Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Government to be trusted, really?


  • Please log in to reply
84 replies to this topic

#1 TEO

TEO

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 21,979 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 04:47 PM

304115_10151342933668459_369907314_n.png



#2 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,442 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 06:44 PM

When does disagreeing with one's government change from protesting, to treason?



#3 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,586 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 06:49 PM

When does disagreeing with one's government change from protesting, to treason?

 

Not sure how this links up with the OP, because the people in that photo weren't necessarily protesting...they were just of one particular ethnic descent.

 

That said, treason is "the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family," according to ol' Merriam Webster.

 

Protesting would "merely" be speaking out. IMO.



#4 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,339 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 06:49 PM

Taking an oath of office and then breaking it is treason. When do government officials get held responsible by this so called government?



#5 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,442 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 07:53 PM

Taking an oath of office and then breaking it is treason. When do government officials get held responsible by this so called government?

 

 

is that true?  Wouldnt that just be violating the oath?  It isnt treasonous by definition



#6 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,411 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 07:53 PM

When they're Republican?



#7 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,442 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 07:54 PM

Not sure how this links up with the OP, because the people in that photo weren't necessarily protesting...they were just of one particular ethnic descent.

 

That said, treason is "the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family," according to ol' Merriam Webster.

 

Protesting would "merely" be speaking out. IMO.

 

Well, does questioning a governments policy regarding people of ethnicities eventually lead to treasonous thoughts?



#8 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,339 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 08:19 PM

is that true?  Wouldnt that just be violating the oath?  It isnt treasonous by definition

 

If you are sworn to uphold the constitution and you attempt to circumvent it, that is an act against the sovereign and therefore, is treasonous.



#9 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,202 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 08:21 PM

Taking an oath of office and then breaking it is treason. When do government officials get held responsible by this so called government?

 

While I understand your point, I have a question.

 

What is different today about our government, from the vision set forth by our founding fathers when the constitution and bill of rights were founded?



#10 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,442 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 08:22 PM

If you are sworn to uphold the constitution and you attempt to circumvent it, that is an act against the sovereign and therefore, is treasonous.

 

I guess this situation has not happened then.



#11 MeOmYo

MeOmYo
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,249 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 08:23 PM

Well, does questioning a governments policy regarding people of ethnicities eventually lead to treasonous thoughts?

 

 

Only on Wednesdays between the hours of 9am and 3:45pm.

 

If the lesser known abbreviation for Thursday were not "R", then it would be on Thursday too, only lagging behind by 2 hours.



#12 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,442 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 08:25 PM

If you are sworn to uphold the constitution and you attempt to circumvent it, that is an act against the sovereign and therefore, is treasonous.

 

Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make waragainst, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aiding or involved by such an endeavor.

 

 

??



#13 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,202 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 08:25 PM

treasonous - having the character of, or characteristic of, a traitor; "the faithless Benedict Arnold"; "a lying traitorous insurrectionist"

disloyal - deserting your allegiance or duty to leader or cause or principle; "disloyal aides revealed his indiscretions to the papers"


#14 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,442 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 08:26 PM

in the US of A, here is the Constitutions definition:

 

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.



#15 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,202 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 08:29 PM

in the US of A, here is the Constitutions definition:

 

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

 

 

Anyone can get enough people who dislike almost any elected official to be a witness.



#16 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,442 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 08:30 PM

My overall point is, where does one eventually end up when you start to distrust the government en mass, on everything?



#17 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,411 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 08:34 PM

http://www.nytimes.c...mist-hands.html



#18 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,202 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 08:41 PM

My overall point is, where does one eventually end up when you start to distrust the government en mass, on everything?

 

When history shows you can no longer trust them to do what is best for the people, instead of what is best for them personally.

 

but that is a people problem, not a government problem.  IMO.



#19 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,339 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 08:51 PM

When history shows you can no longer trust them to do what is best for the people, instead of what is best for them personally.

 

but that is a people problem, not a government problem.  IMO.

 

WTF is the difference? Governmens are not some stand alone entity. Even when they are not run "by the people". They are still made up of.....people. Which is why we humans devised the contract, or constitution. Because we used to be fully aware that governing is a necessary evil and accumulated powers in the hands of a few always resulted in abuse.....by people...using governance as their leverage and the monopoly on force and violence.

 

Basically, humans aren't smart or morally fit to run other peoples lives. It's believed by some that they are incapable of even law enforcement or judicial action as a monopoly. And that these services should have competition in enforcement in order to keep such services honest. I tend to agree. Seeing how incapable and corrupt every branch of our governance is, and is one of the best there ever was.



