Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. - Thomas Jefferson
You often use quotes like these to bring heavy support and add righteousness to your beliefs. You must be able to prove a tyrants will has become law and keep in mind the rights of the individual must be kept within limit of the equal rights of others. You can't do it alone. I believe you are not a serious man looking for a change for the better for all so much as you are a read man using what you find to defend what you want and don't want to do.
I believe such words as you quoted were written for the serious man. Men not in need of laws to guide them in what is right and wrong. I doubt I would find these kind of men using drugs or promoting their use not because they don't believe it is their right to do so if they wished but because it would be detrimental for a leader of men and the people that counted on them.
Men like these would die in the protection of your rights but be cautious not to thank them for helping you. You may find they would want to kill you for assuming they were helping you..
Well I cant argue about my righteous indignation toward law however the the passage of the law was not done with any consideration to what I feel is moral or for that matter immoral or my rights.
It is an arbitrary assumption which makes me criminal without provding proof that I as a soverign citizen entitled to rights have perpetrated a grievous transgression upon the rights of another when there is none. If I am to be tried there must be an individual complaintant who must stand and make a claim of injury.. There are none. There is however the state representitive which stands in place of the aggrieved who was never whitness to an alleged crime perpetrated by me. This third party has no interest in my rights but instead has vested interest in laws which subvert them and uses only that as arbitration. I have no quarter, no protection and no defence. My rights are not even a consideration.
If I were to ask the nature of the grievence I would be given a cite code, this is not a complaint but straight out admonishment.. but for what? What damages were incured by my possesing granet rock or a coccaine rock, I did nothing, I did not hurl it at anyone, I did not force it upon anyone, what is my crime, what is the damage I am guilty of commiting toward another individual and where is this accusor that I may look upon him as it my right? All demands for my defence fall upon deff ears. The sad fact of the matter is I stand in court and this is nothing more than show and tell or going thtough the motions.. literally motions! I can bind the law to law but I can not call into play my rights or even mention my rights, I cant even call for redress of them, I cant even mention the word Constitution because it has no bearing, no weight and afford no protection.
Basicly I'm f*cked six ways to sunday and all I can hope for is to wear down the syatem with a morass of paperwork and use the mirriad of laws against itself until the judge just gives up or I just give up. The judicial system has been altered to sutit the system and not the individual or rather the democracy and not the constitutional rights which protect me for them.
People that don't know there is a problem don't deserve to have it fixed. You know. But you are not willing to fight for it so you don't deserve it either.
[This message has been edited by pokeyfiero (edited 05-26-2007).]
People that don't know there is a problem don't deserve to have it fixed. You know. But you are not willing to fight for it so you don't deserve it either.
Your arent trying to insinuate I take a gun and start throwing slugs are you? If thats the case that is indeed a fools errend and the cause would meet with utter failure.
Your arent trying to insinuate I take a gun and start throwing slugs are you? If thats the case that is indeed a fools errend and the cause would meet with utter failure.
I'm saying that I agree there is a need for change. A lot of need. I'm saying if you are really interested in getting to this change maybe you should consider the most effecient way to do this. I think about it all the time and reevaluate the way I do things. I am saying you are not understanding that the way you are doing things doesn't really help or you are just using this as an excuse to do nothing while feeling you are being persecuted.
As far as the slugs go I'm not saying don't be ready and willing. I am saying not to do it alone when and if it needs to be done.
Originally posted by pokeyfiero: I'm saying that I agree there is a need for change. A lot of need. I'm saying if you are really interested in getting to this change maybe you should consider the most effecient way to do this. I think about it all the time and reevaluate the way I do things. I am saying you are not understanding that the way you are doing things doesn't really help or you are just using this as an excuse to do nothing while feeling you are being persecuted.
As far as the slugs go I'm not saying don't be ready and willing. I am saying not to do it alone when and if it needs to be done.
Well you run that way and I'll run this way and we will confuse the man just long enough for one of us to kick him in the shins.. Thats my idea.. whats yours?
Originally posted by 84Bill: Well you run that way and I'll run this way and we will confuse the man just long enough for one of us to kick him in the shins.. Thats my idea.. whats yours?
