Instead of Viscount Sandwich, we have Barney Frank. Instead of Lord North, there is Harry Reid, and instead of St. Germain there is Eric Holder. 0bama's attitude of Devine Right is more cocksure and has less basis than that assumed by George III, who seems to have been a whole lot brighter and saner sometimes.

 

[Modbert]

But how in the world does that relate to unalienable rights or the principle of the role of government being to secure those rights? If the bad guys have more resources to be bad, so do the good guys have more resources to be good.

And the principle remains unaffected and just as valid as it has ever been.

Again, if you believe there is such a thing called unalienable rights, tell it to:

Slaves.
Those interned during WWII.
Those who are arrested under the War on Drugs.

Get this simple concept through your head: Rights are not rights if they can be taken away. They are merely temporary privileges.

As for the concept of individual liberties, I am all for them. I'm likely to be more Libertarian than you even.

 

[California Girl]

Unfortunately, I started laughing at the first sentence of the OP.... I have been laughing too hard to read any further. "rdean started an interesting thread".





Damn, I missed it.

 

[Jarhead]

But how in the world does that relate to unalienable rights or the principle of the role of government being to secure those rights? If the bad guys have more resources to be bad, so do the good guys have more resources to be good.

And the principle remains unaffected and just as valid as it has ever been.

Again, if you believe there is such a thing called unalienable rights, tell it to:

Slaves.
Those interned during WWII.
Those who are arrested under the War on Drugs.

Get this simple concept through your head: Rights are not rights if they can be taken away. They are merely temporary privileges.

As for the concept of individual liberties, I am all for them. I'm likely to be more Libertarian than you even.

Slaves. An error and since recitified and never to be done again
Those interned during WWII. An error and never to be done again
Those who are arrested under the War on Drugs They opt to possibly forgoe their rights if they break the law and get caught. They are not losing their rights without choice

 

[Modbert]

Slaves. An error and since recitified and never to be done again
Those interned during WWII. An error and never to be done again
Those who are arrested under the War on Drugs They opt to possibly forgoe their rights if they break the law and get caught. They are not losing their rights without choice

The War on Drugs is one of the biggest government intrusions in history. It's a waste of money, manpower, and goes against all logical sense. Any Libertarian can tell you this.

And I'll believe never again when I see it. I remember reading "never again" being said after Hitler and his Holocaust. And yet, there have been a number of Holocausts since WWII.

So I'll believe "never again" when I see it.

 

[Jarhead]

Slaves. An error and since recitified and never to be done again
Those interned during WWII. An error and never to be done again
Those who are arrested under the War on Drugs They opt to possibly forgoe their rights if they break the law and get caught. They are not losing their rights without choice

The War on Drugs is one of the biggest government intrusions in history. It's a waste of money, manpower, and goes against all logical sense. Any Libertarian can tell you this.

And I'll believe never again when I see it. I remember reading "never again" being said after Hitler and his Holocaust. And yet, there have been a number of Holocausts since WWII.

So I'll believe "never again" when I see it.

The war on drugs is what government is for; like it or not. Defend and protect. Sorry if those that like to break the law for profit feel it is intrusive.

You use something NOT in the control of the American people like the holocost to things that the American people have control of?

I admire the thinking of a libertarian and agree with much. But I do not agree with your examples of how rights are not rights but privelages.

 

[Foxfyre]

But how in the world does that relate to unalienable rights or the principle of the role of government being to secure those rights? If the bad guys have more resources to be bad, so do the good guys have more resources to be good.

And the principle remains unaffected and just as valid as it has ever been.

Again, if you believe there is such a thing called unalienable rights, tell it to:

Slaves.
Those interned during WWII.
Those who are arrested under the War on Drugs.

Get this simple concept through your head: Rights are not rights if they can be taken away. They are merely temporary privileges.

As for the concept of individual liberties, I am all for them. I'm likely to be more Libertarian than you even.