#20 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,202 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 08:57 PM

WTF is the difference? Governmens are not some stand alone entity. Even when they are not run "by the people". They are still made up of.....people. Which is why we humans devised teh contract, or constitution. Because we used to be fully aware that governing is a necessary evil adn accumulated powers in the hands of a few always resulted in abuse.....by people...using governance as their leverage and the monopoly on force and violence.

 

Basically, humans aren't smart or morally fit to run other peoples lives. It's believed by some that they are incapable of even law enforcement of judicial action as a monopoly. And that these services should have competition in enforcement in order to keep such services honest. I tend to agree. Seeing how incapable and corrupt every branch of our governance is adn is one of the best there ever was.

 

All good and fine points, but I still believe in people, and always will.  Sure there are short comings in people, but my cup is always over flowing, not even half full, so please know I will always wake up tomorrow and hope for the best.

 

 

 

As for your comments:

I am think the constitution and bill of rights was a best effort way to circumvent the short comings of people (as stated prolly better  by you).

 

 

I disagree that humans are not smart or morally fit enough.  In general taking the entire populous, sure you might be correct, but these people do exist.  They just might not want to get involved with politics because of the games that have to be played.  Or we may not elect them because they do not appeal to the masses.  Or whatever reason but they do exist, IMO. 

 

----------------------------------------------

 

Is the Supreme court corrupt?



#21 TEO

TEO

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 21,979 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 09:05 PM


--

 

Is the Supreme court corrupt?

 

 

They pretty much elected an US president.



#22 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,202 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 09:10 PM

They pretty much elected an US president.

 

While I understand your point 100%.

 

IMO, that is iffy example of corruption.  But I do not remember the way it went down with this in 2000, so I could be wrong.  I thought it was more sour grapes from the left, and I voted for Gore.

 

I trust that branch of government more than any other.



#23 TEO

TEO

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 21,979 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 09:15 PM

Hearing you there.



#24 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,586 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 09:19 PM

While I don't know if corrupt is the right descriptor, the Supreme Court does seem on a path of generally consolidating governmental and corporate power to the detriment of individual citizens' freedoms.

 

I don't trust the court at all.

 

You might look up these (c&p'd from a post I made in another thread earlier), for starters:

 

Bennis v. Michigan

Muehler v Mena

Raich v. Gonzales

Kelo v New Haven

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

 

Raich v. Gonzales may be the most chilling of all, to me. Yes, it was about "drugs," but the rationale they used in their opinion puts anything you might grow on your own property, for any use, under the purview of the Federal Government...



#25 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,202 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 09:26 PM

While I don't know if corrupt is the right descriptor, the Supreme Court does seem on a path of generally consolidating governmental and corporate power to the detriment of individual citizens' freedoms.

 

I don't trust them at all.

 

You might look up these (c&p'd from a post I made in another thread earlier), for starters:

 

Bennis v. Michigan

Muehler v Mena

Raich v. Gonzales

Kelo v New Haven

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

 

The biggest problem I have with the Supreme court is how other branches of government force the Supreme court to rule.

 

Which is called "Governing from the bench".

 

A case gets to them and there decision will decide if the law is constitutional, when it should be the people of congress who decide if a law is constitutional before they vote yay or nay.

 

 

I did not say I trust them implicitly, I trust them more than the other two branches of government, that is all.

 

While I am sure each of these cases have some nuances that I am not going to research (simply for time restraints), I feel in general they take the laws as written and precedents set and rule that way.  I am sure there are sketchy cases, but I blame lawyers for making the case more convoluted more than the people in charge of the ruling.  they only rule on what is presented before them.



#26 TEO

TEO

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 21,979 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 09:31 PM

I thought they were to rule on Constitutionality, no matter any precedents set by lower courts?



#27 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,202 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 09:34 PM

I thought they were to rule on Constitutionality, no matter any precedents set by lower courts?

 

You are prolly right,  I just thought all courts or lawyers usually use previous precedents set as a starting point.  In my example, prolly just precedents set by the Supreme court.

 

I could be wrong here.  Anyone want to help me out here?



#28 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,586 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 09:34 PM

...when it should be the people of congress who decide if a law is constitutional before they vote yay or nay.

 

I couldn't agree more. But they don't.

 

Since you don't have time, I'll give you highlights of two of those cases:

 

Raich - growing cannabis on your own property, for your own use, can be regulated by the Federal Government because even though they consider it illegal, growing it for yourself could have an effect on the interstate market for it, so it falls under the Interstate Commerce clause of the Constitution.

 

Kelo - Forcing someone to sell property (even a home you've owned for decades) at "fair market value" is just fine as long as the "public good" served is increasing a town's property tax base.



#29 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,586 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 09:35 PM

Sometimes they use precedents. Sometimes they stretch them almost beyond recognition, and sometimes they create stuff out of whole cloth.