Not to lose.
I live well and get what I want. I see no reason for any intelligent man to not get what he wants out of life. I fight more for the people that can't get what they want than I do for myself. We were not all given the same gifts but for me being a part of society means showing others how to get what they want out of life. That isn't a liberal veiw. I want this to make a better place for me to be and for better people for me to be around.
Very ammusing since I also had this very same discussion with Kloddster and he was defending law as well. I'll see if I can find it in the archives.
Back to your assertions. My response to Kiddsters claims were the words of one of this countries founders and an alleged realitive.. I found that claim to be preposterous..
Anyway, lets see how you will fare with the same retort.
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. - Thomas Jefferson
The quote changes nothing. We're still not having the same argument, Bill. You're arguing principle against my facts. Believe it or not, I agree with your principle. But, from the start, all I have been arguing is fact. And the facts have not changed. It is a fact that possession and use of drugs is illegal in this country. It is a fact that, if you use drugs, you are breaking the law (which you have admitted to). It is a fact that you are not a lawyer, lawmaker, judge or historian and therefore not an authority on Constitutional law (though you are well-read). Whether you like or agree with any of the above is irrelevant to the facts, because what you, personally, like or agree with is subjective and not bound by the facts.
Originally posted by Fastback 86: The quote changes nothing. We're still not having the same argument, Bill. You're arguing principle against my facts.
As I maintained from the begining, I am a free man. If you wish to bow down and kiss your masters hand then feel free.. I have merely chosen otherwise. All I'm asking from here is that you mute yourself and continue doing just that. This will allow me to do what I need to do without incuring ridicule that serves a hollow and needless purpose. Anyone can be a slave.
I suppose I could ingore you but how can it be possible to ignore an ankle nippin lap dog? Far easier for a trained puppy to do so... on command.
One question is raised... What is "your" purpose in arguing this with me?
[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 05-28-2007).]
The supreme art replaced by superior artifice eagerly avails itself to individual’s caring only to themselves in their own right and entitlement; slap back the hand of those who seek remedy rather than offer it; forsaking a great gift to none other than they who are less deserving. Cloaking themselves in material trappings and lavishing in splendorous extravagance they call it home; furnished with envy they bow to a specious leafy god and mock all those who refuse such trivialities as excessive. Harboring and manifesting seething hatred they project it through miles of earth and ether with crystal clarity and ghastly ferocity. The black charlatans, purveyors of lies and deceit alike prey upon the unwary and exploit their victim’s weakness for their own benefit or mere amusement
As I maintained from the begining, I am a free man. If you wish to bow down and kiss your masters hand then feel free.. I have merely chosen otherwise. All I'm asking from here is that you mute yourself and continue doing just that. This will allow me to do what I need to do without incuring ridicule that serves a hollow and needless purpose. Anyone can be a slave.
I suppose I could ingore you but how can it be possible to ignore an ankle nippin lap dog? Far easier for a trained puppy to do so... on command.
One question is raised... What is "your" purpose in arguing this with me?
If you truly believe you are free as you define it, you're delusional. You're only as free as you think you are until the day that you make enough noise that some authority notices you. Then, you will be a prisoner in the freest (if thats a word) country on Earth, because you openly broke the laws of said country. And once again, all your principle will mean exactly nil in the face of simple facts. Feel free to tell the Judge all about your personal interpretation of the Constitution, I'm sure he/she will be very receptive. If you truly wish to be as free as you think you are, I suggest you find a nice, secluded spot in the middle of the wilderness where no one will bother you, because so long as you are a part of our system of government (i.e. one of the governed), you will be subject to our laws, whether you personally agree with them or not.
To answer your question, my purpose in arguing this with you was to do exactly what you want from me: to mute you. I must've suffered a severe lapse in memory to think that I could accomplish this, as you must have.
And thats my point.. Violations of Constitutional rights are supposed to be MENDED by law, not cause injury to them. Proving the point that the system of "justice" has been (over time slowly) corrupted, erroding away more and more freedoms.
quote
Feel free to tell the Judge all about your personal interpretation of the Constitution, I'm sure he/she will be very receptive.
quote
Then, you will be a prisoner in the freest (if thats a word) country on Earth, because you openly broke the laws of said country.