I was unaware that we have slavery. The fact that we once did is an instructive bit of history but simply puts us in shared company with every other country that existed at that time for abolition of all slavery is a fairly modern concept in world history. The Founders did not attempt to judge previous civilizations by their own sense of morality and neither should we.

It had nothing to do with the principle of God given unalienable rights.

It was unfortunate that we interred who were interred during WWII, but, just like the Patriot Act, it was necessary in the face of a savage attack by a people who had previously pretended to be our friend, and there was no way to know who was and was not the enemy. Some bad decisions were made in the interest of carrying out the Constitutional requirement to provide for the national defense.

It had nothing to do with the principle of God given unalienable rights.

Nor does the fact that we have laws governing drug use and people are arrested and convicting for violating those laws.

Being a people of laws requires enforcement of those laws and that is intended to secure our God given unalienable rights, not take away from them. It is an unalienable right to have ability to petition the government to oppose and work to repeal or change bad laws however.

The fact that everything isn't perfect does not negate the principle.

The fact that some people are allergic to or don't like broccoli does not change the fact that it is a perfectly good and nutritious food.

And you cannot be libertarian without appreciating a concept of unalienable rights.

 

[FrankieGA]

Slaves. An error and since recitified and never to be done again
Those interned during WWII. An error and never to be done again
Those who are arrested under the War on Drugs They opt to possibly forgoe their rights if they break the law and get caught. They are not losing their rights without choice

The War on Drugs is one of the biggest government intrusions in history. It's a waste of money, manpower, and goes against all logical sense. Any Libertarian can tell you this.

And I'll believe never again when I see it. I remember reading "never again" being said after Hitler and his Holocaust. And yet, there have been a number of Holocausts since WWII.

So I'll believe "never again" when I see it.

Thats funny, your going to wait and "SEE" something that will never happen again? So if you never "SEE" it does it mean it won't happen? No there is an inherent evil in some people that will do whatever they can to have power over another people. Hence the Holocaust since WWII. Question, are we now talking world politics instead of local politics? I don't remember a Holocaust ever in this country much less since WWII.

 

[Modbert]

Thats funny, your going to wait and "SEE" something that will never happen again? So if you never "SEE" it does it mean it won't happen? No there is an inherent evil in some people that will do whatever they can to have power over another people. Hence the Holocaust since WWII. Question, are we now talking world politics instead of local politics? I don't remember a Holocaust ever in this country much less since WWII.

Native Americans would like a word with you. Or do you not recall our Founding Fathers butchering them too? Trail of Tears ring a bell?

 

[Modbert]

The war on drugs is what government is for; like it or not. Defend and protect. Sorry if those that like to break the law for profit feel it is intrusive.

You use something NOT in the control of the American people like the holocost to things that the American people have control of?

I admire the thinking of a libertarian and agree with much. But I do not agree with your examples of how rights are not rights but privelages.

I'm merely telling you what happens when people say "never again". If "rights" can be taken away from you (War on Drugs, Patriot Act, etc) then they aren't rights.

 

[Jarhead]

Thats funny, your going to wait and "SEE" something that will never happen again? So if you never "SEE" it does it mean it won't happen? No there is an inherent evil in some people that will do whatever they can to have power over another people. Hence the Holocaust since WWII. Question, are we now talking world politics instead of local politics? I don't remember a Holocaust ever in this country much less since WWII.

Native Americans would like a word with you. Or do you not recall our Founding Fathers butchering them too? Trail of Tears ring a bell?

And, again, a massive error.

Do you not believe in the proven theory that one lives and learns?

 

[Xenophon]

Rdean made an interesting thread. Not so much for what it tells us about about the topic at hand, as much as it tells us about Rdean.

He seems to feel all employers are Republican, that they hire only like minded people, that they are easlity manipulated, lazy, and cheap. His head holds so many contradictory opinions that it is a miracle he has only one head to hold them all.

