Democracy is not a dirty word -

[tremendoustie]

I have TBI and get words mixed up. I was thinking of majority to change the constituition. I was referring to "consent of the governed" in the historic context with predates the revolution.

Anarchy is what you seem to be advocating which is absurd. If you have a better system - state it, don't just beat your gums when others are trying to figure out a way - but if it's anarchy I will ignore you that would take us back to the dark ages.

ON EDIT - I just checked your posting record and have decided you are a troll as far as I am concerned. I will attempt to ignore your posts in the future.. If I forget because of the TBI please feel free to remind me.

I don't believe in "anarchy" because to many it implies a lack of rules, or even chaos. I support voluntaryism, which basically means I believe agressive violence is always wrong -- that is, the only justifiable use of violence is in self defense. I strongly believe in rules -- for example, you have the right to set rules for use on your own property. I also believe in rules against harming other people.

You may have decided not to respond to me, and that's fine, but I encourage you to think openmindedly about issues and ideas. You seem a little brainwashed regarding government. Consider whether your strong reaction is based on rhetoric you've heard, and a false vision of what "no government" would imply, or an honest consideration and educated understanding.

Even if you believe I am completely wrong, I encourage you to explain exactly why and how -- that way, you can be sure you are rejecting an idea for legitimate reasons, not because of prejudice. It may also be that you misunderstand my position. You seem to have recognized that the current situation is immoral. That's a good starting place to discuss alternatives.

I promise you I am not a troll -- you're just reacting negatively towards my ideas.

For myself, I find that if I react negatively towards an idea, without being able to pinpoint exactly why it is false, it warrants further study. In other words, I at least do not tend to react emotionally to ideas which I dismiss for rational reasons. Anger to a simple idea is usually caused by cognative dissonance -- especially if I feel unwilling to even consider the idea.

 

[PaulaGem]

Point to one post where I said our country was "founded as a democracy".

 

[PaulaGem]

I don't believe in "anarchy" because to many it implies a lack of rules, or even chaos. I support voluntaryism, which basically means I believe agressive violence is always wrong -- that is, the only justifiable use of violence is in self defense. I strongly believe in rules -- for example, you have the right to set rules for use on your own property. I also believe in rules against harming other people.

You may have decided not to respond to me, and that's fine, but I encourage you to think openmindedly about issues and ideas. You seem a little brainwashed regarding government. Consider whether your strong reaction is based on rhetoric you've heard, and a false vision of what "no government" would imply, or an honest consideration and educated understanding.

Even if you believe I am completely wrong, I encourage you to explain exactly why and how -- that way, you can be sure you are rejecting an idea for legitimate reasons, not because of prejudice. It may also be that you misunderstand my position. You seem to have recognized that the current situation is immoral. That's a good starting place to discuss alternatives.

I promise you I am not a troll -- you're just reacting negatively towards the idea that a coersive central government is immoral and unnecessary.

I didn't see any realistic or practical value in any of your posts - the last one included. I make my own decisions. I also believe the concept of "morality" is irrelevant to government . The only reason for government is to establish an objective legal code and "morality" has no objective foundation.

 

[FrankRep]

Point to one post where I said our country was "founded as a democracy".

Are you playing games now?

You say a "Republic" is a Representative Democracy and then you claim you didn't say America was "founded as a democracy."

 

[tremendoustie]

I didn't see any realistic or practical value in any of your posts - the last one included. I make my own decisions. I also believe the concept of "morality" is irrelevant to government . The only reason for government is to establish an objective legal code and "morality" has no objective foundation.

But, don't you believe every person should act morally, those in government included? Don't you believe there is such a thing as right and wrong?

 

[PaulaGem]

Are you playing games now?

You say a "Republic" is a Representative Democracy and then you claim you didn't say America was "founded as a democracy."

I must have posted this a dozen times -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic

A republic is a form of government in which the head of state is not a monarch[1] and the people (or at least a part of its people)[2] have an impact on its government.[3][4] The word 'republic' is derived from the Latin phrase res publica which can be translated as "public affairs".