So tha means I MUST lay down at my masters feet simply because it is the "freest" country "on earth" (which is subject to even more of a morass of opinion than I care to waste my time on) means that I can not want for more... or even attempt to take back what was once enjoied by our previous countrymen?
I feel if you want to heel to your masters will you are free but that does not mean that I should be FORECED to (bound, have freedom restricted); just becasue you or some dude in a nightgown says so.
Let me ask you something that is more direct instead of sinking into the morass of poinless accusations and justifications for oppression and usurptations of justice and rights.
Should people be FREE or should they be BOUND to something?
[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 05-29-2007).]
The supreme art (the Constitution) replaced by superior artifice (the law) eagerly avails itself to individual’s caring only to themselves in their own right and entitlement;
In other words.. no one cares about the constitution or another citizens rights.
------------------ Even the dimmest of bulbs sheds light.
[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 05-29-2007).]
Anarchy is mob rule or rather an unruly mob.. without rules there is no such thing as unruly or even anarchy because anarchy is a state of society without government or law.
My opinion we have too much of both but only need one. "It is to secure our rights that we resort to government at all." --Thomas Jefferson
quote
Originally posted by Fastback 86:
Freedom requires responsibility. Otherwise, its just anarchy.
Again I dont want to sink into a morass of semantics.
Again the question.
Do you feel people should be FREE or BOUND to something?
And if you want to go a step further and split a hair then okay.. answer thiese questions
YOU are FREE to be BOUND to law like lap dog resting at his masters feet.. What recourse do I have? What remedies are available to me? What protections do I have from YOUR master?
[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 05-29-2007).]
You're vastly oversimplifying and you don't need me to point that out to you. There is an enormous difference between being free (by your definition) and acting like a subservient puppy at the master's feet. Neither analogy works in real government. Complete oppression fails because some will always choose not to be completely subservient and cause unrest. The simple remedy is to do like China and give those who would cause the most problems more freedoms in exchange for compliance. On the other hand, complete anarchy (which is the absence of laws and government, not mob rule) also fails because needed services are no longer available. Mob rule happens because of anarchy, because people are trying to create some kind of order in their environment.
Point is, in order to have a functioning society where we can be as free as possible, we have to agree to some limitations. If no one is held accountable for their actions, society fails. If not everyone contributes, and as such, some people are nothing but a burden to society, society fails. So far, democracy seems to be the best way to meet both needs.
Lessons on basic political theory aside, I'll answer your question as well as it can be, considering its oversimplifications.
People should be free to chose, and must live with the consequences of thier choice. And the consequences are simple: If you choose to be free (and therefore not bound by the laws of the society), then you give up any benefits that the society has to offer. If you choose to be bound, you agree to follow the society's laws in exchange for its benefits.
The problem, for you Bill, is that you don't have the option not to be bound any more. Every square millimeter of this planet has been claimed by a government of one form or another. Like it or not, you alone do not have the power to dispute an entire government. There is nowhere you can where you will be completely free of any "master." The closest you can come would be a desert island somewhere, or one of the poles, but best of luck living there, they're a little short on resources. Your only option then is to decide which government you can compromise with the best, because wherever you go, you're going to be bound by some government's laws. You might be able to hide out in a remote village for a while, but sooner or later, you'll have to deal with it.
So, given that all the governments and thier borders are already well established, you're going to have to decide which one you can work with best. Theres a process for effecting change in any government, but they're all different. Pick the one you like best and run with it. Fact of the matter is, anywhere you go, there'll be some kind of "master" over you. Get far enough away and you may only rarely have to deal with said "master" or its minions, but they'll still be there. The USA works best for me. Pick one that works for you and either effect the change or stop complaining to people who don't care about something you're not willing to put any real effort into.