#30 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,202 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 09:38 PM

I couldn't agree more. But they don't.

 

Since you don't have time, I'll give you highlights of two of those cases:

 

Raich - growing cannabis on your own property, for your own use, can be regulated by the Federal Government because even though they consider it illegal, growing it for yourself could have an effect on the interstate market for it, so it falls under the Interstate Commerce clause of the Constitution.

 

Kelo - Forcing someone to sell property (even a home you've owned for decades) at "fair market value" is just fine as long as the "public good" served is increasing a town's property tax base.

 

 

I did research the first one on the prostitution and car being confiscated.  Crazy!

 

 

In these cases, I blame the other side more than the Supreme court.  I tend to think that lawyer did a better job.  



#31 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,586 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 09:39 PM

Raich, by the way, did rely on some precedent, and extended it.

 

Dred Scott and Plessy v Ferguson were precedents as well...



#32 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,586 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 09:40 PM

I did research the first one on the prostitution and car being confiscated.  Crazy!

 

Despite the wife having 1/2 ownership in the car, and nothing to do with soliciting a prostitute, yup.



#33 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,339 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 10:09 PM

All good and fine points, but I still believe in people, and always will.  Sure there are short comings in people, but my cup is always over flowing, not even half full, so please know I will always wake up tomorrow and hope for the best.

 

 

 

As for your comments:

I am think the constitution and bill of rights was a best effort way to circumvent the short comings of people (as stated prolly better  by you).

 

 

I disagree that humans are not smart or morally fit enough.  In general taking the entire populous, sure you might be correct, but these people do exist.  They just might not want to get involved with politics because of the games that have to be played.  Or we may not elect them because they do not appeal to the masses.  Or whatever reason but they do exist, IMO. 

 

----------------------------------------------

 

Is the Supreme court corrupt?

 

Not in my world. No one except me is fit to run my life. 



#34 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 15,586 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 10:16 PM

No one except me is fit to run my life. 

 

You're a selfish, selfish man. :funny1:



#35 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,411 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 10:35 PM

Not in my world. No one except me is fit to run my life. 

Obviously not married



#36 TEO

TEO

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 21,979 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 11:01 PM

:funny1:



#37 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,339 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 11:28 PM

I'm lucky enough to have a woman that runs her own life and has the understanding that running mine is my job. We're a good team.



#38 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,442 posts

Posted 23 January 2013 - 11:45 PM

WTF is the difference? Governmens are not some stand alone entity. Even when they are not run "by the people". They are still made up of.....people. Which is why we humans devised the contract, or constitution. Because we used to be fully aware that governing is a necessary evil and accumulated powers in the hands of a few always resulted in abuse.....by people...using governance as their leverage and the monopoly on force and violence.

Basically, humans aren't smart or morally fit to run other peoples lives. It's believed by some that they are incapable of even law enforcement or judicial action as a monopoly. And that these services should have competition in enforcement in order to keep such services honest. I tend to agree. Seeing how incapable and corrupt every branch of our governance is, and is one of the best there ever was.
When nyc had both metropolitan and municipal police in the ninteenth century, riots and corruption were the result. Read up on old nyc and boss tweed

#39 china cat

china cat
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,642 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 01:38 AM

Obviously not married

 

:lol:  :lol:



#40 china cat

china cat
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,642 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 01:38 AM

I'm lucky enough to have a woman that runs her own life and has the understanding that running mine is my job. We're a good team.

 

good answer. :)



#41 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,202 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 03:20 PM

From this thread:

WTF is the difference? Governmens are not some stand alone entity. Even when they are not run "by the people". They are still made up of.....people. Which is why we humans devised the contract, or constitution. Because we used to be fully aware that governing is a necessary evil and accumulated powers in the hands of a few always resulted in abuse.....by people...using governance as their leverage and the monopoly on force and violence.

 

Basically, humans aren't smart or morally fit to run other peoples lives. It's believed by some that they are incapable of even law enforcement or judicial action as a monopoly. And that these services should have competition in enforcement in order to keep such services honest. I tend to agree. Seeing how incapable and corrupt every branch of our governance is, and is one of the best there ever was.

 

 

 

 

From Other thread:

No one said that people aren't competent enough to run government. What was said is that people aren't competent enough to run other peoples lives.

 

Comprehension failure.

 

 

 

I still dont see how that logic adds up.

 

Governments are run by people.  If people are not fit to run our lives, then why have a government run by people?

 

If P then Q, I was very good at this logic in school.



#42 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,339 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 03:29 PM

The government of this country was not designed to run peoples lives. It was designed to protect people rights. The constitution was a document intended to restrict/restrain government to that role. Over the course of time, that has turned into more and more government running peoples lives and NOT protecting their rights and instead telling people how to live....banning soda, restricting trade, telling people what they can grow on their own land, forcing citizens into commerce or pay a penalty, etc..etc..etc..etc...