Both modern and ancient republics vary widely in their ideology and composition. The most common definition of a republic is a state without a monarch,[5] In republics such as the US and France the executive is legitimated both by a constitution and by popular suffrage. In the United States Founding Fathers like James Madison defined republic in terms of representative democracy as opposed to only having direct democracy[6], and this usage is still employed by many viewing themselves as "republicans".[7] In modern political science, republicanism refers to a specific ideology that is based on civic virtue and is considered distinct from ideologies such as liberalism.[8]

Most often a republic is a sovereign country, but there are also subnational entities that are referred to as republics. For instance the Soviet Union was composed of distinct Soviet Socialist Republics. Article IV of the Constitution of the United States "guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government."[9]

Niccolò Machiavelli described the governance and foundation of the ideal republic in his work Discourses on Livy. These writings, as well as those of his contemporaries such as Leonardo Bruni, are the foundation of the ideology political scientists call republicanism.[10][11]

There are different forms of republics just as there are different flavors of ice cream. Our flavor is based on "consent of the governed" which is a democratic concept.

Perhaps Sesame Street style analogies will make the point for you.

 

[PaulaGem]

But, don't you believe every person should act morally, those in government included? Don't you believe there is such a thing as right and wrong?

I had to write a paper in college on "What is Justice?" My response is that justice does not exist. In any disagreement the loser almost always always considers the solution "unjust". Concerning government - legal or illegal is the issue, not right or wrong.

Morals are the personal belief or the consensus of a group of people about what is right or wrong. They have no legal standing.

 

[tremendoustie]

I had to write a paper in college on "What is Justice?" My response is that justice does not exist. In any disagreement the loser almost always always considers the solution "unjust". Concerning government - legal or illegal is the issue, not right or wrong.

Morals are the personal belief or the consensus of a group of people about what is right or wrong. They have no legal standing.

I think you have it backwards -- what is moral is more important than what is legal, and the fact that people disagree on it does not mean morality doesn't exist, any more than the fact that people disagree about scientific theories means there is no such thing as scientific truth.

Surely you would oppose slavery, or genocide, whether it was "legal" or not, right? I mean, should hariett tubman have not participated in the underground railroad, because it was illegal, or should rosa parks have stayed seated? Was the hollocaust, and every other atrocity committed by a government in history, just fine, because it was "legal"?

Heck, the only reason we're not part of England now is because people had moral objections to what was "legal" under the British.

Surely you must have some moral code, which is not based on whatever the government or the majority happen to believe?

 

[PaulaGem]

I think you have it backwards -- what is moral is more important than what is legal, and the fact that people disagree on it does not mean morality doesn't exist, any more than the fact that people disagree about scientific theories means there is no such thing as scientific truth.

Surely you would oppose slavery, or genocide, whether it was "legal" or not, right? I mean, should hariett tubman have not participated in the underground railroad, because it was illegal, or should rosa parks have stayed seated? Was the hollocaust, and every other atrocity committed by a government in history, just fine, because it was "legal"?

Heck, the only reason we're not part of England now is because people had moral objections to what was "legal" under the British.

Surely you must have some moral code, which is not based on whatever the government or the majority happen to believe?

Because people disagree on it and it can have no objective standard morality is not a proper basis for law. The laws in this country are based on protection of rights, not morality.

We aren't a part of England mostly because of the issue of taxation without representation.

My personal moral code is just that, personal. I am deeply offended by religious proseletyzing. I beieve it is blasphemy to tell another person that your religious beliefs are something they should adopt. Does that mean I should try to get a law passed making it illegal? No, of course not.

 

[tremendoustie]

Because people disagree on it and it can have no objective standard morality is not a proper basis for law. The laws in this country are based on protection of rights, not morality.

We aren't a part of England mostly because of the issue of taxation without representation.

My personal moral code is just that, personal. I am deeply offended by religious proseletyzing. I beieve it is blasphemy to tell another person that your religious beliefs are something they should adopt. Does that mean I should try to get a law passed making it illegal? No, of course not.

Right, and the reason you should not try to get such a law passed is because you have a moral belief that other people should be free to make their own decisions, as long as they don't harm others. That is, you believe that in many cases, using force to prevent someone from behaving immorally is itself immoral.

The belief that taxation without representation is wrong is a moral belief as well.

I assume you condemn slavery, and the holocost.

So, you do have moral beliefs, which you believe apply no matter what the government says, right? If the government said slavery and mass murder is now ok, you believe it would still be wrong, correct?

 

[PaulaGem]

My interest in participation on this board is preservation of Civil Rights and the Constitution.

I have a contract with the government that I would like to see properly enforced. I believe this is a birthright that my ancestors have procured for me through their blood and sweat.