Originally posted by Fastback 86: You're vastly oversimplifying and you don't need me to point that out to you. There is an enormous difference between being free (by your definition) and acting like a subservient puppy at the master's feet. Neither analogy works in real government. Complete oppression fails because some will always choose not to be completely subservient and cause unrest. The simple remedy is to do like China and give those who would cause the most problems more freedoms in exchange for compliance. On the other hand, complete anarchy (which is the absence of laws and government, not mob rule) also fails because needed services are no longer available. Mob rule happens because of anarchy, because people are trying to create some kind of order in their environment.
That is an over exaggeration based on a simple premice.
Anarchy IS difined as a society eithout government OR law.
We have both and we need only one. OUR country (freedom) was based on this SCRAP of now useless paper
quote
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
Penned by Thomas Jefferson who also wrote
"It is to secure our rights that we resort to government at all." AND
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. - Thomas Jefferson
quote
Point is, in order to have a functioning society where we can be as free as possible, we have to agree to some limitations. If no one is held accountable for their actions, society fails. If not everyone contributes, and as such, some people are nothing but a burden to society, society fails. So far, democracy seems to be the best way to meet both needs.
Thomas Jefferson also made warnings that the government would USE the peoples ignorance againt themselves. Due LARGELY to a lack of undertsanding responsibility.. which laws help create more of .
quote
Lessons on basic political theory aside, I'll answer your question as well as it can be, considering its oversimplifications.
Laws are bassed on definitions and here is the definition of freedom
quote
free·dom /ˈfridəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[free-duhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1. the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint: He won his freedom after a retrial. 2. exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc. 3. the power to determine action without restraint. 4. political or national independence. 5. personal liberty, as opposed to bondage or slavery: a slave who bought his freedom. 6. exemption from the presence of anything specified (usually fol. by from): freedom from fear. 7. the absence of or release from ties, obligations, etc. 8. ease or facility of movement or action: to enjoy the freedom of living in the country. 9. frankness of manner or speech. 10. general exemption or immunity: freedom from taxation. 11. the absence of ceremony or reserve. 12. a liberty taken. 13. a particular immunity or privilege enjoyed, as by a city or corporation: freedom to levy taxes. 14. civil liberty, as opposed to subjection to an arbitrary or despotic government. 15. the right to enjoy all the privileges or special rights of citizenship, membership, etc., in a community or the like. 16. the right to frequent, enjoy, or use at will: to have the freedom of a friend's library. 17. Philosophy. the power to exercise choice and make decisions without constraint from within or without; autonomy; self-determination. Compare necessity (def. 7).
Now argue the "over simplification of freedom.. it's simple.. free is just that free from being bound.
You are FREE to be a slave to laws but what if I DO NOT WANT TO BE A SLAVE to it?
It's fine for you to be one but I do not wish to be.. I want to be a free man.
quote
People should be free to chose, and must live with the consequences of thier choice. And the consequences are simple: If you choose to be free (and therefore not bound by the laws of the society), then you give up any benefits that the society has to offer. If you choose to be bound, you agree to follow the society's laws in exchange for its benefits.
Laws are REMEDIES for injury not arbetrary decrees handed down to all subjected.
The BALANCE The constitution and rights are balanced by laws and laws are BALANCED by rights.. thats where the "blind scales of justice" came from.
Individual rights must always take precidence over laws thats why the Constitution is so valuable to FREEDOM.
laws when administered without arbitration or consideration to rights are UN-Constitutional becasue they leave no recourse, it effectivly removes rights with no possibility of being protected.
As I argued with pokey. When I stand before a judge my rights are NO EVEN CONSIDERED and this is a corruption of the judicial system and a blatent disregard for the rights of the accused.
There must be 1. Injury to person or property (the rights we all share) 2. That person must stand witness against the accused. (the rights of both the accused and the injured) 3. Evidence to injury must be presented. (to support the violation of another rights)
Thats LAW with recourse That is what "the BLIND scales of justice" mean. RIGHTS of the ACCUSED VS RIGHTS of the ACCUSOR.
Law makes that distinction possible
BUT What we have is totalitatin law. Laws over rule RIGHTS to smoke pot, own a gun, have an abortion and that is why they are called UN-Constitutional.
