Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Government to be trusted, really?


  • Please log in to reply
84 replies to this topic

#51 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,745 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 04:07 PM

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

 

What?



#52 TEO

TEO

    VibeGuide

  • VibeGuide
  • 23,160 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 04:15 PM

The Bill of Rights, protects us by restating "god given" rights.  You know rights we all possess that those we choose to govern us may deign to infringe upon or take away.



#53 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,745 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 04:21 PM

Right. And it was argued that they should not be included due to people attempting to circumvent them through interpretation. The rights are inalienable, they are god/natural given. In some ways I agree with that, because as we have seen, it's been one attempt after another to reframe them so teh federal government could go ahead and justify their trampling. On the other hand, with the way public education goes (another issue not enumerated in the constitution as a federal authority) today, it would be easy to dupe everyone out of believing in their inalienable rights in favor of the right of government to to rule over us as they see fit.

 

We would have probably come to this point a lot sooner had they not been restated in the constitution.



#54 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,454 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 04:30 PM

Is ther e any provision in the Constitution regarding money in government? If not, was this oversight by design?

#55 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,745 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 04:33 PM

Is ther e any provision in the Constitution regarding money in government? If not, was this oversight by design?

 

What?

 

Go read the damned thing, for crying out loud.



#56 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,418 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 24 January 2013 - 04:45 PM

What?

 

 

Just trying to play along.

 

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.

 

 

Please clarify what you mean by the highlighted sentence.  I think my question was based on a logical dance I was trying to do with your above comment.  And somehow tying Franklin to the rest of the comment.

 

 

 

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

 

If Franklin was a political opportunist, then I feel ok to assume many(not all) of the other founding fathers were like Franklin.

 

 

This has been my point all along.  Today is no different than it was before.  The constitution had the best of intentions, just like we do today in politics. Statism always existed, and this is why I believe in the system because this is how the system has always been.

 

 

PS.  If you lived back then, you would not be as informed as you are today, and you may not have much longer to live as life expectancy was much different 200+ years ago. 



#57 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,745 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 04:53 PM

The constitution was, because some people created a fear of foreign invasion and the ability of the federal governement to receive funding from the states. As two of the big issues on why the push for it. These types created pamphlets and began fearmongering on a foreign invasion and the inability of the states to be able to respond....calling for consolidated powers ina  federal government to make a "more perfect union".

 

And not all founders were statists. They did not all agree on the issues, even on the constitution itself. You can read all about it.



#58 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,418 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 24 January 2013 - 04:58 PM

The constitution was, because some people created a fear of foreign invasion and the ability of the federal governement to receive funding from the states. As two of the big issues on why the push for it. These types created pamphlets and began fearmongering on a foreign invasion and the inability of the states to be able to respond....calling for consolidated powers ina  federal government to make a "more perfect union".

 

And not all founders were statists. They did not all agree on the issues, even on the constitution itself. You can read all about it.

 

I did say not all were statists, I said many.

 

But isn't fear mongering a way for a to gain more power? (which was the basis of that question I posed).



#59 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,745 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 05:16 PM

But isn't fear mongering a way for a to gain more power?

 

 

That's where it seems to get the most play. In rallying people behind a cause.....

 

9/11 fearmongering to justify endless war and civil liberty erosions

 

Sandy Hook to justify an attack on the second amendment

 

As a couple if newer examples.

 

It's why I lean far more towards voluntarism than libertarianism. But aware that most people have a death grip on their Statist security blanket. So libertarian to me is common ground with statists.



#60 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,317 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 05:45 PM

TASB woulda had a Patrick Henry bumper sticker on the back of his wagon. Ser Biz.



#61 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,317 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 05:47 PM

Actually, I would have.

 

TASB woulda had a Hamilton Sucks sticker on his. :D



#62 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,418 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 24 January 2013 - 05:52 PM

I consider myself a libertarian.