I don't believe that morals have anything to do with this. I have no interest in discussing the moral aspects of this because the law does not recognize "morals" , and anyone who has had a few run-ins with police, attorneys, and judges is painfully aware of this.

 

[tremendoustie]

My interest in participation on this board is preservation of Civil Rights and the Constitution.

I have a contract with the government that I would like to see properly enforced. I believe this is a birthright that my ancestors have procured for me through their blood and sweat.


I don't believe that morals have anything to do with this. I have no interest in discussing the moral aspects of this because the law does not recognize "morals" , and anyone who has had a few run-ins with police, attorneys, and judges is painfully aware of this.

My interest in participation on this board is preservation of Civil Rights and the Constitution.

I have a contract with the government that I would like to see properly enforced. I believe this is a birthright that my ancestors have procured for me through their blood and sweat.


I don't believe that morals have anything to do with this. I have no interest in discussing the moral aspects of this because the law does not recognize "morals" , and anyone who has had a few run-ins with police, attorneys, and judges is painfully aware of this.

Because the law does not recognize morals, the morality of government behavior is irrelevant to you? On what planet does that make sense? I am sure the nazis did a very poor job of recognizing moral behavior, does that mean they were also exempt from moral judgement? Pol pot probably didn't either. Would you not object to slavery if it were re-instituted, as long as it were legal? Whatever happened to inalienable rights given to us by God? Are those irrelevent as well?

Please answer my question: Is there any action taken by government employees which you will consider immoral? Is there no government approved atrocity in history which you are willing to condemn?

Hitler was lawful, and Rosa Parks was not. When morality and law conflict, good men act morally.

I am interested in your response to the following thought experiment:

Suppose at the creation of the world I find myself living near two other people. Now, suppose myself, and my first neighbor, wish to steal from the other. My second neighbor simply wishes to live in peace. We could, since we have more guns, and there are two of us, simply overwhelm him and take his stuff. I assume you would call that theft.

Instead, my first neighbor and I hold a “constitutional convention”, and determine by two thirds majority, that we will have a democracy. We then vote to steal from our neighbor, and the motion passes by two thirds majority, which of course is binding, since we have already determined that we shall live in a democracy. It’s now the law that we shall take the property of our neighbor, and since there are two of us and one of him, overwhelm him by force and do so immediately. Or, of course, we could give him a chance to leave, at which point we get his farm anyway.

Do you consider this scenario any different, or more moral, than the first — common theft?

 

[PaulaGem]

Because the law does not recognize morals, the morality of government behavior is irrelevant to you? On what planet does that make sense? I am sure the nazis did a very poor job of recognizing moral behavior, does that mean they were also exempt from moral judgement? Pol pot probably didn't either. Would you not object to slavery if it were re-instituted, as long as it were legal? Whatever happened to inalienable rights given to us by God? Are those irrelevent as well?

Please answer my question: Is there any action taken by government employees which you will consider immoral? Is there no government approved atrocity in history which you are willing to condemn?

Hitler was lawful, and Rosa Parks was not. When morality and law conflict, good men act morally.

I am interested in your response to the following thought experiment:

Suppose at the creation of the world I find myself living near two other people. Now, suppose myself, and my first neighbor, wish to steal from the other. My second neighbor simply wishes to live in peace. We could, since we have more guns, and there are two of us, simply overwhelm him and take his stuff. I assume you would call that theft.

Instead, my first neighbor and I hold a “constitutional convention”, and determine by two thirds majority, that we will have a democracy. We then vote to steal from our neighbor, and the motion passes by two thirds majority, which of course is binding, since we have already determined that we shall live in a democracy. It’s now the law that we shall take the property of our neighbor, and since there are two of us and one of him, overwhelm him by force and do so immediately. Or, of course, we could give him a chance to leave, at which point we get his farm anyway.

Do you consider this scenario any different, or more moral, than the first — common theft?

I am sorry , your thought experiments don't interest me...

Morality is an individual decision. People who are Spirit-Centered (here we are speaking of something that is assumed to be inherently "good" by definition, but not provably "good" because it is a metaphysical concept and therefore not provable in an objective sense) will make a decision that is for "good" even if it is in opposition to the government.

There are also people who understand the law on a fundamental basis and will put themselves in harms way to resist the law.

Both could be classified as conscientious objectors or performing acts of civil disobedience. These acts can effectively change society or change the law.