1. Law is reviewed (without regard to rights) . 2. Evidence is presented to prove the breaking of it. (without regard to rights) 3. The level of culpibility is determines and sentensing is passed. (without regard to rights)
quote
The problem, for you Bill, is that you don't have the option not to be bound any more.
Which makes me what?
A slave to laws or rather to YOUR laws but not to MY laws becasue I do not subscribe to slavery.. I do not want to be a Slave living in a "free" country because that is a PARADOX.
My laws go like this.. If you dont want to listen to Stern swearing.. change the channel. (preserving the rights for other to listen) If you dont like methamphetimines... dont do them (preserving the rights for others to do them) If you dont like the color RED on your new care pick WHITE (preserving the rights for others who like red)
It's that simple..
Now the question AGAIN...
Yes or No Do you feel people should be free or do you feel they should be bound to something? IE a slave to <insert rule here>.
I'll give you another out and this time you can pick either one with a yes or no.
1. Do you feel that people have rights? Y or N
2. Should rights be replaced with laws and privilages to be revoked at any time, place or reason? Y or N
3. Was the fight for freedom a lie? Y or N
4. Was the constitution designed with NO balance in law? Y or N
5. Was the government formed without balance? Y or N
6. Is the country now totalitarin? Y or N
[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 05-30-2007).]
There you go again. You're arguing principle and political theory to my simple facts. I'm trying to be realistic with you, Bill. The world is not perfect. Your personal rights are going to be infringed upon from time to time. Complaining about how thats not how it should be is a waste of time. Be proactive. Because, at the end of the day, you're still living in America under America's laws. Change them or live with them, because complaining accomplishes nothing.
I'm not going to play your "yes or no" game, Bill, because you're framing the questions to suit your argument.
There you go again. You're arguing principle and political theory to my simple facts.
This contry is BASSED on freedom, you are arguing that it is not but refuse to admit it.
quote
I'm trying to be realistic with you, Bill. The world is not perfect.
Yes and I am too... you are a SLAVE. You are NOT FREE. and your arguments support the fact that you DO NOT WANT TO BE FREE.
which I have NO problem with.. jsut quit whimpering and get out of my way and stop scaring people with your useless retort. It serves no purpose other than scare and I'm not scared. I'm brave, I do crap you fear and you in turn fear me.
quote
Your personal rights are going to be infringed upon from time to time.
If that were true I would not be arguing but my rights are violated DAILY and wihtout remourse or retread. NO ONE cares about m,y rights becausse they are selfish.. they only care about some contrived moral agitprop that the laws are based on and DO NOT understand that it is a VIOLATION of our civil rights as garenteed under the PROTECTIONS of the Constitution. You can not make up a rule from thin air and pass it down to the people and leave them no PROTECTION or RECOURSE under law..
quote
Complaining about how thats not how it should be is a waste of time.
Excuse me??? I believe it is you who complained that I was breaking the law and not the other way around.. Rights are UN Alienable.. you can not deny me my rights and to do so would mean I SHOULD be able to seek recourse or remedy for such INJURY thru LAWS
quote
Be proactive. Because, at the end of the day, you're still living in America under America's laws. Change them or live with them, because complaining accomplishes nothing.
I disagree and it is YOUR complaints which stand in my way. My complaints are bassed on the FOUNDING PRINCIPALS of this nation. Yours are bassed on arbitrary bullshit and morals and agitprop.
quote
I'm not going to play your "yes or no" game, Bill, because you're framing the questions to suit your argument.
Because you can beat my argument with BS and status quoe.
The argument is LAWS usurp FREEDOM. You say they dont and I say they do
This is ridiculous. I'm done having the same circular argument with you. You want to live in a fantasy world where you can do anything you want with no consequences for your actions, fine, good luck with that. I'm going to get on with my life in the real world.
Originally posted by Fastback 86: This is ridiculous. I'm done having the same circular argument with you.
This country is NOT FREE. You need MONEY and LICENSES and fulfill CONDITIONS and if you dont meet the QUALIFICATIONS your ****ED!! and ARE NOT FREE to do x, carry x or own x.
Freedom is now based on CONDITIONS. Read the god damn definition of freedom.