 

Before you mentioned it, I never knew there was a voluntarism political party.  I do not think it will work because couldn't people volunteer just to gain power? 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Voluntarism_(action)

 

 

Volunteer management specialist Susan Ellis differentiates between "voluntarism" and "volunteerism":

"Voluntarism" (the older term) refers to everything voluntary. In the United States this includes, for example, religion. It certainly encompasses the entire "voluntary sector," but "voluntary" in the "voluntarism" context means not mandated by law (as government is). Many voluntary sector (nonprofit) agencies have a volunteer board because that is a legal requirement, but may not utilize volunteers in direct service in any way. There are subjects within "voluntarism" that have nothing to do with volunteers: things like UBIT legislation; proposal writing; compensation law.[2]


#63 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,745 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 05:53 PM

:lol:

 

I likely would have had both and then some.



#64 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,745 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 06:05 PM

I consider myself a libertarian.

 

Before you mentioned it, I never knew there was a voluntarism political party.  I do not think it will work because couldn't people volunteer just to gain power? 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Voluntarism_(action)

 

 

Volunteer management specialist Susan Ellis differentiates between "voluntarism" and "volunteerism":

 

It appears my misspelling has caused confusion.

 

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Voluntaryism

 

Voluntaryism, or voluntarism, is generally considered to be the philosophy which holds that all forms of human association should be voluntary.[1]

The principle most frequently used to support voluntaryism is the non-aggression principle.

Many voluntaryists base their thinking on the ideas of voluntaryist philosophers Murray Rothbard and Robert LeFevre. Rothbard maintained, first, that every government "presumes to establish a compulsory monopoly of defense (police and courts) service over some geographical area. So that individual property owners who prefer to subscribe to another defense company within that area are not allowed to do so"; and, second, that every government obtains its income by stealing, euphemistically labeled "taxation". "All governments, however limited they may be otherwise, commit at least these two fundamental crimes against liberty and property."[2]

 

 

I've never met a self proclaimed libertarian with so much faith and love for the state.



#65 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,745 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 06:06 PM

Before you mentioned it, I never knew there was a voluntarism political party.  I do not think it will work because couldn't people volunteer just to gain power? 

 

What?



#66 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,418 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 24 January 2013 - 06:13 PM

It's why I lean far more towards voluntarism than libertarianism. But aware that most people have a death grip on their Statist security blanket. So libertarian to me is common ground with statists.

 

 

I never heard of Voluntarism, and had to google it.

 

Sounds like people volunteer for things we need.  If you were to say volunteer first, they would be the senior person, and in turn have more power or can sway with rhetoric of experience.

 

 

What is Voluntarism?  Is it a political party?  Or just a good idea?



#67 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,745 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 06:20 PM

I provided a link to read up. Here is one more that really speaks to me:

 

 

The Voluntaryist magazine. George Smith suggested use of the term to identify those libertarians who believed that political action and political parties (especially the Libertarian Party) were antithetical to their ideas


#68 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,745 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 06:22 PM

I never heard of Voluntarism, and had to google it.

 

Sounds like people volunteer for things we need.  If you were to say volunteer first, they would be the senior person, and in turn have more power or can sway with rhetoric of experience.

 

 

What is Voluntarism?  Is it a political party?  Or just a good idea?

 

You're confusing the idea, i think. If all human action is voluntary, then people are free to associate or not associate. Such a philosphy requires an adherence to the 'NAP'. It's not about who volunteers first.



#69 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,317 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 06:24 PM

Is it ime for my NAP? :)



#70 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,317 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 06:26 PM

TtB digs the NAP, and thinks Minarchy is kick-ass in theory.



#71 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,317 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 06:27 PM

Questions sometimes these days whether the vast majority of the population could actually handle being free, as much as they may pay lip service to the word.



#72 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,418 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 24 January 2013 - 06:29 PM

You're confusing the idea, i think. If all human action is voluntary, then people are free to associate or not associate. Such a philosphy requires an adherence to the 'NAP'. It's not about who volunteers first.

 

 

Based on human history, there is always a way to gain power.  Hence me trying to find that loop hole.

 

 

Doesn't most of the world's countries have some sort of Statist government?



#73 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,418 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 24 January 2013 - 06:29 PM

Questions sometimes these days whether the vast majority of the population could actually handle being free, as much as they may pay lip service to the word.

 

Hence me stating that most of the world lives in some sort of Statism government.  



#74 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,745 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 06:30 PM

Questions sometimes these days whether the vast majority of the population could actually handle being free, as much as they may pay lip service to the word.