If enough people were Spiritually responsive, Hitler would haven't ever have gotten a foothold. Instead, people were reacting to their own pain and seeking a temporal solution.

But since Spirituality is not something that can be proven, you can't make laws tailored to fit any individual or group concept of "morality", which may or may not be a manifestation of Spirit or "good". Morality is often culturally conditioned and immoral according to others (my personal bias against proselytizing is a good example - I believe it is immoral but many fundamentalists are culturally conditioned and they believe it is not only moral but an act of virtue).

The law must be based on something that can be proven or dis-proven. Morality does not come into that category.

Our founding fathers made a metaphysical assumption - that all people are endowed with unalienable rights. They made this assumption the basis of law - that law is the Constitution and specifically the Bill of Rights.

Those who would violate the rights of their fellow man are criminals under our system of law. This assumption can not be proven or dis-proven, but since it is a foundational assumption of our system of government you must accept it if you accept citizenship in this country.

One of the big problems with our government at this time is that the privileges of government and corporation have become more important than the rights of individuals. This is what needs to be corrected in order to make the system function properly.

 

[RideTheDirt]

I'm sure it's been posted, but I don't feel like going through the whole thread.

US Constitution: Article IV Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

 

[tremendoustie]

I am sorry , your thought experiments don't interest me...

If you had an honest, consistent moral code you would be willing and able to answer the question.

Morality is an individual decision. People who are Spirit-Centered (here we are speaking of something that is assumed to be inherently "good" by definition, but not provably "good" because it is a metaphysical concept and therefore not provable in an objective sense) will make a decision that is for "good" even if it is in opposition to the government.

There are also people who understand the law on a fundamental basis and will put themselves in harms way to resist the law.

Both could be classified as conscientious objectors or performing acts of civil disobedience. These acts can effectively change society or change the law.

If enough people were Spiritually responsive, Hitler would haven't ever have gotten a foothold. Instead, people were reacting to their own pain and seeking a temporal solution.

So .... you consider what he did morally wrong? Can't you give a straight answer? I am not asking about what other people believe, or what "sorts" of people there are, I am asking what you yourself believe is appropriate behavior, and I sure as heck hope it does not include mass murder:

A: Hitler was a-ok with me. Morality is just a matter of opinion. You might like butterscotch, I like chocolate, it's just a matter of taste. He likes burning jews, I like bowling.

B: It is morally wrong to brutally murder innocent people.

But since Spirituality is not something that can be proven, you can't make laws tailored to fit any individual or group concept of "morality", which may or may not be a manifestation of Spirit or "good". Morality is often culturally conditioned and immoral according to others (my personal bias against proselytizing is a good example - I believe it is immoral but many fundamentalists are culturally conditioned and they believe it is not only moral but an act of virtue).

The law must be based on something that can be proven or dis-proven. Morality does not come into that category.

So, what exactly should laws be taylored to fit?

Our founding fathers made a metaphysical assumption - that all people are endowed with unalienable rights. They made this assumption the basis of law - that law is the Constitution and specifically the Bill of Rights.

Those who would violate the rights of their fellow man are criminals under our system of law. This assumption can not be proven or dis-proven, but since it is a foundational assumption of our system of government you must accept it if you accept citizenship in this country.

So much for the law only being made on what is provable or disprovable.

And your criteria could justify anything.

You, in 1840:

"Our founding fathers made a metaphysical assumption - that people have the right to own slaves. They made this assumption the basis of law. Those who would try to help slaves are criminals under our system of law. This assumption can not be proven or dis-proven, but since it is a foundational assumption of our system of government you must accept it if you want to live in this country"

You, in 1760:

"The British made a metaphysical assumption -- that the King was given the right to arbitrary rule by God. They made this assumption the basis of British law. Those who would disobey the King are criminals under our system of law. This assumption can not be proven or dis-proven, but since it is a foundational assumption of our system of government you must accept it if you want to live in these colonies"

You, in the 80s, Pico-Union, Los Angeles:

"The founders of the gang MS-13 made a metaphysical assumption -- that aggressive violence is acceptable in order to coerce innocent people. They made this assumption the basis of gang rules. Those who would cross MS-13 are dead men under their rules. This assumption can not be proven or dis-proven, but, since it was a foundational assumption of the founders of MS-13, you must accept it if you are going to live in the gang territory they have taken by force."