 

(See Joker's threads regarding assassinating American citizens without due process)

 

The reason it doesn't add up to you is because you seem to miss the part above.



#43 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,202 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 03:38 PM

The government of this country was not designed to run peoples lives. It was designed to protect people rights. The constitution was a document intended to restrict/restrain government to that role. Over the course of time, that has turned into more and more government running peoples lives and NOT protecting their rights and instead telling people how to live....banning soda, restricting trade, telling people what they can grow on their own land, forcing citizens into commerce or pay a penalty, etc..etc..etc..etc...

 

(See Joker's threads regarding assassinating American citizens without due process)

 

The reason it doesn't add up to you is because you seem to miss the part above.

 

First, when did you become a my mind and tell why it doesn't add up to me?  

 

I did not miss that part above.  I questioned it further.

 

But I digress, I did ask this question yesterday, and earlier in this thread (highlighted below) but you did not answer it.  In today's response you did.

 

While I understand your point, I have a question.

 

What is different today about our government, from the vision set forth by our founding fathers when the constitution and bill of rights were founded?

 

 

 

WTF is the difference? Governmens are not some stand alone entity. Even when they are not run "by the people". They are still made up of.....people. Which is why we humans devised the contract, or constitution. Because we used to be fully aware that governing is a necessary evil and accumulated powers in the hands of a few always resulted in abuse.....by people...using governance as their leverage and the monopoly on force and violence.

 

Basically, humans aren't smart or morally fit to run other peoples lives. It's believed by some that they are incapable of even law enforcement or judicial action as a monopoly. And that these services should have competition in enforcement in order to keep such services honest. I tend to agree. Seeing how incapable and corrupt every branch of our governance is, and is one of the best there ever was.

 

Now on to why it still does not add up... 

 

I thought the constitution was put in place to help alleviate the fear of people having to much power in government which was a decided as being a necessary evil.  Meaning that people have to run the government, and the founding fathers were well aware of this fact, by including checks and balances.



#44 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,442 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 03:42 PM

http://www.minds.com...1-and-wikileaks

#45 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,339 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 03:42 PM

The difference being running the government for its intended and rightful purpose over what it is not suppose to do. It adds up perfectly fine.



#46 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,202 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 03:46 PM

The difference being running the government for its intended and rightful purpose over what it is not suppose to do. It adds up perfectly fine.

 

Well duh, but when you have no trust of people, and people run the government, how can we ever run our government as intended?

 

 

 

I am just really giving you a hard time on this.



#47 TEO

TEO

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 21,979 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 03:46 PM

The government of this country was not designed to run peoples lives. It was designed to protect people rights. The constitution was a document intended to restrict/restrain government to that role. Over the course of time, that has turned into more and more government running peoples lives and NOT protecting their rights and instead telling people how to live....banning soda, restricting trade, telling people what they can grow on their own land, forcing citizens into commerce or pay a penalty, etc..etc..etc..etc...

 

(See Joker's threads regarding assassinating American citizens without due process)

 

The reason it doesn't add up to you is because you seem to miss the part above.

 

 

Although that is/was the official story, Benjamin Franklin did write in a personal letter that all "the people needed was the illusion of a voice."

 

Pretty much duped from the get go.



#48 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,339 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 03:51 PM

Although that is/was the official story, Benjamin Franklin did write in a personal letter that all "the people needed was the illusion of a voice."

 

Pretty much duped from the get go.

 

Franklin was a political opportunist. It's how he got his monopoly on news in philly, to how he got monopoly over the printing of paper currency. The constitution was created out of the typical fearmongering and statist opportunism that still runs rampant today. Many were against it, many had know idea what was going on and many were in favor. Same as it ever was. Humans are funny when it comes to power and perception.

 

If i lived back then, I would have been staunchly against the idea of a "more perfect Union."

The saying stinks of statism to high heaven.



#49 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,202 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 03:58 PM

Franklin was a political opportunist. It's how he got his monopoly on news in philly, to how he got monopoly over the printing of paper currency. The constitution was created out of the typical fearmongering and statist opportunism that still runs rampant today. Many were against it, many had know idea what was going on and many were in favor. Same as it ever was. Humans are funny when it comes to power and perception.

 

If i lived back then, I would have been staunchly against the idea of a "more perfect Union."

The saying stinks of statism to high heaven.

 

So the constitution was a basically a power play, to protect us from future people getting to much power?



#50 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,202 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 03:59 PM

Also, franklin by your example, is everything that is wrong with today's political world, political opportunists.