The U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence are realics of a LONG dead country; they no longer exists to any tangable or real LIFE extent.
AGAIN law is REMEDY for the violation of RIGHTS, not some arbitrarily contrived control mechnicm to keep people from being FREE to decide for themselves the course of their "personal" LIFE and pursuit of Happiness.... Which ARE.. unalienable Rights....Endowed by their Creator.... Hello... Clue phone?
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776 The unanimous Declaration
Sound familuar???
The day the Declaration of Independence was signed?
Or is that just another "day off" from your dalily SEVITUDE and tax paying duties?
quote
You want to live in a fantasy world where you can do anything you want with no consequences for your actions, fine, good luck with that..
Isnt that what this country WAS founded on?
Me being FREE to live my life according to CONSCIENCE with RESPECT to the RIGHTS of others? Isnt that the FOUNDING PRINCIPALS this country was FOUNDED ON?
Me doing whatever the effing hell I want as long as I am RESPONSIBLE for my injury to another "persons" RIGHTS or PROPERTY?
You DO NOT have the right to tell me I cant do drugs. You DO have the right to say no to drugs. How does my drug habbit HARM you physically or cause INJURY to you or DAMAGE your property?
IF by chance I get cought with say a crack pipe WHO's rights will be violated? Mine yours or... some ghosts. What if I had one RIGHT NOW and am getting high. HOW have I cause injury to another person or cause damage to property? I HAVENT!!!
quote
I'm going to get on with my life in the real world.
You stayed, you proved absolutly NOTHING except that everyone need to OBEY LAW without question.
Good.. now be off and leave me be which is what I wanted you to do in the first effing place. You are a lap dog proponent of laws OVER rights.. that simple.
Buhbye.
[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 05-30-2007).]
SCRAPING THE CURRENT LAWS on drinking and driving..
They do nothing but destroy an already destroyed life even more.
I FEEL At no time should this persons RIGHT to drive be revoked. It is a FACT of life that we REQUIRE a car to make it in today’s society so there is no need to make their life HARDER than they have made it for themselves. 1. No need to scrap drivers license, they can serve a purpose like tracking driving “offenders.” 2. No need to scrap the police. They can continue to arrest drunk drivers WHEN caught driving iritic and pose a danger to “the general public.”
a. 1st offense, Take them to jail overnight, let them dry up and let them go with a fine. b. 2nd offense, Jail 30 days AA meetings, fined double. c. 3rd offense, Jail 90 days AA meetings, psychological.. a shrink d. 4th offense, Jail 5 years, No parole. (boot camp AA.Must work in the community road, trash etc.) e. 5th offense, Jail 5 years, No parole. (boot camp AA.Must work in the community road, trash etc.) f. 6th offense, Jail 10 years, no parole. (boot camp AA.Must work in the community road, trash etc.)
A. Kill anyone with a car while intoxicated.. 20 years mandatory, No parole. (boot camp, AA, .Must work in the community road, trash etc.) B. Damage to property dependant on the level of damage but no less than jail 30 days minimum, community service, mental therapy and AA. C. Bodily injury dependant on the level of damage but no less than a year (boot camp, AA, .Must work in the community road, trash etc.)
This is a CORRECTIONAL solution to a societal problem and not one that VILIFIES the drug.. ONLY the person responsible for causing injury or damage is paying and he pays his "debt to society."
[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 05-30-2007).]
i know this wasnt directed to me, but it's not everyday i get to participate in political discourse.