I am not going to go on a tear against him, as he is representative of a problem on both sides. My own views are not a lot better. I see many Democrats as petty spiteful folks who are more interested in kicking people down a peg and getting revenge for others good fortune than in making things better for people generally. Those who are not like this are dreamy folks who have too rosy a view of human nature, and either excuse or facilitate bad things happening because they don't understand the animal they are dealing with. Much as someone who thinks wolves are cute and cuddly and would be happy with a vegan diet. This won't work either. (Not to say Humans are wolves, but folks who ignore the fact that we are, in terms of the food chain, part of the predators level are missing important facts that cause big problems for good understanding)

I think most of the folks I deal with here are honestly obtuse. There are those who are cluless, but I give them a pass. I don't know everything either. There do seem to be a few here that need to see a pshrink. They are generally on ignore.

Anyway, Do you think of people you disagree with as fools, honestly misguided, knaves, venial, or how? Do you regard them as honestly misguided, or twisted souls using politics as a way of relieving their own psychological distress?

Honestly?

Imbecillic.

I have always loathed both parties, my fight has been to restore some sense of sanity and responsibilty to government.

Partisans from both sides resist that to their last breathe.

 

[Modbert]

And, again, a massive error.

Do you not believe in the proven theory that one lives and learns?

Sure, but how come it keeps happening over time? We do live and learn, but we seem to forget too.

 

[FrankieGA]

My bad! I was thinking modern history. I agree that was an awful thing that happened to the Native Americans.

 

[Jarhead]

The war on drugs is what government is for; like it or not. Defend and protect. Sorry if those that like to break the law for profit feel it is intrusive.

You use something NOT in the control of the American people like the holocost to things that the American people have control of?

I admire the thinking of a libertarian and agree with much. But I do not agree with your examples of how rights are not rights but privelages.

I'm merely telling you what happens when people say "never again". If "rights" can be taken away from you (War on Drugs, Patriot Act, etc) then they aren't rights.

I see what you are saying. Fair enough.

But based on our democratic system, we vote those in that legislate on our behalf, so in theory, WE are not losing our rights. We are voluntarily forgoing them.

I would agree that they are nothing but a privelage if we, the people, were not directly involved in our law making.

 

[Father Time]

It depends, I think socialists are misguided but I have a much lower opinion of the "traditional family values" lobby group types that screech "think of the children" in pursuit of their latest ban craze or yell doomsday about the thought of the nuclear family not being the norm.

 

[Modbert]

I see what you are saying. Fair enough.

But based on our democratic system, we vote those in that legislate on our behalf, so in theory, WE are not losing our rights. We are voluntarily forgoing them.

I would agree that they are nothing but a privelage if we, the people, were not directly involved in our law making.

No, certain people who turn out to be a majority in many cases voluntarily forgo them. Not everyone does.

 

[Jarhead]

It depends, I think socialists are misguided but I have a much lower opinion of the "traditional family values" lobby group types that screech "think of the children" in pursuit of their latest ban craze or yell doomsday about the thought of the nuclear family not being the norm.

I will agree with you on that. Enough of the "think of the children" crap. Children have been doing fine. Seems all of this protection lately is turning them inot overweight, underactive, scared, driectionless drones.

Hell, give me a kid with a bruised elbow and a broken front tooth and I will not be asking why his parents are so negligent. I will be looking at him as a boy that will grow to be a man of character.

 

[Jarhead]

I see what you are saying. Fair enough.

But based on our democratic system, we vote those in that legislate on our behalf, so in theory, WE are not losing our rights. We are voluntarily forgoing them.

I would agree that they are nothing but a privelage if we, the people, were not directly involved in our law making.

No, certain people who turn out to be a majority in many cases voluntarily forgo them. Not everyone does.

But that is a consequence of a democratic system. And all laws can be repealed when the majority changes.

I, for one, am OK with the consequences of our system. They are worth the pros of our system.

 

[Modbert]

But that is a consequence of a democratic system. And all laws can be repealed when the majority changes.

I, for one, am OK with the consequences of our system. They are worth the pros of our system.

Except we're not a Democracy. If we were, Al Gore would of been Presidency in 2000. We're a Constitutional Republic.