 

I don't think so. I nmy opinion, we've been indoctrinated for so long and at such extent, that the idea of anarchy or minarchy brings about visions of total destruction, chaos, looting, bandits, Mad Max, post apocalypse, etc...

 

I don't think we Americans have the will to want freedom anymore. It's all about special interests and controlling people in one form or another. Republicans probably being the absolute worst about this, unless you're a Democrat. :D



#75 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,745 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 06:33 PM

Based on human history, there is always a way to gain power.  Hence me trying to find that loop hole.

 

 

Doesn't most of the world's countries have some sort of Statist government?

 

Right you are!

 

And yes they do. Because we've been brought to believe, through the thumping of the intellectual hammer over and over and over, that without a big government to protect us from oursleves, we would be living in the realms of Mad Max ThunderDome and eating 10 year old cans of dog food. So people are petrified of being free.

 

Somalia, ironically, being the usual go to when someone talks of society without government. As it turns out in reality, they have a thriving market place.



#76 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,317 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 06:38 PM

If find that 2003 vintage dog food has aged quite nicely.

 

The horse gristle topnotes are especially pleasing to my palate.



#77 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,418 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 24 January 2013 - 06:41 PM

I don't think so. I nmy opinion, we've been indoctrinated for so long and at such extent, that the idea of anarchy or minarchy brings about visions of total destruction, chaos, looting, bandits, Mad Max, post apocalypse, etc...

 

I don't think we Americans have the will to want freedom anymore. It's all about special interests and controlling people in one form or another. Republicans probably being the absolute worst about this, unless you're a Democrat. :D

 

I disagree.

 

 

The Dems are way more special interest, with their parading out an individual to push their cause.  Hence the Pussy label.  Not being man/woman enough to argue something on the merits of the argument, but sending out some poor sap who cant be bashed and they can hide behind.

 

Example, Sandy Hook. Columbine (gun control), Amber alert laws, recent Big Bird, etc...



#78 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,745 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 06:59 PM

And the republicans do this same thing by warping arguments. Using key words to falsely define their agendas. Free trade, war on drugs, etc...

 

It's the same turd with a different varnish.



#79 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,745 posts

Posted 24 January 2013 - 07:02 PM

And they take turns at it. With what breaks down basically to the "good cop, bad cop" ploy. What I find interesting now though, is that the Republicans have come unhinged by Left wing media. During Bush, the media demonized the Bush administration. Calling them a regime, etc. And this all passed the sniff test with flying colors. Now that the table is turned, the right wing is still being demonized as the crazies (even when they do manage to make an actual point, which is rare). Which is a complete change of pace and makes me wonder if we're seeing the end of the two party system and the beginning of the not-so-thinly veiled One party system.



#80 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,418 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 24 January 2013 - 07:15 PM

And they take turns at it. With what breaks down basically to the "good cop, bad cop" ploy. What I find interesting now though, is that the Republicans have come unhinged by Left wing media. During Bush, the media demonized the Bush administration. Calling them a regime, etc. And this all passed the sniff test with flying colors. Now that the table is turned, the right wing is still being demonized as the crazies (even when they do manage to make an actual point, which is rare). Which is a complete change of pace and makes me wonder if we're seeing the end of the two party system and the beginning of the not-so-thinly veiled One party system.

 

Perception.  Spoon feed the perception many already have.

 

Spin Spin Spin Spin Spin !!!!!



#81 china cat

china cat
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,993 posts

Posted 28 January 2013 - 01:11 PM

Not sure where to put this, doesn;t this seem odd?

 

https://www.youtube....v=ri9ioCbqJCU#!



#82 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,745 posts

Posted 28 January 2013 - 02:11 PM

Not really any more. The militarization of police forces and the use of military persons in domestic situations has become normal over the last few decades.



#83 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 16,317 posts

Posted 28 January 2013 - 02:43 PM

Not sure where to put this, doesn;t this seem odd?

 

https://www.youtube....v=ri9ioCbqJCU#!

 

 

Not really any more. The militarization of police forces and the use of military persons in domestic situations has become normal over the last few decades.

 

This ^

 

Offensive, but not odd.



#84 china cat

china cat
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,993 posts

Posted 04 February 2013 - 01:43 AM

here's another one

 

"felt like we were in a war zone"  wtf.

 



#85 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,454 posts

Posted 04 February 2013 - 12:55 PM