quote
Originally posted by 84Bill: Yes or No
Do you feel people should be free or do you feel they should be bound to something? IE a slave to <insert rule here>. trick question. freedom has limits. freedom requires responsibility. responsibility demands obligations to respect the freedoms of others. 1. Do you feel that people have rights? Y or N yes. jefferson's enumeration and the 84Bill of Rights is a good start. 2. Should rights be replaced with laws and privileges to be revoked at any time, place or reason? Y or N no. rights should only be revoked when they are abused and infringe the rights of others. 3. Was the fight for freedom a lie? Y or N no. it was incomplete. while a step in the right direction, the revolution failed to secure equal rights for all. we're still working on that. 4. Was the constitution designed with NO balance in law? Y or N no. The Constitution was designed to balance rights through law, by defining and setting limits on the powers of central government, and defining certain rights upon which government could not encroach. 5. Was the government formed without balance? Y or N no. not a perfect balance, but balance nonetheless. the argument has been going on since before ratification. some early notable shifts were in 1798 when Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, and 1803, when Jefferson "exceeded" constitutional executive authority by buying Louisiana 6. Is the country now totalitarian? Y or N no. we are creeping slowly in that direction under *both* liberal and conservative administrations, but i don't expect it to be recognizable as a totalitarian system during my lifetime (~30 years). now, in 100 maybe...
the sticking point here is that the Constitution is notably non-specific about a lot of things. even where it seems clear (2nd amendment for example) it is subject to interpretation. the constitution set out a framework by which the government, hopefully comprised of the best minds america can produce, would interpret the goals of the Constitution in the light of past experience and present circumstance. the founders did not envision motorcars or machine guns, methamphetamines or the internet. our elected representatives have to look to the constitution and decide whether adjustments to the laws (within constitutional limits) are needed. unfortunately, our representatives are fallibly human, and we occasionally elect demagogues who appeal to our fears and prejudices, rather than our reason. even so, it's better than the system it replaced. whether it's still the best system is undetermined.
[This message has been edited by lurker (edited 05-30-2007).]
i know this wasnt directed to me, but it's not everyday i get to participate in political discourse. freedom has limits. freedom requires responsibility. responsibility demands obligations to respect the freedoms of others.
proof that freedom has limits, please show by posting the definition of freedom and pointing this "discrepency or error" in my use of the word out to me..
OR show me what definitions were laid down to express limits and the full recourse for anyone espousing the over extension of said limits.
I hate being stupod. I really rally do.
[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 05-30-2007).]
Originally posted by 84Bill: proof that freedom has limits, please show by posting the definition of freedom and pointing this "discrepancy or error" in my use of the word out to me..
OR show me what definitions were laid down to express limits and the full recourse for anyone espousing the over extension of said limits.
no need for that. my freedom ends where yours begins, and vice versa. if you were the only person on the planet, you could define the limits of your freedom... to deal with the natural world. i suppose one of your newly enlarged freedoms would be to be eaten by mosquitoes, squirrels or alligators. but you're not the only person in the world, so we have to work out an agreement.
no need for that. my freedom ends where yours begins, and vice versa. if you were the only person on the planet, you could define the limits of your freedom... to deal with the natural world. i suppose one of your newly enlarged freedoms would be to be eaten by mosquitoes, squirrels or alligators. but you're not the only person in the world, so we have to work out an agreement.
Eloquent lurker..
If I had a prize I would give it to you but unfortunatly I spent in ion vodka.. seems apropriate.. dont ya think?
We lost.. due to our own ignorance.. fukin sick
Edit number nine.... I feel lik yoko uno
[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 05-31-2007).]
If I were de-facto president I'd propose a new more accurate pledge of allegiance.
I pledge allegiance to the rag of the Un-United States of new Amerika and to the Republicans and Democrats for which it stands, one factionalized state, under an unquestionably good specious leafy god, easily divisible by one, deprived of liberty unless you can afford it and justice for only me becasue I'm the King and I said so.
If I were de-facto president I'd propose a new more accurate pledge of allegiance.
I pledge allegiance to the rag of the Un-United States of new Amerika and to the Republicans and Democrats for which it stands, one factionalized state, under an unquestionably good specious leafy god, easily divisible by one, deprived of liberty unless you can afford it and justice for only me becasue I'm the King and I said so.
So... you're saying you want to make more money? I'm with you.
Originally posted by pokeyfiero: So... you're saying you want to make more money? I'm with you.
Yes, it's good to be the King you know.. Membership has it's freedoms.
------------------- I am a King, if I'm dead wrong and nearly everyone else is right that means my rights are dead, Since Kings are always right that means nearly everyone else will be wrong and dead.
[This message has been edited by 84Bill (edited 06-01-2007).]
is a good start.