One of the big problems with our government at this time is that the privileges of government and corporation have become more important than the rights of individuals. This is what needs to be corrected in order to make the system function properly.

And the only reason you support said rights is because it happens to be what the founders assumed? If the founders had assumed mass murder is ok, would you be here supporting that?

You want to pretend that morality is not important, but it is the most important thing. You cannot define a "process" whether it be a republic, democracy, monarchy, etc, which will determine truth for you -- because any process can result in atrocities.

In one breath you praise "spiritually responsive" people like those of the white rose society, and Harriett Tubman because they are willing to disobey Hitler, and work against slavery, despite the law. Yet, in the next, you yourself refuse to be such a person, as you are not even willing to say that you believe slavery, or murder, to be immoral. Why don't you try being "spiritually responsive" yourself, and reject such atrocities because they are inherently wrong?

If you were placed as a guard in a Nazi Death camp, would you obey the law and murder jews, or commit civil disobedience and refuse to do so?

If you would refuse to do so, what would be your reasons?

 

[PaulaGem]

If you had an honest, consistent moral code you would be willing and able to answer the question.



So .... you consider what he did morally wrong? Can't you give a straight answer? I am not asking about what other people believe, or what "sorts" of people there are, I am asking what you yourself believe is appropriate behavior, and I sure as heck hope it does not include mass murder:

A: Hitler was a-ok with me. Morality is just a matter of opinion. You might like butterscotch, I like chocolate, it's just a matter of taste. He likes burning jews, I like bowling.

B: It is morally wrong to brutally murder innocent people.



So, what exactly should laws be taylored to fit?



So much for the law only being made on what is provable or disprovable.

And your criteria could justify anything.

You, in 1840:

"Our founding fathers made a metaphysical assumption - that people have the right to own slaves. They made this assumption the basis of law. Those who would try to help slaves are criminals under our system of law. This assumption can not be proven or dis-proven, but since it is a foundational assumption of our system of government you must accept it if you want to live in this country"

You, in 1760:

"The British made a metaphysical assumption -- that the King was given the right to arbitrary rule by God. They made this assumption the basis of British law. Those who would disobey the King are criminals under our system of law. This assumption can not be proven or dis-proven, but since it is a foundational assumption of our system of government you must accept it if you want to live in these colonies"

You, in the 80s, Pico-Union, Los Angeles:

"The founders of the gang MS-13 made a metaphysical assumption -- that aggressive violence is acceptable in order to coerce innocent people. They made this assumption the basis of gang rules. Those who would cross MS-13 are dead men under their rules. This assumption can not be proven or dis-proven, but, since it was a foundational assumption of the founders of MS-13, you must accept it if you are going to live in the gang territory they have taken by force."



And the only reason you support said rights is because it happens to be what the founders assumed? If the founders had assumed mass murder is ok, would you be here supporting that?

You want to pretend that morality is not important, but it is the most important thing. You cannot define a "process" whether it be a republic, democracy, monarchy, etc, which will determine truth for you -- because any process can result in atrocities.

In one breath you praise "spiritually responsive" people like those of the white rose society, and Harriett Tubman because they are willing to disobey Hitler, and work against slavery, despite the law. Yet, in the next, you yourself refuse to be such a person, as you are not even willing to say that you believe slavery, or murder, to be immoral. Why don't you try being "spiritually responsive" yourself, and reject such atrocities because they are inherently wrong?

If you were placed as a guard in a Nazi Death camp, would you obey the law and murder jews, or commit civil disobedience and refuse to do so?

If you would refuse to do so, what would be your reasons?

What is your reason for pursuing this idiotic train of thought? Confirming the fact that I thought you were a troll in the first place, I guess..

Buh bye....

 

[Original_Intent]

I don't think you understand the meaning of the word troll...

Showing the inconsistencies in your own arguments, and giving historical case examples of what you said previously that you believe - um that is called debate, discussion, trying to understand the other person's position. It is the opposite of trolling, really.

 

[LibertyEagle]

US Constitution: Article IV Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Enough said.

 

[tremendoustie]

What is your reason for pursuing this idiotic train of thought? Confirming the fact that I thought you were a troll in the first place, I guess...

Paula, everyone who challenges your beliefs is not trolling. Try honestly considering those beliefs and defending them, not covering your ears and humming.

 

[Original_Intent]

Enough said.

You can lead a horse to water...